宠物接触对责任归因的影响: 感知危害性的中介作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1888

心理学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (9): 1888-1899.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1888 cstr: 32110.14.2026.1888

宠物接触对责任归因的影响: 感知危害性的中介作用

徐科朋¹^,²^,³^,⁴, 颜杰¹, 陈佳莉¹, 薛宏¹^,², 白登选⁵, 林爽¹^,²(), 张姝玥¹^,²()

¹ 广西师范大学教育学部心理学系, 桂林 541004
² 广西认知科学与心理健康重点实验室, 桂林 541004
³ 琼台师范学院海南省儿童认知与行为发展重点实验室, 海口 570100
⁴ 上海交通大学中国文化心理学研究院, 上海 200000
⁵ 河西学院智能信息研究所, 甘肃张掖 734000

收稿日期:2025-09-13 发布日期:2026-07-29 出版日期:2026-09-25
通讯作者: 林爽, E-mail: lins000@126.com;
张姝玥, E-mail: shuyuezh@126.com
基金资助:
* 国家自然科学基金(62461021);教育部人文社会科学一般项目(24YJAZH185);广西自然科学面上项目(2025JJA180105);海南省儿童认知与行为发展重点实验室开放课题(2025KF01);中国文化心理学研究院“深耕计划”科学研究项目(FF0010507)

The impact of pet contact on responsibility attribution: The mediating role of perceived harmfulness

XU Kepeng¹^,²^,³^,⁴, YAN Jie¹, CHEN Jiali¹, XUE Hong¹^,², BAI Dengxuan⁵, LIN Shuang¹^,²(), ZHANG Shuyue¹^,²()

¹ Department of psychology, Faculty of Education, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China
² Guangxi Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Guilin 541004, China
³ Qiongtai Normal University Key Laboratory of Child Cognition & Behavior Development of Hainan Province, Haikou 570100, China
⁴ Institute of Chinese Cultural Psychology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200000, China
⁵ Institute of Intelligent Information, Hexi University, Zhangye 734000, China

Received:2025-09-13 Online:2026-07-29 Published:2026-09-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着居民生活水平提升, 宠物饲养已成为城市家庭中极为普遍的现象, 而频发的宠物伤人事件受到社会大众高度关注, 但个体在此类情境中的责任归因心理机制尚未得到系统性探究。本文通过4项递进式研究, 考察宠物接触对责任归因的影响。结果显示, 宠物接触显著降低个体对宠物方(宠物及其主人)的责任归因。中介机制分析进一步发现, 这一效应通过降低个体对宠物的感知危害性实现: 随着宠物接触增加, 感知危害性的降低会减少个体对宠物方的责任归因, 进而降低对被咬方的赔偿支持。微型元分析表明, 在起因模糊情境下, 宠物接触对责任归因的降低作用稳定且可重复。这些发现证实在人宠冲突情境中, 宠物接触经验能够塑造归因判断, 为公众舆论调解与引导提供了心理学依据。

关键词: 宠物接触, 责任归因, 感知危害性, 赔偿支持

Abstract:

With the growing integration of pets into urban life, pet-related injuries have become more common. These incidents often involve ambiguous causes, leading to public disagreement over responsibility. Psychologically, how people assign blame in ambiguous situations is not well understood. We propose that pet contact influences responsibility attribution, hypothesizing that more pet contact would result in less blame being assigned to the pet party diad (the pet and its owner), especially when the cause of the incident is unclear, and that this effect would occur through reduced perceived pet harmfulness. This reduction in perceived harmfulness was also expected to subsequently decrease support for victim compensation, extending the attributional chain to behavioral intentions.

Four studies were conducted with Chinese adults recruited online and locally. Study 1 (N = 156) was a cross-sectional survey measuring self-reported pet contact and responsibility attribution across two types of pet injury scenarios: clear and ambiguous. Study 2 (N = 189) experimentally manipulated pet contact via an imagination task. Study 3 (N = 210) used video priming. Study 4 (N = 156) employed real interactions in a real pet store versus a real store. Measures included pet contact frequency, perceived harmfulness, responsibility attribution to the pet party, and support for victim compensation. The analyses used ANOVA, linear mixed models, and mediation analysis, controlling for pet ownership, age, gender, and pet liking.

