FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2026; 16(16); 2509; doi: 10.3390/ani16162509

Human-Animal Therapeutic Relationships: Communication, Welfare and Interpretative Asymmetry.

Abstract: Human-animal therapeutic relationships are commonly evaluated through their effects on human psychological, emotional and social well-being, whereas the experiences and welfare of non-human animals remain less consistently examined. This narrative interdisciplinary review analyses such relationships through interpretative asymmetry, integrating human-animal studies, ethology, animal welfare science and biological approaches to interspecies communication. Selected cultural examples are used only as illustrative boundary narratives. Interpretative asymmetry is defined not as a statistically measured variable, but as a conceptual and structural imbalance in interpretative authority, communicative access and agency. Humans define therapeutic goals, organize interaction and attribute meanings such as trust, reciprocity or support to non-human animal behaviour. Non-human animals respond through species-specific sensory, behavioural and physiological mechanisms that may indicate affiliation, habituation, stress regulation, inhibition or conflict avoidance. Animal-assisted interventions and animal-assisted therapy (AAI/AAT) should therefore be assessed through human benefit and animal welfare indicators, including workload, rest, agency, withdrawal opportunities and handler competence. Dogs and horses are discussed as applied contexts in which these asymmetries become visible, whereas wild-animal narratives are treated as boundary examples of projection and romanticization. Recognizing non-human animals as active, welfare-sensitive participants is essential for ethical therapeutic practice.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-08-12 PubMed ID: 42651913PubMed Central: PMC13508950DOI: 10.3390/ani16162509Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study reviews the human-animal therapeutic relationships by highlighting the imbalance in understanding and interpreting such interactions between humans and non-human animals.
  • It emphasizes assessing not only human benefits but also animal welfare, advocating for ethical treatment and recognition of animals as active participants in therapy.

Introduction to Human-Animal Therapeutic Relationships

  • Human-animal therapeutic relationships are widely recognized for their positive effects on human psychological, emotional, and social wellbeing.
  • Despite this, less attention has been given to evaluating the experiences and welfare of the non-human animals involved.
  • The paper aims to analyze these relationships through the lens of interpretative asymmetry, which describes an imbalance in how humans and animals interpret and experience their interactions.

Concept of Interpretative Asymmetry

  • Interpretative asymmetry is defined as a conceptual and structural imbalance in interpretative authority, rather than a measurable statistical variable.
  • It involves differences in:
    • Interpretative authority: Humans control the meaning-making process, ascribing emotions and intentions such as trust or support to animals’ behaviours.
    • Communicative access: Humans organize the interaction and set therapeutic goals, having more control over communication flow.
    • Agency: Animals respond based on their species-specific sensory, behavioural, and physiological mechanisms without direct control over the therapeutic context.

Human and Animal Perspectives in Therapeutic Interactions

  • Humans define the therapeutic purpose and interpret animal behaviour in emotional terms.
  • Non-human animals react through:
    • Species-specific sensory modalities (e.g., smell, sight, hearing).
    • Species-typical behaviours that may indicate different states such as affiliation, habituation to humans, stress regulation, inhibition, or conflict avoidance.
    • Physiological changes linked to stress or relaxation responses.
  • These reactions may not always align with human interpretations, highlighting the asymmetry in understanding.

Animal-Assisted Interventions and Therapy (AAI/AAT)

  • Therapies involving animals, such as dogs and horses, provide contexts where interpretative asymmetry is particularly visible.
  • It is critical to evaluate both human benefit and animal welfare in these interventions.
  • Suggested welfare indicators for animals include:
    • Workload and balance between activity and rest.
    • Opportunities for animals to exhibit agency and withdraw if desired.
    • Competence of handlers in managing animal welfare.

Boundary Narratives and Cultural Examples

  • The study uses selected cultural examples to illustrate the limits (“boundary narratives”) of human-animal therapeutic relationships.
  • Examples involving wild animals serve as cautionary tales about anthropomorphic projection and romanticization, which can distort understanding of animal welfare needs.
  • This emphasizes that ethical therapeutic practice must avoid projecting human emotions and assumptions onto animals improperly.

Ethical Implications and Conclusions

  • The paper concludes by stressing the importance of recognizing non-human animals as active and welfare-sensitive participants rather than passive tools in therapy.
  • For ethical interventions, acknowledging and addressing interpretative asymmetry is essential to balance human therapeutic goals with the wellbeing of animal participants.
  • Ensuring animal welfare through proper assessment and care underpins ethical practice in animal-assisted therapy.

