Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Future Directions
Conclusion
Summary Points
Future Issues List
References

Nonhumans in Social Interaction

Profile image of Karen CeruloKaren Cerulo

2009, Annual Review of Sociology

https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-SOC-070308-120008
visibility

…

description

25 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Sociological analyses of social interaction have been primarily directed toward human-to-human exchange. Recently, some have begun to actively question that stance. Challenges are found in new theoretical ideas and in empirical study-experimental, field, and survey data on people's attitudes and behaviors toward nonhumans. Such developments are leading many scholars to carve out a more central role for animals, objects, images, and both memories and projections of the self and others in the study of social interaction. In this article, I review these innovative ideas, pursuing four specific tasks. First, I briefly review the theoretical grounds that eliminated nonhumans from studies of social interaction. Next, I present new theories and empirical studies that construct a role for nonhumans in social interaction. Third, I review surveys that document popular perceptions of human/nonhuman interaction. I conclude by proposing some conceptual guidelines that might bring nonhumans into our contemporary analytic frames.

Related papers

Social Cognition Unbound: Insights Into Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization
Adam Waytz, John Cacioppo

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2010

People conceive of wrathful gods, fickle computers, and selfish genes, attributing human characteristics to a variety of supernatural, technological, and biological agents. This tendency to anthropomorphize nonhuman agents figures prominently in domains ranging from religion to marketing to computer science. Perceiving an agent to be humanlike has important implications for whether the agent is capable of social influence, accountable for its actions, and worthy of moral care and consideration. Three primary factors-elicited agent knowledge, sociality motivation, and effectance motivation-appear to account for a significant amount of variability in anthropomorphism. Identifying these factors that lead people to see nonhuman agents as humanlike also sheds light on the inverse process of dehumanization, whereby people treat human agents as animals or objects. Understanding anthropomorphism can contribute to a more expansive view of social cognition that applies social psychological theory to a wide variety of both human and nonhuman agents.

View PDFchevron_right
Article An Inclusive Re-Engagement with our Nonhuman Animal Kin: Considering Human Interrelationships with Nonhuman Animals
Rod Bennison

2015

The impact that the divide between human and nonhuman animals, between nature and culture, actually has on the planet, on nonhuman animals, cannot be underestimated. The divide is a socially constructed separation, an 'othering', of all life on the planet, and has been imposed and systematically used by humanity in order to exploit nonhuman animals and utilise the environment without little thought as to the ramifications. The paper examines such complex questions as 'what is nature?', 'what is an animal?' and 'what does it mean to be human?' Issues considered include species concepts, nature culture dualisms, and the human place within animality. What is recommended is an an urgent need for the adoption of an ethic of ecological inclusion.

View PDFchevron_right
Opening the human sciences to nonhumans: To which nonhumans?
Bojan Baskar

Ecoanthropology: Between Man and the Environment, 2024

his chapter offers an overview and critical discussion of selected approaches, schools, and trends in the anthropological study of human-animal relations. The focus is less on a detailed discussion of theoretical concepts and/ or methods and more on tracing the genealogies of the trends under discussion, especially the French ethnoecological tradition, multispecies ethnography, and recent developments in French animal studies (Despret, Porcher, Lestel, Charbonnier, etc.), where there is a certain hybridisation between lines stemming from Descola, Latour, and Donna Haraway.

View PDFchevron_right
An Inclusive Re-Engagement with our Nonhuman Animal Kin: Considering Human Interrelationships with Nonhuman Animals
Rod Bennison

Animals, 2010

Simple Summary: The impact that the divide between human and nonhuman animals, between nature and culture, actually has on the planet, on nonhuman animals, cannot be underestimated. The divide is a socially constructed separation, an 'othering', of all life on the planet, and has been imposed and systematically used by humanity in order to exploit nonhuman animals and utilise the environment without little thought as to the ramifications. The paper examines such complex questions as 'what is nature?', 'what is an animal?' and 'what does it mean to be human?' Issues considered include species concepts, nature culture dualisms, and the human place within animality. What is recommended is an an urgent need for the adoption of an ethic of ecological inclusion.

View PDFchevron_right
Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer
Jim Johnson

Social Problems, 1988

Is sociology the study of social questions, or is it the study of associations? In this paper the author takes the second position and extends the study of our associations to nonhumans. To make the argument clearer, the author chooses one very humble nonhuman, a door-closer, and analyzes how this "purely" technical artifact is a highly moral, highly social actor that deserves careful consideration. Then the author proposes a vocabulary to follow human and nonhuman relations without stopping at artificial divides between what is purely technical and what is social. The author builds "its" or "h'is" own text in such a way that the text itself is a machine that exemplifies several of the points made by the author. In particular, the author is constructed and deconstructed several times to show how many social actors are inscribed or prescribed by machines and automatisms. * A version of this paper was delivered at Twente, Holland, in September, 1987. This paper owes a lot to Madeleine Akrich's work. 1. See page 304 for the social deconstruction of the authors.

