Negotiating relationships within multispecies families: analysing dilemmas on humanisation of the bond

RESEARCH Received: 5 November 2024 / Revised: 20 May 2025 / Accepted: 22 May 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Javier López-Cepero [email protected]; [email protected] 1 Personality, Assessment & Psychological Treatment Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain 2 Experimental Psychology department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain 3 Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, despacho S502. C/Camilo José Cela S/N, Seville 41018, España Negotiating Relationships Within Multispecies Families: Analysing Dilemmas on Humanisation of the Bond JavierLópez-Cepero1,3 · AliciaEspañol2 Human Arenas https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-025-00504-y The literature indicates that companions are frequently considered part of our families. But, what does it mean? This article examines how the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals is defined within the family organization. We organized three online focus groups interviews, and the analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis. The relationships with animals seemed to be based on four themes: (1) external limits (legal, moral, and biological) that frame the human-animal relationship; (2) participants’ perception of their role within the relationship (e.g. caregivers); (3) characteristics perceived in the animal that determine her inclusion as a member of the family; and (4) level of humanisation understood from a two-dimensional model: according to the similarity between species and the balance between the needs of humans and non-human animals. These findings provide new perspectives on multispecies families and highlight unresolved dilemmas in dominant social discourses. Keywords Multispecies family; Animal turn; Human-animal bond; Humanisation; Implicative dilemmas. Introduction In the same way that atoms make up matter, Western societies are built around the family as one of their elemental units (Furusten, 2023). Much of the values and expectations of each community are transmitted to individuals through their families, which play the role of repositories of information and chains of cultural transmission. Despite its importance 1 3 J. López-Cepero, A. Español and ubiquity, it is difficult to offer a single definition of family, given that each community and historical moment affect the parameters of this social organization (Roos et al., 2006). The last few decades have seen drastic changes in family models (Furstenberg, 2019). Faced with a previous model in which marriage was the main bonding format and procreation was a normative objective, the secondary demographic transition (SDT) of Western societies takes us to a new paradigm in which family models are multiple and plastic. SDT encompasses two characteristics: changes in cohabitation, driving to a more diverse household organization (e.g. arrangements that do not include marriage), and a diminishing birth rate (e.g. deciding not to have offspring is common). Both tendencies are independent and, although both phenomena coincided in Western Europe countries, they do not seem to correlate in other regions (Lesthaeghe, 2020). Beyond the composition of households, the bonds among relatives also seemed to change, with needs such as personal growth and the search for autonomy and expression occupying a more predominant role (Blackstone, 2014; Lesthaeghe, 2014). However, these changes may take time to reflect in social discourses. Thus, in industrialized countries, procreation is still seen as an anticipated and expected function for couples (Gillespie, 2000; Pelton & Hertlein, 2011). Without intending to be exhaustive, these examples illustrate that the concept of family varies over time and depends on the human community on which we focus. Despite this variability, human groups typically share one characteristic: they believe that their usual practices are normal (Irvine & Cilia, 2017). When a family deviates from commonly accepted norms, its members may face disbelief, criticism, or even accusations of being outsiders from those who adhere to societal expectations (Hintz & Brown, 2020). In addition to the recorded changes in family functions, goals, and structures, the literature highlights large variations in the status of non-human animals that live within the family home. In Western societies, there has been a gradual increase in the intensity of the bond between humans and companion animals, along with a greater interest in their well-being. This has led to debates about what it means to be a good caregiver and how we should define our relationship with these animals (Fox & Gee, 2019; Philo & Wilbert, 2000). This advance is reflected in family studies, in which a growing variety of functions and roles performed by animals