Cite This Article

APA
Grzegorzewski WJ, Mamzer H, Kuchtar M. (2026). Human-Animal Therapeutic Relationships: Communication, Welfare and Interpretative Asymmetry. Animals (Basel), 16(16), 2509. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16162509

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 16
Issue: 16
PII: 2509

Researcher Affiliations

Grzegorzewski, Waldemar J
  • Faculty of Biology, Nature Protection and Sustainable Development, University of Rzeszów, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland.
Mamzer, Hanna
  • Faculty of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, 60-568 Poznań, Poland.
Kuchtar, Maria
  • Faculty of Biology, Nature Protection and Sustainable Development, University of Rzeszów, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 49 references
  1. Serpell J.A.. Animal-Assisted Interventions in Historical Perspective. In: Fine A.H., editor. Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice. 3rd ed. Academic Press; London, UK: 2010. pp. 17–32.
  2. Fine A.H.. Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Foundations and Guidelines for Animal-Assisted Interventions. 5th ed. Academic Press; London, UK: 2019.
  3. Haraway D.. When Species Meet. University of Minnesota Press; Minneapolis, MN, USA: 2008.
  4. Bekoff M.. The Emotional Lives of Animals. New World Library; Novato, CA, USA: 2007.
  5. Mellor D.J.. Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”. Animals 2016;6:21.
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030021pmc: PMC4810049pubmed: 27102171google scholar: lookup
  6. de Waal F.B.M.. Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?. W.W. Norton & Company; New York, NY, USA: 2016.
  7. Horowitz A.. Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. Scribner; New York, NY, USA: 2009.
  8. Haubenhofer D.K., Kirchengast S.. Physiological arousal for companion dogs working with their owners in animal-assisted activities and animal-assisted therapy. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2006;9:165–172.
    doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0902_5pubmed: 16956319google scholar: lookup
  9. Nagasawa M., Mitsui S., En S., Ohtani N., Ohta M., Sakuma Y., Onaka T., Mogi K., Kikusui T.. Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds. Science 2015;348:333–336.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1261022pubmed: 25883356google scholar: lookup
  10. Odendaal J.S.J., Meintjes R.A.. Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Vet. J. 2003;165:296–301.
    doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-Xpubmed: 12672376google scholar: lookup
  11. Handlin L., Hydbring-Sandberg E., Nilsson A., Ejdebäck M., Jansson A., Uvnäs-Moberg K.. Short-term interaction between dogs and their owners: Effects on oxytocin, cortisol, insulin and heart rate. Anthrozoös 2011;24:301–315.
    doi: 10.2752/175303711X13045914865385google scholar: lookup
  12. Beerda B., Schilder M.B.H., van Hooff J.A.R.A.M., de Vries H.W., Mol J.A.. Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;58:365–381.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00145-7google scholar: lookup
  13. Rooney N.J., Gaines S.A., Bradshaw J.W.S.. Behavioural and glucocorticoid responses of dogs (Canis familiaris) to kennelling: Investigating mitigation of stress by prior habituation. Physiol. Behav. 2007;92:847–854.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.06.011pubmed: 17617429google scholar: lookup
  14. Despret V.. From Secret Agents to Interagency. Hist. Theory 2013;52:29–44.
    doi: 10.1111/hith.10686google scholar: lookup
  15. Mamzer H.. Zgubne skutki wymuszanych relacji międzygatunkowych. Refleksje na marginesie książki Larsa Berge’a Dobry wilk. Zoophilologica. Pol. J. Anim. Stud. 2021;7:1–14.
    doi: 10.31261/ZOOPHILOLOGICA.2021.07.15google scholar: lookup
  16. Kruger K.A., Serpell J.A.. Animal-Assisted Interventions in Mental Health: Definitions and Theoretical Foundations. In: Fine A.H., editor. Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice. 3rd ed. Academic Press; London, UK: 2010. pp. 33–48.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381453-1.10003-0google scholar: lookup
  17. Tuan Y.-F.. Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. Yale University Press; New Haven, CT, USA: 1984.
  18. Donaldson S., Kymlicka W.. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 2013.
  19. Wittgenstein L.. Dociekania Filozoficzne [Philosophical Investigations]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; Warsaw, Poland: 2000. (In Polish).
  20. Lange Ł., Mamzer H., Gajewska M.. Jak rozumieć relacje międzygatunkowe?. Porównania 2021;29:351–370.
    doi: 10.14746/por.2021.2.20google scholar: lookup
  21. Bradshaw J.W.S., Casey R.A.. Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism as influences in the quality of life of companion animals. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:149–154.
    doi: 10.1017/s0962728600031869google scholar: lookup