View PDFchevron_right
Thinking with Animals: The Sociology of Nonhuman Animals and Society
Trish Morris, Arnold Arluke, Clinton R Sanders

Pp. 79-105 in Frank Theime, Ranata Brucker, Melanie Bojok, Birgit Mutherich, and Martin Seeliger (eds) Das Mensch-Tier-Verhaltnis: Eine sozialwessenschaftliche Einfuhrung.

Human interaction with nonhuman animals is a central feature of contemporary social life. Animals are used for food, clothing, and transport; hunted for subsistence and sport; worshipped, sacrificed, tabooed, and vilified in religions; represented in art, literature and film; incorporated into homes and families as pets; used as models for humans in a range of experimental situations; put on display in zoos and natural history museums and used to entertain in circuses; they are the focus of debates about human nature in philosophy and theology. In the United States, the majority of household (64 percent) include at least one companion animal (Americafl Veterinary Medical Association 2003); attendance at zoos far exceeds that at professional sporting events; more people carry photographs of their pets in their wallets than their children; married women report that their pets are more important sources of affection than are their husbands or children (Arluke 2003); the income of the pet industry amounts to almost 36 billion US dollars each year (Fetterman 2005).

View PDFchevron_right
New relational perspectives in the post-anthropocentric turn. New relational perspectives in the post-anthropocentric turn
Mara Martínez Morant

New relational perspectives in the post-anthropocentric turn , 2019

What I am going to present is part of some ethnographic research now in progress in the field of animal studies, and from the post-humanist perspective, which deals with some questions that are interwoven: the connections between human and non-human animals which support the appearance of a new type of kinship and some somatic responses deriving from this interspecies relationship. We wanted to know how, using this new concept of kinship, one should define, describe, name and connect with the other animal. We brought to the project our own research experience, obtained through fieldwork and ethnographic observation of the relationships between human and non-human animals.

View PDFchevron_right
Are we persons or animals? Exposing an anthropocentric bias and suggesting a hybrid view
E. Furberg

Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 2017

Sommes-nous des personnes ou des animaux ? Présentation d'un biais anthropocentrique et suggestion d'une vue hybride

View PDFchevron_right
Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism
Adam Waytz, Nicholas Epley, John Cacioppo

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2010

Anthropomorphism is a far-reaching phenomenon that incorporates ideas from social psychology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and the neurosciences. Although commonly considered to be a relatively universal phenomenon with only limited importance in modern industrialized societies-more cute than critical-our research suggests precisely the opposite. In particular, we provide a measure of stable individual differences in anthropomorphism that predicts three important consequences for everyday life. This research demonstrates that individual differences in anthropomorphism predict the degree of moral care and concern afforded to an agent, the amount of responsibility and trust placed on an agent, and the extent to which an agent serves as a source of social influence on the self. These consequences have implications for disciplines outside of psychology including human-computer interaction, business (marketing and finance), and law. Concluding discussion addresses how understanding anthropomorphism not only informs the burgeoning study of nonpersons, but how it informs classic issues underlying person perception as well.

View PDFchevron_right
Beyond the human/non-human dichotomy
Felice Cimatti

Humanimalia, 2016

Beyond the human/non-human dichotomy: the philosophical problem of human animality At experientia satis superque docet, homines nihil minus in potestate habere, quam linguam -Spinoza, Ethica, III, Propositio II, Demostratio Fable God's inventiveness confuses our Cartesianism. Look at elephants with their hanging skin of very old men ... Look at birds, those creatures without ears ... The zoo is illogical -Nina Cassian Human animality. From a traditional ontological point of view, a body can be called human only when an "I" implants itself (Laplanche) into the body, and as a consequence it learns to separate itself in two parts: that who calls itself "I" -Subject, Mind, Will, Soul, Brain and many others are all but synonymous of it -and the "animal" part, that is the enslaved body, the mute flesh -which is ruled by the other one. It is this duality that marks the human being qua human. All the numerous forms of dualism and transcendence that present themselves in human life are derived by this originary separation. Therefore, dualism and transcendence are rooted in the very anthropological dispositive which "construes" humanity. Becoming human presupposes the implantation of subjectivity into the body, whose consequence is the immediate expulsion of "bare" animality (Lippit; Esposito, Third Person). For this reason, the question of animality is not only an ethical one, because it radically puts into question the nature of human subjectivity. The question animality poses is much more than the acknowledgment that non-human animals have some "subjective" rights. Such "rights" presuppose some subjectivity that could exercise them -that is, they imply another "I," even if simpler or less articulated than the human subject who "rules" its own body. A cat's self-conscious subjectivity should become somewhat similar to human subjectivity. In such a case, a cat form-of-life would be assimilated to the human one. The point is not to extend subjectivity to all living beings -apart from the logical absurdity of considering a mold a Subject (because any process of subjectification is a