in the household have been described (Leow, 2018; Walsh, 2009). Another sign of change is reflected in the appearance of new terms to refer to the relationship. Thus, the concept of family pet has given way to new conceptions, such as more-than-human families or multispecies families, in which these animals are perceived as full members of the household (Adams, 2019; Irvine & Cilia, 2017). In other words, non-human animals have found new places within our idea of family (Philo & Wilbert, 2000). However, these social changes are subject to various debates (Fox & Gee, 2019). Various studies conducted in industrialized countries show that animals considered companions (those that live in the home with no assigned function other than providing company) are valued as part of the family by most of the humans with whom they live (Bouma et al., 2022; Carlisle-Frank & Frank, 2006). However, the exact meaning and implications of being part of the family remain unclear. For example, some studies point out the existence of several types or categories of relationships between humans and nonhumans, such as the triad dominionistic -human beings dominate other animals-, humanistic -all species are and deserve the same-, and protectionist -humans must take care of, put themselves at the service of animals- (Blouin, 2013). Other studies introduce concepts that indicate that the animal’s status can vary within a continuum of flexible personhood 1 3 Negotiating Relationships Within Multispecies Families: Analysing… (Laurent-Simpson, 2017; Shir-Vertesh, 2012). Finally, the literature shows a vivid debate on whether animals could play a surrogate role replacing human beings as relatives, or if there is a growing interest in the significant otherness of non-human animals (Linne & Angilletta, 2024). For all the above, it is not surprising that the literature describes a lack of consistency among the coexisting discourses around multispecies families (Fox & Gee, 2019; Irvine & Cilia, 2017; Laurent-Simpson, 2017; Volsche, 2021). The research methods used may also facilitate these confusions, as many of the available references explore the topic through quantitative methods such as questionnaires created ad hoc (Blouin, 2013; Bouma et al., 2022, among others). These instruments prevent finding answers beyond the questions included by the researchers, thereby restricting the possibility of finding new solutions to these debates (Gobo, 2005). Considering the potential influence of culture on human-animal interactions, it seems important to emphasise that most of these studies have been developed in Anglo-Saxon contexts (Laurent-Simpson, 2017; Volsche, 2021, among others). On the one hand, Spain is a southern European country embedded in the SDT (Meil et al., 2023), and it could lead to the assumption that much of the findings present in the literature could help explain how animals fit Spanish households. But, on the other hand, its population appears to have extreme contradictions when it comes to talking about companion animals: Although Spaniards show some signs of the so-called animal turn, as they show a strong interest in companions’ wellbeing -among the highest in Europe- (European Commission, 2017), and a recent bill recognised these animals as family members (Animal Rights and Welfare Protection Bill, 2023), more than 300.000 animals are abandoned every year, making Spain one of the European countries with the highest abandonment rate (Fatjó et al., 2015; Fundación Affinity, 2020). Also, while other European countries have promoted bills to protect cohabitation for multispecies families (e.g., Renters’ Rights Bill in the UK, and Loi 70–598 [legislation on the relationship between lessors and tenants] in France), Spanish lessors are free to ban the presence of non-human animals in rented properties, reflecting that the social changes around multispecies families advance slowly. For all these reasons, the present study seeks to explore how non-human animals fit within the family organization in Spain, using open and flexible methods nested in the qualitative research paradigm (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Denzin et al., 2023). We aim to understand the main themes that establish the foundation for defining the relationship, searching for similarities and differences to previous works developed in third countries, and exploring if some of the apparent contradictions could be better understood by revisiting some of the concepts that are usually present in the literature. Methodology In this section, we highlight the different decisions made during data production and analysis. For convenience, we have divided them into four sections regarding the research design, participant characteristics, details about the instruments used, and the analysis procedure. 