A Multispecies Journey: How Do We Create a “We” in Families That Are Not Only Human?

Talking About Animals and Families

It is no secret that companion animals have gained presence in Spanish households over recent decades. The numbers are quite telling: more than 40% of homes include at least one non-human animal, and there are now more registered dogs and cats than human minors (National Statistics Institute, 2021; Veterindustria & ANFAAC, 2021).

This shift is reflected not only in the figures, but also in the status attributed to these non-human animals. The literature consistently shows that most people participating in human–animal bond studies consider these animals to be “part of the family.” To cite a recent example (Bouma et al., 2022), three-quarters of people living with cats consider them “family members” (52%) or “children” (27%). In that sense, companion animals appear to have conquered our homes.

However, the world of multispecies relationships is not so simple. When turning to scientific literature, it is difficult to find a clear definition of what it means to “be part of the family.” Moreover, it is easy to see that not all shared lives are alike: while Spain passes laws to safeguard animal welfare, the issue of animal abandonment remains stagnant (Affinity Foundation, 2022; Law 7/2023 of 28 March on the Protection of Animal Rights and Welfare, 2023).

Therefore, we need to move beyond labels to understand how non-human animals fit into different family models. And of course, there is no single answer—just as there isn’t when we talk about human relationships.

Sociological Changes: The Family in Transformation

First, we need some context, because multispecies families—beyond being multispecies—are families. So, we must begin by discussing family studies.

Most people grow up in families, making them highly relevant units within sociology (Furusten, 2023). Despite their central presence in our culture, defining what a family is remains difficult, as is the case with many everyday concepts. How do we define a table, for example? By having a surface to place things on? Some decorative tables don’t fulfill this purpose. By having legs? Some are fixed to a wall. By serving a particular function such as eating or writing? Anyone who has lived in a student apartment knows that when the table is occupied, you just eat anywhere.

Most tables share certain features, but providing a universal definition is extremely challenging. Something similar happens when we attempt to define what a family is: we can highlight very different aspects that lead to very different descriptions.

To provide a few examples, there are definitions focused on structure (a family consists of all people living in the same household), functions (the family provides care and support), social recognition (a family is a group united by legally recognized ties), and many more. There are also definitions centered on personal perception (a family is the group where I live and grow, regardless of legal ties, cohabitation, or other aspects).

The thing is, although all these definitions coexist in the literature, choosing one over another is tricky because it connects with our personal values. That’s why, even though Spanish families are becoming increasingly diverse (Meil et al., 2023), it is clear that some family models enjoy more social acceptance than others (Hintz & Brown, 2020). Even today, people who consider their companion animals to be family members frequently face comments that question or devalue their family structure. We all know the derogatory terms used to criticize those who deviate from the dominant discourse—such as the “crazy cat person” stereotype (Fox & Gee, 2019; López-Cepero, 2024).

Given this, the question of whether companion animals are part of the family—and in what sense—is indeed controversial. Thus, while much of the literature agrees that many people see them as family members, many others remain doubtful. We ask: Are all family animals actually part of the family?

An Interactive View of Human–Animal Bonding

As with human relationships, the bond between humans and other animals is neither universal nor immediate. How long can it take for your brother-in-law to feel like part of the family? Some sooner, some later… and others truly struggle to be seen as full members. The same is true for companion animals.

Most research asks questions such as: Does living with a cat increase longevity? Do dogs help foster empathy in children? This way of posing questions implies that cohabitation alone is enough to create a specific bond—almost as if the animal were a pill. American sociologist Leslie Irvine has dedicated part of her career to exploring how the human–animal bond develops through experience, adapting G.H. Mead’s symbolic interactionism to our interactions with companion animals.

Put simply, symbolic interactionism assumes that our knowledge arises from interactions with others. This is true for learning about others, but also for learning about ourselves: we integrate who we are through the reactions and messages others give us. Thus, who we are is shaped by our group of belonging, constructed through social contact. According to Irvine, the same process occurs when interacting with non-human animals.

Let’s look at an example. Think of a baby. A very small child knows very little about the world; they need to interact with it to develop cognitive skills. Direct experience is a great teacher, but other things are learned through second-hand experiences—stories told by caregivers. These stories teach whether the world is safe or frightening, or whether caregivers will always be there to support them or if they must rely on themselves.