View PDFchevron_right

References (146)

  1. Akrich M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping Technology, Building Society: Studies in So- ciotechnical Change, ed. W Bijker, J Law, pp. 205-24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  2. Alger JM, Alger SM. 2003. Cat Culture: The Social World of a Cat Shelter. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press Allis S. 2004. Artificial emotion. Boston Globe, Feb. 29. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/ articles/2004/02/29/artificial emotion?mode=PF
  3. Al-Natour S, Benbasat I, Cenfetelli RT. 2006. The role of design characteristics in shaping perceptions of similarity: the case of online shopping assistants. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 7(12):821-61
  4. Alter A. 2007. My virtual summer job. Wall Street Journal, May 16. http://online.wsj.com/ public/article/SB121088619095596515-21acPmGVGZpGVJcQJmeNM G8×8Q 20090516.html? mod=rss free APPA (American Pet Products Association). 2008. Industry statistics and trends. http://www. americanpetproducts.org/press industrytrends.asp
  5. Appadurai A. 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Arluke A, Sanders CR. 1996. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press Barrett JL. 2004. Why Would Anyone Believe in God? Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Barrett JL, Keil FC. 1996. Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: anthropomorphism in God concepts. Cogn. Psychol. 31(3):219-47
  6. Bender C. 2008. How does God answer back? Poetics 36(5-6):476-92
  7. Bendiksen R, Fulton R. 1975. Death and the child: an anterospective test of the childhood bereavement and later behavior disorder hypothesis. Omega 6(1):45-59
  8. Berger P, Luckmann T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Berlinsky EB, Biller HB. 1984. Parental Death and Psychological Development. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath Bernstein D, Crowley K, Nourbakhsh I. 2007. Working with a robot: exploring relationship potential in human-robot systems. Interact. Stud. 8(3):465-82
  9. Biblarz TJ, Gottainer G. 2000. Family structure and children's success: a comparison of widowed and divorced single-mother families. J. Marriage Fam. 62(2):533-48
  10. Bickle J. 1997. Mind-brain continuum. Philos. Psychol. 10(4):523-30
  11. Black N. 2007. Poll: 9 of 10 Americans believe in God; nearly half reject evolution. Christian Post, April 2. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070402/26658 Poll:9-of-10-Americans-Believe- in-God;-Nearly-Half-Rejects-Evolution.htm
  12. Blanton D. 2004. More believe in God than heaven. Foxnews.com, June 18. http://www.foxnews. com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html
  13. Blumer H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Boellstorff T. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  14. Bonanno GA, Wortman CB, Lehman DR, Tweed RG, Haring M, et al. 2002. Resilience to loss and chronic grief: a prospective study from preloss to 18-months postloss. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83(5):1150-64
  15. Bonanno GA, Wortman CB, Nesse RM. 2004. Prospective patterns of resilience and maladjustment during widowhood. Psychol. Aging 19(2):260-71
  16. Bourdieu P. 1972. Outline of a Theory of Practice, transl. R Nice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Boyd JN, Zimbardo PG. 1997. Constructing time after death: the transcendental-future time perspective. Time Soc. 6(1):35-54
  17. Boyer P. 1996. What makes anthropomorphism unnatural: intuitive ontology and cultural representations. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 2(1):83-97
  18. Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K. 2005. Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied conversational agent. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62(1):161-78
  19. Breazeal C. 2002. Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Breazeal C. 2003. Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59(1-2):119-55
  20. Breslau D. 2000. Sociology after humanism: a lesson from contemporary science studies. Sociol. Theory 18(2):289-307
  21. Callon M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? ed. J Law, pp. 196-233. Boston: Routledge
  22. Callon M. 1987. Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems, ed. WE Bijker, TP Hughes, TJ Pinch, pp. 83-103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Carley KM, Newell A. 1994. The nature of the social agent. J. Math. Sociol. 19:221-62
  23. Carr D, Nesse R, Wortman CB, eds. 2006. Spousal Bereavement in Late Life. New York: Springer Cassell J, Tartaro A. 2007. Intersubjectivity in human-agent interaction. Interact. Stud. 8(3):391-410
  24. Castronova E. 2004. The price of bodies: a hedonic pricing model of avatar attributes in a synthetic world. Kyklos 57(2):173-96
  25. Cerulo KA, Barra A. 2008. In the name of. . .: legitimate interactants in the dialogue of prayer. Poetics 35(5- 6):374-88
  26. Cerulo KA, Ruane JM. 1997. Death comes alive: technology and the re-conception of death. Sci. Cult. 6:444-66
  27. Chayko M. 2002. Connecting: How We Form Social Bonds and Communities in the Internet Age. Albany: SUNY Press