1 3 J. López-Cepero, A. Español Research Design Given the exploratory nature of this research, the novelty of the topic and the disparate opinions it generates, we opted for a data production procedure that would allow capturing the greatest number of perspectives on the object of study. To do this, we opted to use the qualitative social research technique of the focus group (Kitzinger, 1994). This technique consists of developing a group interview with the objective of discussing the questions about the specific topic that is raised. As several authors highlight (Kitzinger, 1994; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015), this data production technique enables the expression of different perspectives and encourages discussions on controversial issues. The interviews were analysed following the thematic analysis method, aimed at identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns present in the data collected (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022). This analysis model offers versatility and sensitivity to divergences in discourses, allowing us to respond to the ambivalences and contradictions found in the literature. In turn, thematic analysis offers a structured guide to develop the analysis in six steps, from the identification of specific codes in the interview to the abstraction of general themes presented by the participants, passing through several stages of review and refinement of the initially proposed codes. Our thematic analysis approach started from an experiential and constructivist perspective, to gather the representations, experiences, and discourses of the participants. We understand that participants bring to the conversation stories, impressions and positionings that are present in their social environment. People appropriate these discourses and adopt them as their own - often incorporating mutually inconsistent arguments. Therefore, the analysis of the participants’ interventions allows access to a universe of social discourses constructed and recreated in the activity scenarios in which they participate (Wertsch, 1993). At the beginning, the analytical process was developed with a deductive and semantic approach. To do this, we took some frequently used terms from the first author’s training in family therapy (such as structure, hierarchy, communication, among others) and in anthrozoology (e.g., anthropomorphising), which served as a guide to identify some patterns of response of the participants. Throughout the coding and writing process we turned to a more inductive and latent analysis. This project has the approval of the Ethics Committee of [University]. Participants Three focus groups were constituted with 11 women and 1 man, aged between 18 and 64 years. All participants had lived with animals for more than one year of their lifespan. They mentioned having coexisted with 1 to 5 animals, being dogs and cats the most frequent species. Most of the participants lived in multispecies families founded with their partners, although three of them remained in their parents’ households. Two thirds of the participants reported living in urban areas. The main sociodemographic data and the distribution of participants in the different focus groups are specified in Table 1. The instructions indicated that the study was focused on analyzing the coexistence of the daily life of multispecies families in the Spanish context. The sample was made up based on the information provided by the participants in a form. To be selected, participants had to be native Spanish speakers, be over 18 years of age, and have cohabited with an animal for at 1 3 Negotiating Relationships Within Multispecies Families: Analysing… least 6 months prior to the interview. Likewise, the relationship maintained with the animal had to be limited only to the domestic sphere, leaving other relationships out of the study, such as working relationships with animals, like herding or veterinary care. Even though there is no exact recommendation on the appropriate sample size for qualitative studies (American Psychological Association, 2020), the sample selected is sufficient to complete medium-sized studies such as the one presented (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p. 48). Our work aims to explore the meanings and experiences of multispecies families rather than the verification or quantification of these. Instruments An ad hoc semi-structured interview was created to collect data. The questions were structured around three axes that respond to the three specific objectives proposed in the project: (1) the animal’s relative position or place within the family, (2) the functional organization or rituals that occur in the family nucleus, (3) the integration of animals into human relationship categories. The interview script provided several equivalent questions to focus the conversation if necessary. The interviews were developed within the Blackboard Collaborate Ultra