Why Anthropomorphism Can Harm Companion Animals

Many people love their cats and dogs deeply. They share our homes, routines, sofas, beds, and daily lives. They can comfort us, make us laugh, and become central to the household. That bond is real and important. However, affection can slide into anthropomorphism, which means interpreting an animal through a human lens and assuming that they think, feel, or want the same things that we do. In 2007, Bradshaw and Casey suggested that this creates a specific welfare problem for companion animals because many owners regard them as almost human and judge their behaviour by human standards rather than by species-specific needs.

This matters because cats and dogs are not small people in fur coats. They are social, emotional, and intelligent, but they still experience the world as cats and dogs. They communicate differently, respond differently to handling, and have different social preferences from ours. In 2023, Bouma et al. showed that owners’ anthropomorphic perceptions of cats’ and dogs’ abilities were linked to the social role assigned to the animal, how owners behaved toward them, and the social support they reported from the relationship. In simple terms, the more human-like the animal is perceived to be, the more likely the relationship is to be shaped around human roles and expectations rather than the animal’s actual needs.

One of the clearest risks is imposing expectations on companion animals that they cannot reasonably meet. A dog may be expected to sit calmly at the dinner table, tolerate prolonged hugging, share space politely with children, or “understand” house rules in a human moral sense. A cat may be expected to enjoy being picked up, kissed, squeezed, or carried because the owner experiences that as affection. When the animal freezes, pulls away, hides, growls, hisses, scratches, or bites, the response is often misread as stubbornness, jealousy, ingratitude, or spite. Usually, it is nothing of the sort. More often, the animal is communicating discomfort, fear, conflict, or a need for distance.

A classic example is the so-called guilty look in dogs. In 2009, Horowitz found that this expression was more strongly linked to the owner’s behaviour and belief that the dog had misbehaved than to whether the dog had actually done anything wrong. That is highly relevant for owners because it challenges a very common misunderstanding. What looks like guilt may actually be appeasement, uncertainty, or a response to the person’s tone of voice, facial expression, or body posture. If people interpret that display as moral understanding, they may punish the dog or become frustrated, when the dog is more likely reacting to the owner’s emotional intensity than confessing to a wrongdoing.

Another major risk is engaging in interactions that feel loving to humans but threatening or intrusive to animals. Hugging, kissing, leaning over, holding tightly, pulling an animal close, or maintaining direct face-to-face contact can all feel warm and affectionate to a person. For many cats and dogs, however, those actions can be uncomfortable, especially if the animal cannot easily move away. Some animals tolerate them, and a few may enjoy certain forms of close contact in certain contexts, but that should never be assumed. The key problem is not touch itself. The problem is touch without attention to the animal’s signals, preferences, and control over the interaction.

In 2018, Owczarczak-Garstecka et al. examined online dog-bite videos and described human and dog behaviour before bites. They found that human tactile contact often increased in the seconds before a bite, alongside changes in dog posture and other pre-bite behaviour. That does not mean that touching a dog causes it to bite. It means that unwanted, ill-timed, or escalating contact can be part of a sequence in which the dog was already uncomfortable, conflicted, or trying to cope. For owners, the practical message is straightforward: when a dog becomes still, tense, avoids contact, or looks away, that is not the moment to intensify handling.

Cats make this issue especially clear. Many cats seek proximity. They may sit beside you, sleep near you, rub against you, or choose your lap. That does not automatically mean they want to be petted, picked up, restrained, or repeatedly stroked. In 2021, Haywood et al. found that when humans followed practical, evidence-based interaction guidelines that gave cats more choice and control, cats showed more affiliative behaviour and less aggression and conflict-related behaviour. That is a useful corrective for owners who equate closeness with consent. A cat can want company without wanting to be handled. The same principle applies to many dogs. Being near us, or even on us, does not necessarily mean wanting to be touched whenever we decide.