  28. Cohen J. 1989. About steaks liking to be eaten: views of symbolic interactionists and Talcott Parsons concerning the nature of relationships between persons and nonhuman objects. Symb. Interact. 12(2):191-213
  29. Collins HM, Yearly S. 1992. Epistemological chicken. In Science as Practice and Culture, ed. A Pickering, pp. 301-26. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  30. Collins R. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Csikszentmihalyi M, Rochberg-Halton E. 1981. The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press D'Andrade R. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Dant T. 2004. The driver-car. Theory Cult. Soc. 21(4-5):61-79
  31. Denzin NK. 1980. A phenomenology of emotion and deviance. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie 9(3):251-61
  32. DiMaggio P. 1997. Culture and cognition. Am. Rev. Sociol. 23:263-88
  33. DiMaggio P. 2002. Why cognitive (and cultural) sociology needs cognitive psychology. In Culture in Mind: Toward a Sociology of Culture and Cognition, ed. KA Cerulo, pp. 274-81. New York: Routledge Durkheim E. 1965 [1915]. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, transl. JW Swain. New York: Free Press Elster J. 1984. Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Elster J. 2000. Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Emirbayer M, Mische A. 1998. What is agency? Am. J. Sociol. 103(4):962-1023
  34. Epel E, Bandura A, Zimbardo PG. 1999. Escaping homelessness: the influence of self-efficacy and time perspective on coping with homelessness. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29(3):575-96
  35. Fell-Seifer D, Skinner K, Mataric MJ. 2007. Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact. Stud. 8(3):423-39
  36. Fogg BJ, Nass C. 1997. Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 46:551-61
  37. Fuller S. 2000. Why science studies has never been critical of science: some recent lessons on how to be a helpful nuisance and a harmless radical. Philos. Soc. Sci. 30(1):5-32
  38. Garfinkel H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Gibbon J. 2008. God is great, God is good: teaching God concepts in Turkish Islamic sermons. Poetics 36(5- 6):389-403
  39. Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Gomart E, Hennion A. 1999. A sociology of attachment: music amateurs, drug users. In Actor Network Theory and After, ed. J Law, J Hassard, pp. 220-47. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociol. Rev.
  40. Griffin DR. 1994. Animal Minds. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Guest T. 2007. Second Lives: A Journey through Virtual Worlds. New York: Random House Habermas J. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Habermas J. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge, UK: Polity Hacking I. 1999a. The Social Construction of What? London: Harvard Univ. Press Hacking I. 1999b. When the trees talk back: a review of Pandora's Hope by Bruno Latour. Times Literary Suppl., Sept. 10, p. 13
  41. Haraway D. 1985. A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and social feminism in the 1980s. Social. Rev. 80:65-107
  42. Haraway D. 1991. A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, pp. 149-81. New York: Routledge Harris Poll. 2007. Pets are "members of the family" and two-thirds of pet owners buy their pets holiday presents. Harris Interact., Dec. 4. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris poll/index.asp?PID=840
  43. Hetherington K. 1999. From blindness to blindness: museums, heterogeneity and the subject. In Actor Network Theory and After, ed. J Law, J Hassard, pp. 51-73. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociol. Rev.
  44. Hewitt J. 2003. Symbols, objects, and meanings. In Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, ed. LT Reynold, MJ Herman-Kinney, pp. 307-26. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
  45. Hoevel A. 2006. U.S. is a nation of 360 million-pets. CNN.com, March 17. http://www.cnn.com/ 2006/US/03/10/modern.pets/index.html
  46. Holtgraves TM, Ross SJ, Weywadt CR, Hans TL. 2007. Perceiving artificial social agents. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23(5):2163-74
  47. Homans GC. 1974. Elementary Forms of Social Behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 2nd ed. Irvine L. 2004a. If You Tame Me: Understanding Our Connection With Animals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press Irvine L. 2004b. A model of animal selfhood: expanding interactionist possibilities. Symb. Interact. 27(1):3-21
  48. Isaacson N. 2002. Pre-term babies in the 'mother machine': metaphoric reasoning and bureaucratic rituals that finish the 'unfinished infant.' In Culture in Mind: Toward a Sociology of Culture and Cognition, ed. KA Cerulo, pp. 89-100. New York: Routledge
  49. Jerolmack C. 2005. Our animals, ourselves? Chipping away the human-animal divide. Sociol. Forum 20(4):651- 60
  50. Jerolmack C. 2009. Humans, animals, and play: theorizing interaction when intersubjectivity is problematic. Sociol. Theory. In press
  51. Jerolmack C, Porpora D. 2004. Religion, rationality, and experience: a response to the new rational choice theory of religion. Sociol. Theory 22(1):190-211
  52. Johnston WA, Heinz SP. 1978. Flexibility and capacity demands of attention. J. Experiment. Psychol. Gen. 107:420-35
  53. Jones MP. 1996. Posthuman agency: between theoretical traditions. Sociol. Theory 14(3):290-309