  22. Coulter K.. Animals, Work, and the Promise of Interspecies Solidarity. Palgrave Macmillan; New York, NY, USA: 2016.
  23. Porcher J.. Animal Work. In: Kalof L., editor. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. Oxford University Press; New York, NY, USA: 2015. pp. 302–318.
  24. Barua M.. Nonhuman Labour, Encounter Value, Spectacular Accumulation: The Geographies of a Lively Commodity. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2017;42:274–288.
  25. Bradbury J.W., Vehrencamp S.L.. Principles of Animal Communication. 2nd ed. Sinauer Associates; Sunderland, MA, USA: 2011.
  26. Fraser D.. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in Its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell; Oxford, UK: 2008.
  27. Glenk L.M.. Current Perspectives on Therapy Dog Welfare in Animal-Assisted Interventions. Animals 2017;7:7.
    doi: 10.3390/ani7020007pmc: PMC5332928pubmed: 28157145google scholar: lookup
  28. De Santis M., Contalbrigo L., Borgi M., Cirulli F., Luzi F., Redaelli V., Stefani A., Toson M., Odore R., Vercelli C.. Equine Assisted Interventions (EAIs): Methodological Considerations for Stress Assessment in Horses. Vet. Sci. 2017;4:44.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci4030044pmc: PMC5644660pubmed: 29056702google scholar: lookup
  29. Broom D.M.. Sentience and Animal Welfare. CABI; Wallingford, UK: 2014.
    doi: 10.1079/9781780644035.0000google scholar: lookup
  30. IAHAIO. The IAHAIO Definitions for Animal Assisted Intervention and Guidelines for Wellness of Animals Involved. International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations; Seattle, WA, USA: 2018.
  31. Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss. Volume I: Attachment. .
  32. Winnicott DW. The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. .
  33. Fromm E. The Art of Loving. .
  34. Merola I, Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S. Dogs’ social referencing towards owners and strangers.. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e47653.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047653pmc: PMC3469536pubmed: 23071828google scholar: lookup
  35. Merola I, Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S. Social referencing in dog-owner dyads?. Anim. Cogn. 2012;15:175–185.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0443-0pubmed: 21874515google scholar: lookup
  36. Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V, Dóka A. Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Test.. J. Comp. Psychol. 1998;112:219–229.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219pubmed: 9770312google scholar: lookup
  37. Palmer R, Custance D. A counterbalanced version of Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure reveals secure-base effects in dog-human relationships.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;109:306–319.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.002google scholar: lookup
  38. Fiorito G, Scotto P. Observational learning in Octopus vulgaris.. Science 1992;256:545–547.
    doi: 10.1126/science.256.5056.545pubmed: 17787951google scholar: lookup
  39. Godfrey-Smith P. Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness. .
  40. Mather JA, Kuba MJ. The cephalopod specialties: Complex nervous system, learning, and cognition.. Can. J. Zool. 2013;91:431–449.
    doi: 10.1139/cjz-2013-0009google scholar: lookup
  41. Schnell AK, Boeckle M, Rivera M, Clayton NS, Hanlon RT. Cuttlefish exert self-control in a delay of gratification task.. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2021;288:20203161.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.3161pmc: PMC7935110pubmed: 33653135google scholar: lookup
  42. Ellis S, Junor P. The Man Who Lives with Wolves. .
  43. Herrero S. Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. .
  44. Herrero S, Smith T, DeBruyn TD, Gunther K, Matt CA. Brown bear habituation to people: Safety, risks, and benefits.. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2005;33:362–373.
    doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[362:FTFBBH]2.0.CO;2google scholar: lookup
  45. Smith TS, Herrero S, DeBruyn TD. Alaskan brown bears, humans, and habituation.. Ursus 2005;16:1–10.
    doi: 10.2192/1537-6176(2005)016[0001:ABBHAH]2.0.CO;2google scholar: lookup
  46. Mech LD, Boitani L. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. .
  47. Evans N, Gray C. The Practice and Ethics of Animal-Assisted Therapy with Children and Young People: Is It Enough that We Don’t Eat Our Co-Workers?. Br J Soc Work 2012;42:600–617.
    doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr091google scholar: lookup
  48. Iannuzzi D, Rowan AN. Ethical Issues in Animal-Assisted Therapy Programs. Anthrozoös 1991;4:154–163.
    doi: 10.2752/089279391787057116google scholar: lookup
  49. García Pinillos R. One Welfare: A Framework to Improve Animal Welfare and Human Well-Being. .

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 106,644 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.