Study 1 showed that more pet contact predicted less responsibility attribution to the pet party diad in ambiguous scenarios (β = −0.45, p = 0.010), but no effect in clear situations. Study 2 found that the pet contact group attributed less responsibility to pet party diad (p < 0.001) and perceived pets as less harmful, with mediation confirmed (95% CI [−0.25, −0.04]). Study 3 replicated this finding and demonstrated a sequential mediation: from pet contact to lower perceived harmfulness, then to reduced responsibility, and finally to lower support for victim compensation (95% CI [−0.44, −0.10]). Study 4, implemented in a real setting, again supported the sequential mediation (95% CI [−0.60, −0.10]). A mini meta-analysis of Studies 2−4 showed a consistent medium effect (Cohen’s d = −0.44, 95% CI [−0.81, −0.07]).

This research shows that pet contact reduces responsibility attributions by lowering perceived harmfulness, and supports the application of attribution theory to human−animal interactions. The findings highlight how personal experience can systematically shape causal inference in ambiguous contexts. Practically, they help explain public disagreements over pet-related disputes and suggest that pet contact history may unconsciously bias judgments of blame and compensation. Future research should examine boundary conditions such as pet type and negative contact experiences.

Key words: pet contact, responsibility attribution, perceived harmfulness, support for victim compensation

中图分类号:

B849: C91

徐科朋, 颜杰, 陈佳莉, 薛宏, 白登选, 林爽, 张姝玥. (2026). 宠物接触对责任归因的影响: 感知危害性的中介作用. 心理学报, 58(9), 1888-1899.

XU Kepeng, YAN Jie, CHEN Jiali, XUE Hong, BAI Dengxuan, LIN Shuang, ZHANG Shuyue. (2026). The impact of pet contact on responsibility attribution: The mediating role of perceived harmfulness. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(9), 1888-1899.