At this point, it is easy to raise a critique: humans learn to speak, while other animals do not.* So why apply this theory to interspecies interaction? Because what matters here is the process by which the baby comes to be considered a unique individual and part of the group. Irvine argues that this process, which begins long before speech develops, is parallel for human and non-human animals. She identifies four indicators that help constitute an individual’s uniqueness, regardless of species (Irvine, 2012, 2023):

1. Agency: reflected in the intention to initiate interactions and modify the environment. In other words, the baby gradually displays recognizable intentions, showing voluntary control over their own behavior.
2. Individual coherence: the more we interact with the baby, the more predictable their behavior becomes. Recognizing a distinctive pattern of behavior makes it easier to see the individual as unique.
3. Affectivity: recognizing various emotional states helps us understand that beyond the body there is a person (a self).
4. Historical sense (shared history): as development progresses, the baby shows signs of remembering and differentiating between people and contexts, adjusting behavior and emotion accordingly. Shared experiences generate a shared narrative—what we call “memories.”

In other words, the more of these signs we recognize in the baby, the more we see them as a unique individual and part of the group. And the more we invest in their upbringing, even though they cannot maintain a symmetrical relationship (they cannot speak or take care of us). Relationships do not appear magically: they are built, they grow, and they change through coexistence.

So the question becomes: Does this really happen with companion animals? Let’s take a look.

* [We will set this issue aside for now, since the limitations of this statement are also interesting to explore.]

Indicators of Individuality in Companion Animals

We now have an interesting theoretical proposal on the table. The question is whether people who live with companion animals actually experience this type of interaction as meaningful. And how do we test this? By taking it step by step.

In the first stage, we conducted a project using group interviews, called ANIFAM (animals and families). One of the resulting articles was dedicated specifically to observing how these indicators appear throughout coexistence (López-Cepero et al., 2025a). Here are some of the clearest indicators:

1. Although an animal’s arrival at home is usually determined by human decisions, some signs of agency and affectivity can be found even in the first encounter. Some people describe how a cat followed them home or how they felt compelled to adopt a dog because its reaction at the shelter revealed—through human interpretation—a connection.
2. Over time, household routines gradually adjust. This does not mean all animals enjoy the same level of centrality: some must conform to human schedules, while others see the home’s spaces and routines adapted to allow them to express their nature. In this coexistence, some families engage in intense interaction, leading to the recognition of the animal’s uniqueness and individuality and granting them a higher status; others interact less, perceive less individuality, and maintain the animal in a clearly subordinate status compared to human members.
3. Certain life events can quickly prompt changes in the relationship: the death of a relative, the birth of a baby… may pose challenges and require reconfiguring family structure. Literature often notes that animals may lose their place or privileges (Shir-Vertesh, 2012). However, our findings indicate that this risk emerges when families have not developed a strong bond; when an animal’s uniqueness is recognized, their status tends to remain stable regardless of such events.
4. When the animal dies, the intensity of grief is linked to relationship quality, understood as the degree of selfhood recognized in the animal. Research often highlights the intensity of the bond (attachment) as the key variable, but selfhood may be even more relevant: over time, relationships may become less effusive, but sharing a common project makes someone irreplaceable—true for romantic partners and for human–animal bonds.

In Summary: Implications for the Future of Anthrozoology

The media generally assume that companion animals are part of the family, but this should not be taken for granted. Some people feel this way, while others see the animal as one step below in importance (much like your brother-in-law, so to speak).

In research, asking what benefits animals bring without asking what the animal means to the person makes little sense—yet this oversight is common. Just as having a gym membership does not mean you exercise, living with a companion animal does not mean you have a strong relationship.

It is essential to conduct more studies that place this relational bonding at the center. It is also important to stop describing interspecies relationships solely from the human’s perspective (the attachment I feel, the empathy I have, the anthropomorphism I engage in), because this reduces non-human animals to passive objects. In reality, relationships can only be understood through interaction, so research designs should give non-human animals an active role.

This is why the ANIFAM project continues into its second stage: developing tools that help capture this perspective. If you are interested, you can follow our updates on our research group’s website (HABIER) or contact us at [email protected]

Author: Javier López-Cepero Borrego, Associate Professor. Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, University of Seville (Spain).

Source: Article published on 25/11/2025 on the digital blog of the Chair of Animals and Society at Rey Juan Carlos University.