environment. This platform allows meetings to be recorded in rooms accessible only by invitation. It also makes it easier to participate using pseudonyms and without sharing video images. Table 1 Sociodemographic information of participants # Group Tag Gender Age Environment Caring of any human relative? Care of animals Current # of companions Species cohabitated 1 CA Male 18– 29 Rural No Shared 4–5 Dog, cat 1 BE Female 30– 39 Urban No Alone 1 Dog 1MR Female 30– 39 Urban No Shared 1 Cat, other 1 LU Female 30– 39 Urban Offspring Shared 1 Dog, rabbit 2 CB* Female 30– 39 Urban No Shared 2–3 Dog 2 MG Female 18– 29 Rural No Shared 1 Dog 2 LS Female 40– 64 Rural No Shared 2–3 Dog 2 MJ Female 18– 29 Rural No Shared None Dog, other 3 EL Female 18– 29 Urban No Shared 2–3 Dog, cat 3RQ Female 18– 29 Urban No Shared None Cat, other 3CR Female 30– 39 Urban No Shared 4–5 Dog, cat 3 MC Female 30– 39 Urban No Shared 4–5 Dog * Participant could not complete the interview due to technical problems 1 3 J. López-Cepero, A. Español Altogether, this platform offers various alternatives for participants to decide the degree of privacy they want to maintain. Procedures Participant recruitment was carried out through the Facebook and Twitter social networks using the professional profiles of the researchers, and through the laboratory website [name of the laboratory on human-animal bond]. Interested individuals completed an online form that requested informed consent. To conduct the interview, they were required to have access to the internet and an electronic device that would allow them to connect to the platform where the interviews were recorded. Following the recommendations for maintaining privacy in virtual environments (Lobe et al., 2020), participants chose whether they wanted to use video images or only audio, as well as the pseudonym with which they wanted to introduce themselves. We proposed holding virtual focus groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015) to allow us to contact the participants of all over Spain. The interviews lasted an average of 103 min and were recorded and stored for transcription. This transcription was carried out considering the semantic content (Braun & Clarke, 2013). To pseudonymize the interviews we have replaced all identifying elements - names of people, pets, and places - with an equivalent description of them. The extracts have been edited to remove repetitions and irrelevant aspects that do not contribute to the intended examples. Expressions that reflected doubts or pauses in the speech have been replaced by ellipses to improve readability. Coding took place over several weeks. It was always done in pairs, sometimes with the collaboration of a student in training. The analysis of these codes led the research team to group them into various themes and, in turn, into four overarching themes: construction of the human-animal relationship in the family; choice of terms to describe the relationship; evolution of the relationship in the family life cycle; and organization of more-than-human families. This article presents the results referring to the first of these overarching themes, reserving the rest of the analysis for other publications. Analysis Participants build their relationship with their animals based on four main themes: “Every game has its rules”, “Who am I in the relationship?”, “Who are you, my little friend?”, and “To humanise or not to humanise? That is the question”. We understand that these topics show four basic pillars that support the definition of the relationship between human and non-human animals in the family context (see Fig. 1). Next, we go on to explain each of them. Every Game Has its Rules This theme refers to the external limits (legal, moral, and biological) that frame the humananimal relationship. Participants are aware that they live within a legal and regulatory framework that stipulates certain obligations towards animals, a duty of care (Glanville et al., 2020). These external conditions impose certain labels on the relationship, such as being the owner of the animal: but being legally responsible for the animal and feeling like 1 3 Negotiating Relationships Within Multispecies Families: Analysing… an owner are two different issues, which often appear as dilemmas (Fox, 2006). Following Blouin’s classification (2013), the normative standard makes it easier to construct the relationship in terms of dominance over the animal, while the relationship that is being felt may fit better with companionship or the obligation to protect. I for example, don’t speak in terms of ownership as such, and it kind of sounds ugly, but in the end it’s who I am. That’s what it says on the papers (laughs). No, but in the end a dog still “belongs to”. Another thing is on a moral level and what we may feel, but no, it doesn’t bother me either. It is true that I do not use it, I do not say “I