图/表 9

图1 宠物接触与情境类型的交互作用图

图2 有调节的中介路径图

注: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, 下同

图3 感知危害性的中介路径

图4 感知危害性与责任归因的链式中介路径

图5 感知危害性的中介路径

图6 感知危害性与责任归因的链式中介路径

参考文献 59

[1]	Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556-574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556 URL pmid: 10900996
[2]	Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
[3]	Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2017). Solidarity with animals: Assessing a relevant dimension of social identification with animals. PLOS One, 12(1), e0168184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168184
[4]	Araújo, D., Lima, C., Mesquita, J. R., Amorim, I., & Ochôa, C. (2021). Characterization of suspected crimes against companion animals in Portugal. Animals, 11(9), 2744. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092744 doi: 10.3390/ani11092744 URL
[5]	Archer, J., & Monton, S. (2011). Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology, 117(3), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01863.x doi: 10.1111/eth.2011.117.issue-3 URL
[6]	Arthi, J., & Annis, F. (2017). pet animals’ behavior analysis: A review. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, 10(13), 171. https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10s1.19630
[7]	Bailey, K. G. (1998). Psychological kinship: Implications for the helping professions. Psychotherapy, 25(1), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085309 doi: 10.1037/h0085309 URL
[8]	Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., … Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629-1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953
[9]	Batson, C. D. (2010). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341065.001.0001
[10]	Betancourt, H., & Blair, I. (1992). A cognition (attribution)- emotion model of violence in conflict situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 343-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183011 doi: 10.1177/0146167292183011 URL
[11]	Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2016). Pet face: Mechanisms underlying human-animal relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00298
[12]	Chen, S. P., & Cui, X. (2015). Development of ingroup and outgroup favouritism from social identity theory perspective. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 13(3), 422-427.
	[陈世平, 崔鑫. (2015). 从社会认同理论视角看内外群体偏爱的发展. 心理与行为研究, 13(3), 422-427.]
[13]	Cheng, J., Wu, J., & Cui, F.(2025). Moral judgement under induced anxiety: Threat-of-shock reduces sensitivity to immoral acts and alters neural processing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 20(1), nsaf093.https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaf093
[14]	Clement, G. (2013). Animals and moral agency: The recent debate and its implications. Journal of Animal Ethics, 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.3.1.0001 doi: 10.5406/janimalethics.3.1.0001 URL
[15]	Cochrane, A. (2009). Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies, 57(3), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00742.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00742.x URL
[16]	Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324-336. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_05 doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_05 URL pmid: 14650389
[17]	Delgado, M. M., & Reevy, G. M. (2024). A comparison of people’s attachments to romantic partners and pet cats. Anthrozoös, 37(3), 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2024.2314387 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2024.2314387 URL
[18]	Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2008). Understanding dog-human companionship. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 457-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019 URL
[19]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146 doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 URL pmid: 17695343
[20]	Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1973). Attribution of responsibility: A theoretical note. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(2), 148-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90006-1 doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(73)90006-1 URL
[21]	Fournier, A. K., Berry, T. D., Letson, E., & Chanen, R. (2016). The human-animal interaction scale: Development and evaluation. Anthrozoös, 29(3), 455-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1181372 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1181372 URL
[22]	Gaunet, F., Pari-Perrin, E., & Bernardin, G. (2014). Description of dogs and owners in outdoor built-up areas and their more-than-human issues. Environmental Management, 54(3), 383-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8 doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0297-8 URL pmid: 25022886
[23]	Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta‐analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267 doi: 10.1111/spc3.v10.10 URL
[24]	Goodwin, G. P., & Benforado, A. (2015). Judging the goring ox: Retribution directed toward animals. Cognitive Science, 39(3), 619-646. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12175 doi: 10.1111/cogs.12175 URL pmid: 25256421
[25]	Graeber, T. (2023). Inattentive inference. Journal of the European Economic Association, 21(2), 561-592. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvac052
[26]	Grajfoner, D., Ke, G. N., & Wong, R. M. M. (2021). The effect of pets on human mental health and wellbeing during COVID-19 lockdown in Malaysia. Animals, 11(9), 2689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092689 doi: 10.3390/ani11092689 URL
[27]	Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
[28]	Hein, G., Lamm, C., Brodbeck, C., & Singer, T.(2011). Skin conductance response to the pain of others predicts later costly helping. PLOS ONE, 6(8), e22759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022759
[29]	Huang, L., Nawata, K., Miyajima, T., & Yamaguchi, H.(2015). Values and Hostile Intent Attribution to Out-Groups within China-Japan Relations: The Mediating Role of Perceived Threats. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 7(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v7n3p97
[30]	Iojă, C. I., Rozylowicz, L., Pătroescu, M., Niţă, M. R., & Vânau, G. O. (2011). Dog walkers’ vs. other park visitors’ perceptions: The importance of planning sustainable urban parks in Bucharest, Romania. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(1), 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.06.002 doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.06.002 URL
[31]	Janssens, M., Janssens, E., Eshuis, J., Lataster, J., Simons, M., Reijnders, J., & Jacobs, N. (2021). Companion animals as buffer against the impact of stress on affect: An experience sampling study. Animals, 11(8), 2171. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082171
[32]	JI, T. T., WANG, J., & DING, Y. (2025). Are we more empathetic towards stray animals or homeless individuals? An attributional responsibility approach. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(5), 838-859. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0838
	[纪婷婷, 王嘉, 丁毅. (2025). 人们更同情流浪动物还是流浪汉?基于责任归因视角的解释. 心理学报, 57(5), 838-859. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0838 ] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0838 URL
