The Impact of Pet Contact on Responsibility Attribution: The Mediating Role of Perceived Harmfulness

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.