am your owner” or “I am the owner of” but in the end it is what it is. And when the vet calls you and asks for the “name of the owner”, it doesn’t bother me, because I know it’s me. [Interview 2; MG] The consideration of companions as subjects with rights also appears frequently referred to and in relation to various topics. For example, our participants debate the implications of adopting versus purchasing animals, and reflect on whether obtaining financial benefits (e.g., by exposing them on social networks) can be exploitative. Companion animals are living beings, and as such they have the right to be respected as they are and not be treated as mere merchandise or objects of value. The moral debate about their intrinsic value and not as means is recurring to mark the relationship they want to develop. Yes, I also know people who have tried to make their dogs influencers, and then to dress them up in costumes, the letter [publication] of the hundred, the ten thousand followers, all of this. But well, I think that has another objective (laughs), not so much as the feeling of unity but rather trying to monetize your relationship with animals a little, but well that’s my point of view. [Interview 1; MR] Unlike other countries in Europe (such as France or the UK), in Spain there are no regulations that ensure the possibility of living with animals in your residence, an element that is especially problematic when it comes to rented housing. In addition, in Spain only assistance animals (e.g. guide dogs) are guaranteed access to all establishments. Therefore, the clash between the personal construction of what family is and its social recognition is evident. Fig. 1 Themes around definition of relationships within more-than-human families 1 3 J. López-Cepero, A. Español (…) we brought her to [new city], I looked for an apartment that would let me have a dog. I wouldn’t go anywhere without my dog, I wouldn’t go anywhere. They wouldn’t let me get married in the hotel with her because the hotel was picky, but otherwise I’d bring her in too (laughs). It’s also very important for me to have my whole family there. [Interview 1; LU] This first theme allows us to verify that our participants find it difficult to fit their relationship with non-human animals into the socially dominant discourse (Hintz & Brown, 2020). The attempt to classify the relationship into a single category—as owner versus partner, in Blouin’s (2013) terms—creates discomfort. Our results point to the existence of broader dilemmas, where different perspectives – moral, legal, biological – collide with each other. Thereby, the norms —or discourses— of this social game did not offer guidance to resolve these dilemmas, and that makes many of the participants choose to move the focus from the external conditions of the relationship —generally assumed as objective— to subjective considerations. Therefore, the next topic focuses on what the participants feel and perceive within the relationship. Who I Am in the Relationship? A second theme refers to the way in which participants experience their role in the relationship. Consistent with previous work (Charles, 2016; Glanville et al., 2020), our participants understand that their role requires guaranteeing the well-being and care of non-human animals. Parallel to current expectations of having offsprings after the SDT, it is not a matter of cohabitating with animals, but of taking care of animals so they can enjoy and develop (Blackstone, 2014; Lesthaeghe, 2014). Human responsibility appears as a central concept, in accordance with what has been stated in other works (Volsche, 2018; Westgarth et al., 2019). This translates into the provision of resources for their well-being and the adaptation of domestic spaces and routines to meet the perceived needs of the animal, even when it may compromise the comfort of the human: Well, I have a servant relationship, as I say, with the cat because he is the one who wakes me up (laughs) it doesn’t matter if it’s the weekend or [throughout the week]. Yes, he’s the one who organizes the day and the one who… I think that this happens to people who have a cat in their apartment, those who live in the countryside or have distractions don’t have it this way. This one personally wakes me up and well, since I’m the first one to get up to work and so on, well I feed him, he stays calm. […] We dedicate play time to him every evening, because he chases feathers and so on, so he uses up energy and well, at dinner time he also starts to look at me from the kitchen with his penetrating look of “Well, what? Are you getting up?” (laughs) He starts eating dinner, he stays calm and when it’s time for us to go to sleep, he starts playing for a while and then he gets on top of my husband until I turn around and he gets on top of my head and that is our (laughs) our daily life, more or less that is the routine. [Interview 