[33]	Jiang, T., & Sedikides, C. (2022). Awe motivates authentic-self pursuit via self-transcendence: Implications for prosociality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(3), 576-596. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000381 doi: 10.1037/pspi0000381 URL
[34]	Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60107-0
[35]	Kawai, Y., Miyake, T., Park, J., Shimaya, J., Takahashi, H., & Asada, M. (2023). Anthropomorphism-based causal and responsibility attributions to robots. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39435-5
[36]	Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.
[37]	Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225 doi: 10.1037/h0034225 URL
[38]	Lakestani, N. N., Donaldson, M. L., & Waran, N. (2014). Interpretation of dog behavior by children and young adults. Anthrozoös, 27(1), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714X13837396326413 doi: 10.2752/175303714X13837396326413 URL
[39]	Lee, H.-S., Shepley, M., & Huang, C.-S. (2009). Evaluation of off-leash dog parks in Texas and Florida: A study of use patterns, user satisfaction, and perception. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(3), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.015 doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.015 URL
[40]	Mitchell, T. R., & Kalb, L. S. (1982). Effects of job experience on supervisor attributions for a subordinate’s poor performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.181 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.181 URL
[41]	Mota-Rojas, D., Mariti, C., Zdeinert, A., Riggio, G., Mora-Medina,, P., Reyes, A. D. M., … Hernández-Ávalos, I. (2021). Anthropomorphism and its adverse effects on the distress and welfare of companion animals. Animals, 11(11), 3263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113263 doi: 10.3390/ani11113263 URL
[42]	Owczarczak-Garstecka, S. C., Watkins, F., Christley, R., Yang, H., & Westgarth, C. (2018). Exploration of perceptions of dog bites among YouTube^TM viewers and attributions of blame. Anthrozoös, 31(5), 537-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1505260 doi: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1505260 URL
[43]	PaiData. (2026). 2026 China Pet Industry White Paper. Paper presented at the 2026 China Pet Industry Data Conference, Suzhou, China.
	[派读宠物行业大数据平台. (2026). 2026年中国宠物行业白皮书. 2026年中国宠物行业数据发布会, 宿州, 中国.]
[44]	Piazza, J., Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.013 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.013 URL pmid: 24462925
[45]	Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. Springer.
[46]	Sueur, C., Forin-Wiart, M.-A., & Pelé, M. (2020). Are they really trying to save their buddy? The anthropomorphism of animal epimeletic behaviours. Animals, 10(12), 2323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122323 doi: 10.3390/ani10122323 URL
[47]	Velasco González, K., Verkuyten, Verkuyten, Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in The Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X284443
[48]	Walsh, F. (2009). Human-animal bonds I: The relational significance of companion animals. Family Process, 48(4), 462-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x URL pmid: 19930433
[49]	Wan, M., Bolger, N., & Champagne, F. A. (2012). Human perception of fear in dogs varies according to experience with dogs. PLOS One, 7(12), e51775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051775
[50]	Wang, M., Xue, H., Zuo, S., Zhang, S., & Xu, K. (2025). Satisfying your basic psychological need: Pet contact promotes psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 242, 113225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113225 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2025.113225 URL
[51]	Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. Guilford Press.
[52]	Xin, X., Cheng, L., Li, S., Feng, L., Xin, Y., & Wang, S. (2021). Improvement to the subjective well-being of pet ownership may have positive psychological influence during COVID-19 epidemic. Animal Science Journal, 92(1), e13624. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13624 doi: 10.1111/asj.v92.1 URL
[53]	Xu, K., Chen, J., Xue, H., Ou, Q., Han, Z., Zhang, J., … Zhang, S. (2025). Will you make pets an integral part of your self? An exploration of the memory processing advantage of pet-related information. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(8), 1378-1390. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1378 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1378 URL
	[徐科朋, 陈佳莉, 薛宏, 欧倩倩, 韩振华, 张积家, … 张姝玥. (2025). 宠物能融入人类的自我吗? 宠物相关信息的记忆加工优势探索. 心理学报, 57(8), 1378-1390. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1378 ] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1378 URL
[54]	Xu, K., Ou, Q., Xue, H., Luo, D., Zhang, S., & Xu, Y. (2023). Traditional pettism: The influence of pet ownership status, pet type, and pet properties on pet moral standing. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(10), 1662-1676. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01662 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01662 URL
	[徐科朋, 欧倩倩, 薛宏, 罗冬丽, 张姝玥, 许燕. (2023). 传统宠物主义: 养宠人身份、宠物类型与宠物特质对宠物道德地位的影响. 心理学报, 55(10), 1662-1676.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01662
[55]	Xu, K., Yan, J., Wang, M., Zhang, S., & Lin, S. (2025). Shifting perceptions: The role of pet ownership and harmfulness in aggressive judgments of pet behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 286, 106602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106602 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106602 URL
[56]	Xu, R., Ding, Y., Guo, Y., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2025). System-justifying beliefs buffer against psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(1), e12779. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12779
[57]	Yang, Y., Sedikides, C., Wang, Y., & Cai, H. (2024). Nature nurtures authenticity: Mechanisms and consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000432
[58]	Zhang, A. Q., & Liu, H. S. (2003). Attributional analysies of interpersonal judgment of responsibility and behavioral reaction stretagies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(2), 231-236.
	[张爱卿, 刘华山. (2003). 人际责任推断与行为应对策略的归因分析. 心理学报, 35(2), 231-236.]
[59]	Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). An attachment perspective on human-pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(4), 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001 URL

宠物接触对责任归因的影响: 感知危害性的中介作用

The impact of pet contact on responsibility attribution: The mediating role of perceived harmfulness

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

评审附件

可视化

English Version

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 59

相关文章 4

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	纪婷婷, 王嘉, 丁毅. 人们更同情流浪动物还是流浪汉?基于责任归因视角的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(5): 838-859.
[2]	杨昭宁;顾子贝;王杜娟;谭旭运;王晓明. 愤怒和悲伤情绪对助人决策的影响：人际责任归因的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 393-403.
[3]	索涛,冯廷勇,顾本柏,王会丽,李红. 责任归因对“做效应”的调控及其ERP证据[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(12): 1430-1440.
[4]	林钟敏. 从归因理论的角度探讨我国大学生的社会性评价[J]. 心理学报, 1993, 25(2): 45-53.