Human–Animal Therapeutic Relationships: Communication, Welfare and Interpretative Asymmetry

Human–animal therapeutic relationships are commonly evaluated through their effects on human psychological, emotional and social well-being, whereas the experiences and welfare of non-human animals remain less consistently examined. This narrative interdisciplinary review analyses such relationships through interpretative asymmetry, integrating human–animal studies, ethology, animal welfare science and biological approaches to interspecies communication. Selected cultural examples are used only as illustrative boundary narratives. Interpretative asymmetry is defined not as a statistically measured variable, but as a conceptual and structural imbalance in interpretative authority, communicative access and agency. Humans define therapeutic goals, organize interaction and attribute meanings such as trust, reciprocity or support to non-human animal behaviour. Non-human animals respond through species-specific sensory, behavioural and physiological mechanisms that may indicate affiliation, habituation, stress regulation, inhibition or conflict avoidance. Animal-assisted interventions and animal-assisted therapy (AAI/AAT) should therefore be assessed through human benefit and animal welfare indicators, including workload, rest, agency, withdrawal opportunities and handler competence. Dogs and horses are discussed as applied contexts in which these asymmetries become visible, whereas wild-animal narratives are treated as boundary examples of projection and romanticization. Recognizing non-human animals as active, welfare-sensitive participants is essential for ethical therapeutic practice.