  54. Kant I. 1957 [1929]. Critique of pure reason. In Kant Selections, ed. TM Greene, pp. 1-60. New York: Charles Scribners
  55. Keough KA, Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. 1999. Who's smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance abuse. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21(2):149-64
  56. Kiesler T, Kiesler S. 2004. My pet rock and me: an experimental exploration of the self extension concept. Adv. Consum. Res. 32:365-70
  57. Klang M. 2004. Avatar: from deity to corporate property: a philosophical inquiry into digital property of online games. Inf. Commun. Soc. 7(3):389-402
  58. Klass D. 1992. The inner representation of the dead child and the worldviews of bereaved parents. Omega 26(4):255-72
  59. Knappett C. 2002. Photographs, skeuomorphs, and marionettes: some thoughts on mind, agency and object. J. Mater. Cult. 7:97-117
  60. Knappett C, Malafouris L. 2008. Material Agency: Toward a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. New York: Springer Kollock P. 1999. The economies of online cooperation: gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M Smith, P Kollock, pp. 220-29. London: Routledge
  61. Latour B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  62. Latour B. 1988 [1984]. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B. 1996. On interobjectivity. Mind Cult. Activity 3(4):228-45
  63. Latour B. 1997. On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime- l-9801/msg00019.html
  64. Latour B. 1999. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Law J. 1987. Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of the Portuguese expansion. In The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. WE Bjiker, TP Hughes, TJ Pinch, pp. 111-34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  65. Law J. 1992. Notes on the theory of actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Syst. Pract. 5:379-93
  66. Lee B. 2006. Empathy, androids, and 'authentic experience.' Connect. Sci. 18(4):419-28
  67. Lee JER, Nass C, Brave SB, Monishima Y, Nakajima H, Yamada R. 2007. The case for caring colearners: the effects of a computer-mediated colearner agent on trust and learning. J. Commun. 57(2):183-204
  68. Lee KM, Park N, Song H. 2005. Can a robot be perceived as a developing creature? Effects of a robot's long-term cognitive developments on its social presence and people's social responses toward it. Hum. Commun. Res. 31:538-63
  69. Lee N, Brown SD. 1994. Otherness and the actor-network. Am. Behav. Sci. 37(6):772-91
  70. Lewin K. 1939. Field theory and experiment in social psychology: concepts and methods. Am. J. Sociol. 44:868- 97
  71. Lewin K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row Lewin K. 1997 [1942].
  72. Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
  73. Libby LK, Eibach RP. 2002. Looking back in time: Self-concept change affects visual perspective in autobio- graphical memory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82(2):167-79
  74. Lizardo O. 2007. Mirror neurons, collective objects and the problem of transmission: reconsidering Stephen Turner's critique of practice theory. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 37:319-50
  75. Loewenstein G. 2000. Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 90(2):426-32
  76. Luhmann N. 1984. Soziale Systeme. Grundrißeiner allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp [1995. Social Systems, transl. J Bednarz Jr, D Baecker. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press]
  77. Lyons L. 2005. One-third of Americans believe dearly may not have departed. Gallup, July 12. http://www.gallup.com/poll/17275/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Dearly-May-Departed.aspx
  78. MacDonald WL. 1995. The effects of religiosity and structural strain on reported paranormal experiences. J. Sci. Stud. Religion 34(3):366-76
  79. Macmillan D. 2007. Big spenders of Second Life. Business Week, April 16. http://www.businessweek. com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070416 386810.htm
  80. Masson JM, McCarthy S. 1996. When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals. New York: Delta Mayer RE, Johnson WL, Shaw E, Sandhu S. 2006. Constructing computer based tutors that are socially sensitive: politeness in educational software. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64(1):36-42
  81. Mayer RE, Sobko K, Mautone PD. 2003. Social cues in multimedia learning: role of speaker's voice. J. Educ. Psychol. 95(2):419-25
  82. McDonald DG, Kim H. 2001. When I die, I feel small: electronic game characteristics and the social self. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 45(2):241-58
  83. McLuhan M. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill Mead GH. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Mische A. 2001. Juggling multiple futures: personal and collective project-formation among Brazilian youth leaders. In Leadership and Social Movements, ed. A Johnson, C Barker, M Lavalette, pp. 137-59. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
  84. Mische A. 2009. Projects and possibilities: researching futures in action. Sociol. Forum 24:3