1; MR] The terms they use to refer to the relationship relate mainly to the mother-child bond, although also to companionship or friendship (for a more extensive review of the terms used, refer to López-Cepero, 2025). All participants highlight the centrality of this bond within the home: they say they do not understand a life without (non-humans) animals. Although they are clear that their relationships with non-human animals are different from those with 1 3 Negotiating Relationships Within Multispecies Families: Analysing… other humans, they construct their discourse from the obligation acquired towards animals (Glanville et al., 2020; Westgarth et al., 2019). I would say, to summarize… responsibility; because if you are not going to be responsible, don’t have them. It is a lifestyle that is totally, totally, totally in agreement and they are family and also, it is mutual learning. They learn from us, but, above all… Well, I don’t know about them learning from us, they must learn something (pause), I guess. But for us, come on, it is incredible. I’m also seeing it in my son, so it can happen from the very beginning. And rearing an adult who respects all living beings, that seems like an incredible and super lifestyle to me, you know? So since I’m in that phase, I would make like a set of all those words because that’s how it is. [Interview 1; LU] These discourses highlight the importance of their relationships with animals, as well as the responsibility with which they assume it. However, they show the existence of asymmetries in the relationship: the human appears as the main person responsible for the decisions, thus occupying a hierarchically superior position to the non-human animal (Charles, 2016; Volsche, 2018) and seems to be the main beneficiary. Attention to the perceived needs of animals was a recurring theme, so the next topic analysed focuses on the characteristics of non-human animals. Who Are You, my Little Friend? The third theme analyses the characteristics of the animal that determine its inclusion as a member of the family: participants refer to a variety of aspects that facilitate the identification of the non-human animal as part of the household. Some of these qualities are directly observable. Thus, the appearance of the animal (e.g., they are pretty) and the actions they perform attract the attention of the humans with whom they live. However, it is the inference about their internal states that takes centre stage when describing the reasons for considering them part of the family. On the one hand, participants frequently focus on the ability to feel: animals suffer pain and express joy. This basic emotional system allows you to understand and empathize with their needs and feelings. These characteristics help to perceive them as beings to be cared for and whose needs and rights must be respected, in a way like that described in previous studies (Volsche, 2018). In general, the greater continuity is found between humans and non-humans, the greater balance is described in the relationship. One of them, the female [dog], is very, very attached to sleeping and being close to us and since she is older, it makes us sad to have to say no to her and since she is so good, well, we let her. [Interview 2; LS] And… in general, for the topic of vacations, it is true that, for example, we don’t take the cats because, for example, well, neither of them likes the street. So… we also don’t know how they will react in an environment other than their own. It also makes us feel bad, well, normally when we go to… maybe an apartment much smaller than ours, maybe they get stressed, they get overwhelmed. And what we usually do is call someone we trust and tell them to come check on the cats, feed them, clean them, like, they may have to clean the litter box and so on, basically to pay attention to them. [Interview 3; HE] However, what is central to participants redefining their relationship, is to perceive that animals have intentions. They are subjects with mental states, tastes, desires, and communicative intention (Volsche, 2018). Regarding the cognitive abilities of humans and 1 3 J. López-Cepero, A. Español Blouin, D. D. (2013). Are dogs children, companions, or just animals? Understanding variations in People’s orientations toward animals. Anthrozoos, 26(2), 279–294. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 2 7 5 2 / 1 7 5 3 0 3 7 1 3 X 1 3 6 3 6 8 4 6 9 4 4 4 0 2 Bouma, E. M. C., Reijgwart, M. L., & Dijkstra, A. (2022). Family member, best friend, child or ‘just’ a pet, owners’ relationship perceptions and consequences for their cats. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010193 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Succesful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis. A practical guide. Sage. Carlisle-Frank, P., & Frank, J. M. (2006). Owners, guardians, and owner-guardians: Differing relationships with pets. Anthrozoos, 19(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415574 Carr, E. C. J., Wallace, J. E., Onyewuchi, C., Hellyer, P. W., & Kogan, L. (2018). Exploring the meaning and experience of chronic pain with people who live with a dog: A qualitative study. Anthrozoos, 31(5), 551–565. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 8 9 2 7 9 3 6 . 2 0 1 8 . 1 5 0 5 2 6 7 Charles, N. (2014). Animals just love you as you are’: Experiencing kinship across the species barrier. Sociology, 48(4), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513515353 Charles, N. (2016). Post-human families? Dog-human relations in the domestic sphere. Sociological Research Online, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3975 Cleary, M., West, S., Thapa, D. K., Westman, M., Vesk, K., & Kornhaber, R. (2022). Grieving the loss of a Pet: A qualitative systematic review. Death Studies, 46(9), 2167–2178. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 7 4 8 1 1 8 7 . 2 0 2 1 . 1 9 0 1 7 9 9 Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Giardina, M. D., & Cannella, G. S. (Eds.). (2023). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE. European Commission. (2017). Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer, 442. https://doi.org/10.2875/884639 Fatjó, J., Bowen, J., García, E., Calvo, P., Rueda, S., Amblás, S., & Lalanza, J. F. (2015). Epidemiology of dog and Cat abandonment in Spain (2008–2013). Animals, 5(2), 426–441. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / a n i 5 0 2 0 3 6 4 Fox, R. (2006). Animal behaviours, post-human lives: Everyday negotiations of the animal-human divide in petkeeping. Social and Cultural Geography, 7(4), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360600825679 Fox, R., & Gee, N. R. (2019). Great expectations: Changing social, Spatial and emotional Understandings of the companion animal–human relationship. Social and Cultural Geography, 20(1), 43–63. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 4 6 4 9 3 6 5 . 2 0 1 7 . 1 3 4 7 9 5 4 Fundación Affinity (2020). Estudio Él nunca lo haría: Perros y gatos abandonados, adoptados y perdidos en España en 2019. h t t p s : / / w w w . f u n d a c i o n - a ffi n i t y . o r g / o b s e r v a t o r i o / i n f o g r a fi a - e l - n u n c a - l o - h a r i a - e s t u d i o - d e - a b a n d o n o - y - a d o p c i o n - 2 0 2 0 Furstenberg, F. F. (2019). Family change in global perspective: How and why family systems change. Family relations (Vol. 68, pp. 326–341). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 3https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12361 Furusten, S. (2023). Institutional theory and organizational change. Edward Elgar Publishing. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 3 3 7 / 9 7 8 1 0 3 5 3 0 7 2 1 0 Gillespie, R. (2000). when no means no: disbelief, disregard and deviance as discourses of voluntary childlessness. In Women’s Studies International Forum (Vol. 23, Issue 2). Glanville, C. R., Hemsworth, P. H., & Coleman, G. J. (2020). Conceptualising dog owner motivations: The pet care competency model and role of duty of care. Animal Welfare, 29(3), 271–284. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 7 1 2 0 / 0 9 6 2 7 2 8 6 . 2 9 . 3 . 2 7 1 Gobo, G. (2005). The renaissance of qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3). Hawkins, R. D., Hawkins, E. L., & Tip, L. (2021). I can’t give up when I have them to care for: People’s experiences of pets and their mental health. Anthrozoos, 34(4), 543–562. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 8 9 2 7 9 3 6 . 2 0 2 1 . 1 9 1 4 4 3 4 Hintz, E. A., & Brown, C. L. (2020). Childfree and bingoed: A relational dialectics theory analysis of meaning creation in online narratives about voluntary childlessness. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 244–266. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 3 6 3 7 7 5 1 . 2 0 1 9 . 1 6 9 7 8 9 1 Howlett, M. (2022). Looking at the ‘field’ through a zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 387–402. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 1 4 6 8 7 9 4 1 2 0 9 8 5 6 9 1 Irvine, L. (2023). Our zoological connections and why they matter. Sociological Forum, 38(4), 1464–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12961 Irvine, L., & Cilia, L. (2017). More-than-human families: Pets, people, and practices in multispecies households. Sociology Compass, 11(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12455 1 3 Negotiating Relationships Within Multispecies Families: Analysing… Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023 Kogan, L. R., Bussolari, C., Currin-Mcculloch, J., Packman, W., & Erdman, P. (2022). Disenfranchised guilt—pet owners’ burden. Animals, 12(13), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131690 Laurent-Simpson, A. (2017). Considering alternate sources of role identity: Childless parents and their animal kids. Sociological Forum, 32(3), 610–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12351 Leow, C. (2018). It’s Not Just A Dog: The Role of Companion Animals in the Family ’s Emotional System [University of Nebraska-Lincoln]. h t t p s : / / d i g i t a l c o m m o n s . u n l . e d u / c e h s d i s s / 3 1 7 / ? u t m _ s o u r c e = d i g i t a l c o m m o n s . u n l . e d u % 2 F c e h s d i s s % 2 F 3 1 7 & u t m _ m e d i u m = P D F & u t m _ c a m p a i g n = P D F C o v e r P a g e s Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(51), 18112–18115. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 7 3 / p n a s . 1 4 2 0 4 4 1 1 1 1 Lesthaeghe, R. (2020). The second demographic transition, 1986–2020: sub-replacement fertility and rising cohabitation—a global update. Genus, 76(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-020-00077-4 Linne, J., & Angilletta, F. (2024). Living together, loving together: Pet families in the 21st century. History of the Family. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 0 8 1 6 0 2 X . 2 0 2 3 . 2 3 0 0 6 2 9 Lobe, B., Morgan, D., & Hoffman, K. A. (2020). Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 160940692093787. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 1 6 0 9 4 0 6 9 2 0 9 3 7 8 7 5 López-Cepero, J., Español, A., & Rodríguez-Banda, Á. (2025). ‘There Is Not a Word’, but Is It Necessary? Analyzing Pragmatic Decisions Regarding Terminology Within Multispecies Family Relationships. Animals, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15040568 Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 Meil, G., Rogero-García, J., & Díaz-Gandasegui, V. (2023). Family diversity in Spain. In M. A. Adler & K. Lenz (Eds.), The Changing Faces of Families (pp. 122–141). Routledge. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 4 3 2 4 / 9 7 8 1 0 0 3 1 9 3 5 0 0 - 7 Merriam-Webster. (2019). Humanize. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (11th ed.). Merriam Webster US. Montesano, A., López-González, M. A., Saúl, L. A., & Feixas, G. (2015). A review of cognitive conflicts research: A meta-analytic study of prevalence and relation to symptoms. In Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment (Vol. 11, pp. 2997–3006). Dove Medical Press Ltd. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S91861 Pelton, S. L., & Hertlein, K. M. (2011). A proposed life cycle for voluntary childfree couples. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 23(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2011.548703 Philo, C., & Wilbert, C. (2000). Animal spaces, Beastly places: An introduction. In C. Philo, & C. Wilbert (Eds.), Animal spaces, Beastly places: New geographies of human-animal relations. Routledge. Power, E. (2008). Furry families: Making a human-dog family through home. Social and Cultural Geography, 9(5), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360802217790 Roos, P. A., Trigg, M. K., & Hartman, M. S. (2006). Changing families/changing communities work, family and community in transition. In Community, Work and Family (Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 197–224). h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 3 6 6 8 8 0 0 6 0 0 5 8 6 9 8 5 Rosenberg, S., Riggs, D. W., Taylor, N., & Fraser, H. (2020). Being together really helped’: Australian transgender and non-binary people and their animal companions living through violence and marginalisation. Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319896413 Shir-Vertesh, D. (2012). Flexible personhood: Loving animals as family members in Israel. American Anthropologist, 114(3), 420–432. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 5 4 8 - 1 4 3 3 . 2 0 1 2 . 0 1 4 4 3 . x Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sage. Volsche, S. (2018). Negotiated bonds: The practice of childfree pet parenting. Anthrozoos, 31(3), 367–377. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 8 9 2 7 9 3 6 . 2 0 1 8 . 1 4 5 5 4 7 0 Volsche, S. (2021). Pet parenting in the united States: Investigating an evolutionary puzzle. Evolutionary Psychology, 19(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049211038297 Walsh, F. (2009). Human-animal bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family therapy. Family Process, 48(4), 481–499. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 5 4 5 - 5 3 0 0 . 2 0 0 9 . 0 1 2 9 7 . x Wertsch, J. V. (1993). Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press. Westgarth, C., Christley, R. M., Marvin, G., & Perkins, E. (2019). The responsible dog owner: The construction of responsibility. Anthrozoos, 32(5), 631–646. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 8 9 2 7 9 3 6 . 2 0 1 9 . 1 6 4 5 5 0 6 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3