Anthropomorphism also increases the risk that people miss body language. Cats and dogs communicate constantly, but much of that communication is subtle. A dog may lick the lips, yawn, turn the head away, stiffen, close the mouth, lower the body, or shift weight away. A cat may flick their tail, flatten their ears, tense their body, rotate their head away, or leave the interaction. These signs are easy to overlook when the owner is focused on what they want the moment to mean. A cuddle, a kiss, or a family photo may feel sweet to the people involved, even as the animal shows clear signs of discomfort.

In 2021, Grigg et al. studied companion dogs exposed to common household noises and found that some owners underestimated their dogs’ fearfulness and did not always interpret the behavioural signs accurately. The authors concluded that owners need better education in reading canine body language. That principle extends well beyond noise sensitivity. If owners miss the early signs of fear, tension, or conflict, they often keep pushing until the animal uses louder communication, such as a growl, hiss, swat, snap, or bite. Those behaviours are often described as coming “out of nowhere,” but in reality the earlier part of the conversation was simply missed.

There is also a relational problem when owners assign human family roles to animals. A close bond with a companion animal can be healthy, protective, and deeply meaningful. The problem begins when the animal is treated as a substitute child, therapist, or emotional regulator. That places unfair pressure on the animal to tolerate constant contact, heightened emotion, unpredictability, and expectations they cannot understand. This is why language matters. The term “pet parent” is often used affectionately, but it is itself a form of anthropomorphism. It places the human in a parental role and the animal in a child role. That framing can quietly encourage unrealistic expectations about touch, obedience, emotional reciprocity, and social behaviour.

The more accurate term is companion animal. That phrase recognizes closeness without erasing autonomy. It acknowledges that cats and dogs live with us, bond with us, and often want to be near us, while still remaining animals with their own needs, preferences, and boundaries. Owners do not need to become cold or distant to avoid anthropomorphism. The goal is not to love less. The goal is to love more accurately.

For owners, the practical takeaway is simple. Let the animal approach. Pause during petting and see whether they ask for more. Do not assume that sitting on your lap means wanting to be stroked continuously. Do not assume that following you from room to room means that they want to be hugged. Teach children that closeness does not equal grabbing. Watch body language before, during, and after contact. Respect withdrawal. Respect avoidance. Respect the right to say no. Very often, the strongest sign of trust is quiet choice on the animal’s terms, not forced affection on ours.

When owners stop asking cats and dogs to fill human roles, they become better at seeing what those animals actually need. That shift improves welfare, reduces conflict, lowers risk, and builds a more honest bond. Companion animals do not need to be treated like children to be valued. They need to be understood as cats and dogs.

References

Bradshaw, J. W. S., and Casey, R. A. 2007. Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism as influences in the quality of life of companion animals. Animal Welfare 16(S):149-154.

Bouma, E. M. C., Dijkstra, A., and Arnt Rosa, S. 2023. Owner’s anthropomorphic perceptions of cats’ and dogs’ abilities are related to the social role of pets, owners’ relationship behaviors, and social support. Animals 13(23):3644.

Grigg, E. K., Chou, J., Parker, E., Gatesy-Davis, A., Clarkson, S. T., and Hart, L. A. 2021. Stress-related behaviors in companion dogs exposed to common household noises, and owners’ interpretations of their dogs’ behaviors. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8:760845.

Haywood, C., Ripari, L., Puzzo, J., Foreman-Worsley, R., and Finka, L. R. 2021. Providing humans with practical, best practice handling guidelines during human-cat interactions increases cats’ affiliative behaviour and reduces aggression and signs of conflict. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8:714143.

Horowitz, A. 2009. Disambiguating the “guilty look”: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour. Behavioural Processes 81(3):447-452.

Owczarczak-Garstecka, S. C., Watkins, F., Christley, R., and Westgarth, C. 2018. Online videos indicate human and dog behaviour preceding dog bites and the context in which bites occur. Scientific Reports 8:7147.