  85. Mol A. 1998. Missing links, making links: the performance of some arthroscleroses. In Differences in Medicine: Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies, ed. A Mol, M Berg, pp. 144-65. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Moon Y. 2000. Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. J. Consum. Res. 26(4):323-39
  86. Moon Y, Morkes J, Kim EY, Fogg BJ. 1997. Computers are social actors. In Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology, ed. B Friedman, pp. 72-78. Stanford, CA: CSLI
  87. Moore DW. 2005. Three in four Americans believe in the paranormal. Gallup News Serv., June 16. http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/Three-Four-Americans-Believe-Paranormal.aspx
  88. Murdoch J. 2001. Ecologising sociology: actor-network theory, co-construction, and the problem of human exceptionalism. Sociology 35(1):11-133
  89. Myers OE Jr. 2003. No longer the lonely species: a post-Mead perspective on animals and sociology. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 23(3):46-68
  90. Nanda K, Benbasat I. 2004. Para-social presence and communication capabilities of a web site: a theoretical perspective. e-Service J. 1(3):5-24
  91. Nass C, Brave S. 2005. Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  92. Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y. 1996. Can computers be teammates? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 45(6):669-78
  93. Nass C, Moon Y. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56(1):81-103
  94. Nass C, Moon Y, Carney P. 1999. Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29(5):1093-110
  95. Nass C, Moon Y, Fogg BJ, Reeves B, Dryer DC. 1995. Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 40(3):223-39
  96. Nass C, Moon Y, Green N. 1997. Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27(10):864-76
  97. Nass C, Steuer J. 1993. Anthropomorphism, agency and ethopoeia: computers as social actors. Hum. Commun. Res. 19(4):504-27
  98. Nass C, Steuer J, Henriksen L, Dryer DC. 1994. Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to 'self ' or 'other' evaluations. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 40(3):543- 59
  99. Newport F. 2007. Americans more likely to believe in God than the devil, heaven more than hell. Gallup News Serv., June 13. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27877/Americans-More-Likely-Believe-God-Than- Devil-Heaven-More-Than-Hell.aspx
  100. Nigro G, Neisser U. 1983. Point of view in personal memories. Cogn. Psychol. 15:467-82
  101. Orsi RA. 2004. Between Heaven and Earth: The Religious Worlds People Make and the Scholars Who Study Them. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  102. Owens E. 2007. Nonbiological objects as actors. Symb. Interact. 30(4):567-84
  103. Page G. 1999. Inside the Animal Mind: A Groundbreaking Exploration of Animal Intelligence. New York: Doubleday Pardo I. 1996. Managing Existence in Naples: Morality, Action and Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Parsons T. 1937. The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 1. New York: Free Press Payr S. 2001. The virtual other: aspects of social interaction with synthetic characters. Appl. Artif. Intell. 15(6):493-519
  104. Pertaub DP, Slater M, Barker C. 2002. An experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 11(1):68-78
  105. Petside.com. 2008. AP-Petside Poll: most owners say they can "talk" with pets. http://www.petside.com/the- sidewalk/news/ap-petside poll america prefers mutt over pure-bred for first family pup.php Pew Foundation. 2006. Gauging family intimacy: dogs edge cats (dads trail both). Pew Res. Cent Soc. Trends Rep., Pew Res. Cent, Washington, DC. http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/Pets.pdf
  106. Pickering A. 1992. Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Pickering A. 1993. The mangle of practice: agency and emergence in the sociology of science. Am. J. Sociol. 99(3):559-89
  107. Pollner M, McDonald-Wikler L. 1985. The social construction of unreality: a case study of family's attribution of competence to a severely retarded child. Fam. Process 24(2):241-154
  108. Popenoe D. 1996. Life without Father. New York: Free Press
  109. Posner MI, Snyder CRR. 1975. Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In Attention and Performance V, ed. PMA Rabbit, S Dornic, pp. 669-98. London: Academic
  110. Pronin E, Olivola CY, Kennedy KA. 2008. Doing unto future selves as you would do unto others: psychological distance and decision making. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34(2):224-36
  111. Pronin E, Ross L. 2006. Temporal differences in trait self-ascription: when the self is seen as an other. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 90(2):197-209
  112. Reeves B, Nass C. 1996. The Media Equation: How Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Rogers L. 1998. Minds of Their Own: Thinking and Awareness in Animals. New York: Westview Sanders C. 1993. Understanding dogs: caretakers attributions of mindedness in canine-human relationships. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 22(2):205-26
  113. Sanders C. 2003. Actions speak louder than words: close relationships between human and nonhuman animals. Symb. Interact. 26(3):405-26
  114. Sanders C. 2006. The dog you deserve: ambivalence in the K-9 officer/patrol dog relationship. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 35(2):148-72
