Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:40:50.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does cultural group selection explain the evolution of pet-keeping?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Harold Herzog
Harold Herzog*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723. herzog@email.wcu.eduhttp://paws.wcu.edu/herzog/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pet-keeping is highly variable across cultures in both frequency and form. Cultural group selection offers a plausible explanation for the development and spread of this uniquely human phenomenon in that pet-keeping involves an inheritance system, socially transmitted norms and preferences, substantial between-group variation, and (albeit indirectly) intergroup competition.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e41
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acerbi, A., Ghirlanda, S. & Enquist, M. (2012) The logic of fashion cycles. PLoS One 7(3):e32541.Google Scholar
Archer, J. (1997) Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior 18(4):237–59.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. (2013) Cat sense: How the new feline science can make you a better friend to your pet. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. (1993) New Guineans and their natural world. In: The biophilia hypothesis, ed. Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O., pp. 251–71. Island Press.Google Scholar
Ghirlanda, S., Acerbi, A. & Herzog, H. (2014) Dog movie stars and dog breed popularity: A case study in media influence on choice. PLoS One 9(9):e106565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghirlanda, S., Acerbi, A., Herzog, H. & Serpell, J. A. (2013) Fashion vs. function in cultural evolution: The case of dog breed popularity. PLoS One 8(9):e74770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, P. B. & Young, S. M. (2011) Human–pet dynamics in cross-cultural perspective. Anthrozoös 24(1):17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hämäläinen, P. (2003) The rise and fall of Plains Indian horse cultures. The Journal of American History 90(3):833–62.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. (2006) Forty-two thousand and one Dalmatians: Fads, social contagion, and dog breed popularity. Society and Animals 14(4):383–97.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. (2011) The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(4):236–39.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. A. (2014) Biology, culture, and the origins of pet-keeping. Animal Behavior and Cognition 1(3):296–308.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. A., Bentley, R. A. & Hahn, M. W. (2004) Random drift and large shifts in popularity of dog breeds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:353–56.Google Scholar
Knobel, D. L. (2009) Aspects of dog ownership and canine rabies control in Africa and Asia. Doctoral dissertation, Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Koster, J. M. (2009) Hunting dogs in the lowland Neotropics. Journal of Anthropological Research 65:575–610.Google Scholar
Preston, S. D. & De Waal, F. (2002) Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25(1):1–20.Google Scholar
Stoeckel, L. E., Palley, L. S., Gollub, R. L., Niemi, S. M. & Evins, A. E. (2014) Patterns of brain activation when mothers view their own child and dog: An fMRI study. PLoS One 9(10):e107205.Google Scholar
Westgarth, C., Heron, J., Ness, A. R., Bundred, P., Gaskell, R. M., Coyne, K. P., German, A. J., McCune, S. & Dawson, S. (2010) Family pet ownership during childhood: Findings from a UK birth cohort and implications for public health research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7(10):3704–29.Google Scholar