Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36439348›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Toward more equal and mutual human-pet relations: Insights and possible solutions based on social psychological theories.

Catherine E Amiot, Laurence Santerre-Bélec

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine E AmiotDepartment of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Laurence Santerre-BélecDepartment of Didactics, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Université du Québec à Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-pet relations are imbued with power imbalances, with many pets depending on humans for food and water, shelter, health care, and sheer survival. A majority of people report loving their pets and consider them to be integral family members; however, the care provided to pets varies widely and can be, in some cases, suboptimal. Yet, building more equal relations between humans and their pets could provide benefits to both parties. To achieve this increased equality and mutuality, the current paper proposes theory-based solutions. Specifically, and building on established social psychological theories, namely theories of intergroup relations and of human motivation, the current paper identifies both social and relational factors which, if socially and individually promoted, could trigger more equal and possibly mutually beneficial relationships with pets. We provide concrete examples illustrating how these factors can be maximized and promoted.

Indexed as

human-pet relationsintergroup relationsmutualismself-determinationsocial powersocial psychological theories

Identifiers

PMID36439348
PMCPMC9681911
OpenAlexW4308725131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.