  115. Sanna LJ, Chang EC, eds. 2006. Judgments over Time: The Interplay of Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  116. Schelling TC. 1984. Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Schroeder R. 2002. The Social Life of Avatars: New York: Springer Schutz A. 1951. Making music together: a study in social relationship. Soc. Res. 18:76-97
  117. Schutz A. 1967 [1932]. The structure of the social world: the realm of directly experienced social reality, the realm of contemporaries, and the realm of predecessors. In The Phenomenology of the Social World, trans.
  118. G Walsh, F Lehnert, pp. 139-214. Evanston, IL: Northwest. Univ. Press Sigle-Rushton W, McLanahan S. 2004. Father absence and child well-being: a critical review. In The Future of the Family, ed. DP Moynihan, M Timothy, L Rainwater, pp. 116-55. New York: Russell Sage Found.
  119. Simmel G. 1949. The sociology of sociability. Transl. EC Hughes. Am. J. Sociol. 55(3):254-61
  120. Singleton V. 1998. Stabilizing instabilities: the role of the laboratory in the United Kingdom cervical screening programme. In Differences in Medicine: Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies, ed. A Mol, M Berg, pp. 86-104. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  121. Smith RW, Bugni V. 2006. Symbolic interaction theory and architecture. Symb. Interact. 29(2):123-55
  122. Star SL. 1991. Power, technologies, and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions. In A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination, ed. J Law, pp. 26-56. London: Routledge Stark R. 1999. Micro foundations of religion: a revised theory. Sociol. Theory 17(3):264-89
  123. Strathman A, Joireman J, eds. 2005. Understanding Behavior in the Context of Time: Theory, Research, and Appli- cation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  124. Sturman S. 2006. On black-boxing gender: some social questions for Bruno Latour. Soc. Epistemol. 20(2):181-84
  125. Sussman D. 2007. Do all dogs go to heaven? Poll: Americans divide like cats and dogs. http://abcnews. go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/pets beliefnetpoll010720.html
  126. Tennant C. 1988. Parental loss in childhood. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 45(11):1045-59
  127. Tenner E. 2003. Our Own Devices: How Technology Remakes Humanity. New York: Vintage Books Trope Y, Liberman N. 2003. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110(3):403-21
  128. Turkle S. 2007. Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interact. Stud. 8(3):501-17
  129. Turkle S, Breazeal C, Dasté O, Scassellati B. 2005. First encounters with Kismet and Cog: children's relation- ship with humanoid robots. In Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication, ed. P Messaris, L Humphreys, pp. 313-30. New York: Peter Lang
  130. Turkle S, Taggart W, Kidd CD, Dasté O. 2006. Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connect. Sci. 18(4):347-61
  131. Turner F. 2005. Actor-networking the news. Soc. Epistemol. 19(4):321-24
  132. Tzeng JY. 2004. Toward a more civilized design: studying the effects of computers that apologize. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 61(3):319-45
  133. Valverde M. 2005. Authorizing the production of urban moral order. Law Soc. Rev. 39(2):419-55
  134. Vannini P. 2008. A queen's drowning: material culture, drama, and the performance of a technological accident. Symb. Interact. 31(2):155-82
  135. Webb S. 2001. Narrative, power and identity in virtual world environments. Commun. Soc. 4(4):560-94
  136. Weber M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press Weigert AJ. 2008. Pragmatic thinking about self, society, and natural environment: Mead, Carson, and beyond. Symb. Interact. 31(3):235-58
  137. Weinberg D. 1997. The social construction of non-human agency: the case of mental disorder. Soc. Probl. 44(2):217-34
  138. Wilkie R. 2005. Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguous nature of human-livestock relations in northeast Scotland. J. Rural Stud. 21(2):213-30
  139. William-Jones B, Graham JE. 2003. Actor-network theory: a tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genet. Soc. 22(3):271-96
  140. Wuthnow R. 1998. After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Wuthnow R. 2007. Cognition and religion. Sociol. Relig. 68:341-60
  141. Wuthnow R. 2008. Teach us to pray: the cognitive power of domain violations. Poetics 36:5-6
  142. Yee N. 2006. The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of users of massively-multiuser online graphical environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 15:309-329
  143. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. 1999. Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable individual difference metric. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77(6):1271-88
  144. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. 2008. The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life. New York: Free Press
  145. Zimbardo PG, Keough KA, Boyd JN. 1997. Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personal. Individ. Differ. 23:1007-23
  146. Zottarelli L. 2010. Broken bond: an exploration of human factors associated with companion animal loss during Hurricane Katrina. Sociol. Forum 25:1. In press

