| Annotation |
In modern psychology Human-Animal Interaction is identified as a main area of research.
Psychology of Human-Animal Interaction was analyzed; several future steps in HAI research were
suggested: category interaction is the basic foundation of modeling mechanisms Human-Animal
Interaction. In Russian psychology the works on the psychological aspects of human interspecies
communication are rare. Based on the analysis of paradigmatic foundations of psychology interspecific
interactions, the prospects of development of research practices in the field of cross-species
perspective are outlined: interaction category in a study of inter-specific human relationships, i. e. collaboration and communication, is the basic foundation of modeling mechanisms of Human-Animal
Interaction. Using methods of questionnaires from the field of eco-psychological and psycho-semantic
approaches to the study of personality, it was showed that the basis of man’s conscious choice of
pet-interaction there is its need for positioning the animal as a subject. In the personal sphere of petowners,
the orientation to a particular type of communication is determined, which can be characterized
as a socio-positive and innovative. The author specially accentuated the absence of directional
compensation component, the postulated deficit model of pet-relations, according to which the pet’s
role is reduced to compensate / stagnation of owner’s personal problems. In the present study, the
needs and personal characteristics of dog’s owners (n = 44) and non-owners (n = 39) are compared.
It was revealed that some needs and personal characteristics are significant predictors of attitude and
behavior type with animals.
|
| References |
1. Derjabo S. D., Jasvin V. A. Metodiki diagnostiki i korrekcii otnoshenija k prirode. M.: CKFL
RAO, 1995. 147 s.
2. Krivolapchuk N. D. Prikladnaja psihologija sobaki: ucheb. posobie. Rostov n/D: Feniks, 2008.
560 s.
3. Petrenko V. F. Psihosemantika soznanija: avtoref. … d-ra psihol. nauk. M., 1989. 48 с.
4. Shmelev A. G. Psihodiagnostika lichnostnyh chert. SPb.: Rech’, 2002. 480 s.
5. Shukova G. V. Mezhvidovoe vzaimodejstvie cheloveka i domashnih zhivotnyh kak predmet
jekopsihologicheskogo issledovanija // Jekopsihologicheskie issledovanija – 3: sb. nauch. st. / pod
red. V. I. Panova. M.: FGNU PI RAO: SPb.: Nestor-Istorija, 2013. S. 76–109.
6. Animals in our lives: Human-animal interaction in family, community, and therapeutic settings.
(2011). Eds. P. McCardle, S. McCune, J. A. Griffin, L. Esposito, & L. S. Freund. Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Company.
7. Buttelmann D., &Römpke A.-K. (2014). Anxiety-Reducing Effect: Dog, Fish and Plant in Direct
Comparison // Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals. V. 27.
№ 2. P. 267–277.
8. Downey H., & Ellis S. (2008)Tails of animal attraction: incorporating the feline into the family //
Journal of Business Research. V. 61. № 5. P. 434–441.
9. Feuerbacher E. N., & Wynne C. D. L. (2012). Relative efficacy of human social interaction and
food as reinforcers for domestic dogs and hand-reared wolves // Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior. V. 98. № 1. P. 105–129.
10. Horowitz A.C., &Bekoff M. (2007). Naturalizing anthropomorphism: behavioral prompts to
our humanizing of animals //Anthrozoös: Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions
of People & Animals. V. 20. № 1. R. 23–35.
11. Hosey G., &Melfi V. (2014). Human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds: a review
and analysis of the literature // International Journal of Comparative Psychology. V. 27. № 1.
P. 117–142.
12. Hurley K. B. (2014). Development and Human-Animal Interaction // Human Development.
V. 57. № 1. www.karger.com/Article/FullText/357795 (data obrashhenija: 16.05.2014).
13. Kavanagh P. S., Signal T. D., & Taylor N. (2013). The Dark Triad and animal cruelty: Dark
personalities, dark attitudes, and dark behaviors // Personality and Individual Differences. V. 55. № 6.
P. 666–670.
14. Marinelli L., Adamelli S., Normando S., & Bono G. (2007). Quality of life of the pet dog: Influence
of owner and dog’s characteristics // Applied Animal Behaviour Science. V. 108. P. 143–156.
15. Mueller M. K. (2014). The Relationship between Types of Human–Animal Interaction and
Attitudes about Animals: An Exploratory Study // Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions
of People & Animals. V. 27. № 2. P. 295–308.
16. Oyama M. A., &Serpell J. A. (2013). General Commentary: Rethinking the role of animals
in human well-being // Front. Psychol. 25. June.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/
fpsyg.2013.00374/full (data obrashhenija: 17.05.2014).
17. Titeux E., Péron F., & Gilbert C. (2013). La relation homme-chein: nouvelleshypothéses //
Le Point Vétérinaire. № 336. P. 64–70.
18. Vitztum C. (2013). Human-Animal Interaction: A Concept Analysis // International Journal of
Nursing Knowledge. V. 24. № 1. P. 30–36 |