Related papers

Social Interaction: Do Non-humans Count?
Karen Cerulo

Sociology Compass, 2011

A growing body of research suggests that non-humans play a central role in many social interactions -not simply as objects used by humans as interaction props, but as fully participating agents of action. In this essay, I examine these innovative ideas, reviewing survey data that documents this trend and theoretical and empirical work that seeks to better understand it.

View PDFchevron_right
Expanding the Category "Human": Posthumanism, Nonhumanism, and Humanistic Psychology (Introduction)
Patrick Whitehead

Lexington Books, 2018

View PDFchevron_right
Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals
Clinton R Sanders

Symbolic Interaction, 2003

have not attended to a significant form of close relationship-that which exists between people and the companion animals with whom they share their everyday lives. After a brief presentation of a portion of the relevant literature that deals with how humans understand and interact with their animal companions, I present the process by which caretakers come to define the unique identities of their animals and the ways in which the human-animal couple identity shapes public interaction. Since play, mutual gaze, and "speaking for" animals are key elements of friendly human-animal interaction, I discuss these activities as central to the process by which caretakers establish and express intersubjective connections with their animals. Finally, I maintain that attention to human-animal relationships holds promise for advancing an appreciative understanding of how personhood, mind, and culture are constructed in the process of interaction. Of special significance to the broadening of the interactionist perspective is that the understandings and emotional connections that bind people and their animals are created and maintained in the absence of a shared body of linguistic symbols.

View PDFchevron_right
Human-Non-Human Interaction (2015)
Jessica Greenebaum, Clinton R Sanders

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (online), 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Missing Links in Social Cognition: The Continuum from Nonhuman Agents to Dehumanized Humans
Virginia Kwan

Social Cognition, 2008

We would like to thank the authors for their high-quality contributions to this special issue and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We also appreciate Jeff Sherman for offering this opportunity to publish this special issue in Social Cognition.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Talking to God Among a Cloud of Witnesses: Collective Prayer as a Meaningful Performance
Todd N Fuist

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2015

There has been much work on the effects that individual prayer has on a variety of social-psychological indicators, yet there remains a lack of research on collective prayer. While it is tempting to assume that collective prayer may be analyzed as the aggregate of individual prayers, the research presented in this article suggests that worshipers pray differently when in community than when by themselves. To understand the role of collective prayer in the practices of faith communities, I draw on work on group culture and ritual to create a framework for analyzing collective prayer. I assert that collective prayer represents a meaningful social performance that locates those conducting it within wider fields of meaning. I conclude with suggestions for future work, including examining how collective prayer acts as an element of conflict as well as unity.

View PDFchevron_right
Angelic Belief as American Folk Religion1
Joseph Baker, Scott Draper

Sociological Forum, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
Reassessing the Problem: Response to Jerolmack and Khan
Karen Cerulo

Sociological Methods & Research, 2014

ABSTRACT This article offers reflections on Jerolmack and Khan's article "Talk is Cheap: Ethnography and the Attitudinal Fallacy." Specifically, I offer three suggestions aimed at moderating the authors' critique. Since the sociology of culture and cognition is my area of expertise, I, like Jerolmack and Khan, use this literature to mine supporting examples.

View PDFchevron_right
Social Interaction: Do Non-humans Count?
Karen Cerulo

Sociology Compass, 2011

A growing body of research suggests that non-humans play a central role in many social interactions -not simply as objects used by humans as interaction props, but as fully participating agents of action. In this essay, I examine these innovative ideas, reviewing survey data that documents this trend and theoretical and empirical work that seeks to better understand it.

View PDFchevron_right
Future sea changes: Indigenous women's preferences for adaptation to climate change on South Goulburn Island, Northern Territory (Australia)
Ann Fleming

Climate and Development, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved