ArticlePDF Available

The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being: Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis?



Because of extensive media coverage, it is now widely believed that pets enhance their owners’ health, sense of psychological well-being, and longevity. But while some researchers have reported that positive effects accrue from interacting with animals, others have found that the health and happiness of pet owners is no better, and in some cases worse, than that of non–pet owners. I discuss some reasons why studies of the effects of pets on people have produced conflicting results, and I argue that the existence of a generalized “pet effect” on human mental and physical health is at present not a fact but an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
Current Directions in Psychological
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0963721411415220
2011 20: 236Current Directions in Psychological Science
Harold Herzog
The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being : Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis?
Published by:
On behalf of:
Association for Psychological Science
can be found at:Current Directions in Psychological ScienceAdditional services and information for Alerts:
by Divya Menon on August 9, 2011cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Current Directions in Psychological
20(4) 236 –239
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
DOI: 10.1177/0963721411415220
Many people are deeply attached to companion animals. In the
United States, over two thirds of households include a pet,
most of which are regarded by their owners as family mem-
bers. Considering that the lifetime costs of owning a pet are
about $8,000 for a medium-sized dog and $10,000 for a cat
(cats tend to live longer than dogs), devoting resources on a
creature with whom you share no genes and who is unlikely to
ever return the favor seems to make little evolutionary sense.
Aside from the expense, there are other downsides to compan-
ion animals. In the United States, a person is 100 times more
likely to be seriously injured or killed by a dog than by a ven-
omous snake, and over 85,000 Americans are taken to emer-
gency rooms each year because of falls caused by their pets.
Further, people can contract a cornucopia of diseases from
companion animals, including brucellosis, roundworm, skin
mites, E. coli, salmonella, giardia, ringworms, and cat-scratch
fever. And, pets are second only to late-night noise as a source
of conflict between neighbors.
Although not culturally universal, pet keeping exists in
most societies, and an array of theories have been offered to
explain why people bring animals into their lives (Herzog,
2010). Among these are the misfiring of parental instincts, bio-
philia (a hypothetical biologically based love of nature), social
contagion, the tendency for the middle class to emulate the
customs of the rich, the need to dominate the natural world,
social isolation in urban societies, and the desire to teach
responsibility and kindness to children. While the reasons that
pet keeping has become a widespread cultural phenomenon
are unclear, it is evident that companion animals are vitally
important in the lives of many people.
The “Pet Effect”
When asked what they specifically get from their relationships
with pets, people typically mention companionship, having a
play partner, and the need to love and care for another crea-
ture. But fueled by media reports and books with titles like The
Healing Power of Pets: Harnessing the Amazing Ability of
Pets to Make and Keep People Happy and Healthy (Becker,
2002), the public has come to accept as fact the idea that pets
can also serve as substitutes for physicians and clinical psy-
chologists. The idea that living with an animal can improve
human health, psychological well-being, and longevity has
been called the “pet effect” (Allen, 2003).
Most pet owners believe that their companion animals are
good for them. Personal convictions, however, do not consti-
tute scientific evidence. Claims about the medical and psycho-
logical benefits of living with animals need to be subjected to
the same standards of evidence as a new drug, medical device,
Corresponding Author:
Harold Herzog, Department of Psychology, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee, NC, 29723
The Impact of Pets on Human Health
and Psychological Well-Being: Fact, Fiction,
or Hypothesis?
Harold Herzog
Western Carolina University
Because of extensive media coverage, it is now widely believed that pets enhance their owners’ health, sense of psychological
well-being, and longevity. But while some researchers have reported that positive effects accrue from interacting with animals,
others have found that the health and happiness of pet owners is no better, and in some cases worse, than that of non–pet
owners. I discuss some reasons why studies of the effects of pets on people have produced conflicting results, and I argue that
the existence of a generalized “pet effect” on human mental and physical health is at present not a fact but an unsubstantiated
pets, companion animals, health, psychological well-being, happiness
by Divya Menon on August 9, 2011cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Pets, Human Health, and Psychological Well-Being 237
or form of psychotherapy. Over the past 30 years, hundreds of
studies have examined the impact of pets on human health and
happiness. Here I argue that, contrary to media reports, an
examination of this body of literature indicates that the pet
effect remains an uncorroborated hypothesis rather than an
established fact. (Note that the main focus of this article is on
the effects of pets on the physical and mental health of their
owners, not the efficacy of animals as therapeutic agents for
disorders such as autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity
The Evidence That Pets Are
Good for People
The first demonstration of an association between pets and
health was an early study of 92 heart-attack victims in which
28% of pet owners survived for at least a year as compared to
only 6% of non–pet owners (Friedmann, Katcher, Lynch, &
Thomas, 1980). These findings generated a flurry of research
on the positive impact of interacting with companion animals
(see review by Wells, 2009a). For example, stroking dogs and
cats, watching tropical fish in an aquarium, and even caressing
a pet boa constrictor have been reported to reduce blood pres-
sure and stress levels. The most convincing of these studies
was a clinical trial in which hypertensive stockbrokers were
randomly assigned to either pet or no-pet conditions. Six
months later, when put in a stressful situation, subjects in the
pet group showed lower increases in blood pressure than did
those in the non-pet control condition (Allen, Shykoff, & Izzo,
2001). Researchers have also reported that psychological ben-
efits accrue from living with animals. These include studies
showing that pet owners have higher self-esteem, more posi-
tive moods, more ambition, greater life satisfaction, and lower
levels of loneliness (El-Alayli, Lystad, Webb, Hollingsworth,
& Ciolli, 2006).
Epidemiologists have also connected pet ownership to bet-
ter health and well-being (see review by Headey & Grabka,
2011). For example, among 11,000 German and Australian
adults, pet owners were in better physical condition than non-
pet owners, and they made 15% fewer doctor visits, a potential
savings of billions of dollars in national health expenditures.
And an epidemiological study of Chinese women found that
pet owners exercised more, slept better, felt more physically
fit, and missed fewer days from work than women without
pets. Further, these effects were particularly strong for indi-
viduals who reported that they were very closely attached to
their pets.
Now the Bad News
Pet owners are, of course, delighted to read about research that
confirms the view that living with a dog or cat makes for a
happier and longer life. But while the media abounds with sto-
ries extolling the health benefits of pets, studies in which pet
ownership has been found to have no impact or even negative
effects on human physical or mental health rarely make head-
lines. For instance, there was no media coverage of a recent
study of 425 heart-attack victims that found pet owners were
more likely than non–pet owners to die or suffer remissions
within a year of suffering their heart attack (22% vs. 14%;
Parker et al., 2010). Indeed, replication has been a persistent
problem with research on the effects of pets on human health.
Straatman, Hanson, Endenburg, and Mol (1997), for instance,
found that performing a stressful task in the presence of a dog
had no short-term effect on blood pressure. And a study of
1,179 older adults found no differences in the blood pressure
or risk of hypertension of pet and non–pet owners (Wright,
Kritz-Silverstein, Morton, Wingard, & Barrett-Connor, 2007).
(The pet owners in the study did, however, exercise less than
non-owners and were more apt to be overweight.)
The impact of pets on psychological well-being has also
been called into question. A Pew Research Center survey of
3,000 Americans found no differences in the proportion of pet
owners and nonowners who described themselves as “very
happy” (in Herzog, 2010). Researchers in England adminis-
tered the UCLA–Loneliness scale to people who were seeking
a companion animal. When retested 6 months later, the indi-
viduals who had acquired pets were just as lonely as they were
before they got their companion animal. In addition, they were
no happier than participants who had not gotten a pet (Gilbey,
McNicholas, & Collis, 2007). Another recent study found that
older adults who were highly attached to their dogs tended to
be more depressed than individuals who were not as attached
to their companion animals (Miltiades & Shearer, 2011).
Nor has pet ownership fared well in recent epidemiological
studies. A study of 40,000 Swedes found that while pet owners
were physically healthier than non–pet owners, they suffered
more from psychological problems including anxiety, chronic
tiredness, insomnia, and depression (Müllersdorf, Granström,
Sahlqvist, & Tillgren, 2010). A Finnish study of 21,000 adults
reported that pet owners were at increased risk for hyperten-
sion, high cholesterol, gastric ulcers, migraine headaches,
depression, and panic attacks (Koivusilta & Ojanlatva, 2006).
In an Australian study of 2,551 elderly adults, dog ownership
was associated with poorer physical health and with depres-
sion (Parslow, Jorm, Christensen, & Rodgers, 2005). Finally,
in a longitudinal study of nearly 12,000 American adults, cat
or dog ownership was unrelated to mortality rates (Gillum &
Obisesan, 2010).
Reasons Why Pet-Effect Research Is
For many people, pets are profoundly pleasurable and a source
of psychological support. The fact is, however, that empirical
studies of the effects of pets on human health and well-being
have produced a mishmash of conflicting results. While pets
are undoubtedly good for some people, there is presently
insufficient evidence to support the contention that, as a group,
pet owners are healthier or happier or that they live longer than
by Divya Menon on August 9, 2011cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
238 Herzog
people who do not have companion animals in their lives.
Why are the results of studies on the pet effect so inconsistent?
Ioannidis (2005) argues that conflicting results and failures to
replicate are especially prevalent in areas of science in which
studies are characterized by small and homogeneous samples,
a wide diversity of research designs, and small effect sizes. He
also believes that research topics that are particularly “hot” are
especially prone to replication problems. All of these criteria
apply to research on the effects of pets on human health.
Design problems are common in studies of human–animal
interactions. Meta-analyses enable scientists to look for patterns
in the results of multiple studies on the same topic, but there have
been no meta-analyses of studies of the effects of pets on owner
happiness or health. However, for a meta-analysis in a related
area (the effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy), Nimer and
Lundahl (2007) had to comb through 250 studies to find 49 that
met even minimal standards for methodological rigor.
There is also the problem of how to interpret differences
between pet owners and nonowners. Most studies reporting
positive effects of pets are not true experiments in which the
subjects are randomly assigned to “pet” and “non-pet” groups.
Rather, they involve correlational or quasiexperimental designs
that compare people who choose to live with pets with people
who do not. Hence, while it might be the case that pets cause
their owners to be healthier and happier, it is equally possible
that the causal arrow points the other direction—that people
who are healthier, happier, and wealthier to begin with are more
likely to have the energy and financial resources required to
bring companion animals into their lives and to keep them for
extended periods. (Of course, the caution against conflating cor-
relation and causality also applies to studies in which pet owner-
ship has been found to be associated with poorer mental or
physical health.)
In addition, many studies of human–animal interactions are
based on self-reports of pet owners. While these can be useful,
self-reports sometimes produce results that are at odds with
more objective indices of health. For example, Wells (2009b)
investigated the impact of acquiring a pet on individuals suf-
fering from chronic fatigue syndrome. She found that while
the pet owners in the study claimed their animals provided
them with a host of psychological and physical benefits, their
scores on standardized measures (the Chalder Fatigue Ques-
tionnaire, the General Health Questionairre-12, and the Short-
Form-37 Health Survey) indicated that they were just as tired,
depressed, worried, and stressed as chronic fatigue sufferers
who did not get a pet.
A problem called the “file drawer effect,” which plagues
many areas of research, also skews the scientific literature on
human–animal relationships. This is the tendency for negative
results to wind up in the researchers filing cabinet rather than
in the pages of a scientific journal. At a session at a 2009
conference on human–animal interactions, for example, one
researcher reported that separation from their pets had no effect
on the psychological adjustment of college students, another
found that interacting with animals did not reduce depression in
psychiatric nursing home residents, and a third found no differ-
ences in the loneliness of adult pet owners and nonowners. So
far, none of these studies have appeared in print.
Finally, erroneous positive results are more common in
areas of science in which researchers have vested interests—
financial or otherwise—in a study’s outcome. Researchers are
often drawn to the study of human–animal relationships
because they are pet lovers who are personally convinced of
the healing powers of the human–animal bond. Hence investi-
gators in this field need to be particularly vigilant in designing
studies that reduce the chances of unconsciously biasing
research results. This can be especially problematic in studies
on the impact of pets on human health in which it is often dif-
ficult or impossible to eliminate placebo effects via traditional
methods such as single- and double-blind experimental and
control groups.
Why Psychologists Should Study Human–
Animal Relationships
In short, despite the growing body of research on the bonds
between people and pets, the existence of a pet effect on
human health and happiness remains a hypothesis in need of
confirmation rather than an established fact. This conclusion
should not be taken as a condemnation of pet keeping. Indeed,
companion animals have always been part of my own life, and
I understand the joys that come with living with members of
other species. Nor am I arguing that behavioral scientists
should avoid studying the impact of animals on human health
and well-being. In fact, we need more rather than less research
on this topic.
Rozin (2006) cogently observed that in their quest to
explain general principles of behavior, psychologists have
neglected huge domains of human life such as food, work, and
religion. I would add our attitudes, behaviors, and relation-
ships with other species to the list of topics that most people
find fascinating but that psychologists have for the most part
ignored. The study of our interactions with animals is interest-
ing, important, and challenging. Whether, and under what cir-
cumstances, pets make people happier and healthier is unclear.
It is, however, clear that animals play a role in nearly every
aspect of human psychological and cultural life. And our atti-
tudes and behaviors toward and relationships with other spe-
cies offer a unique window into many aspects of human nature.
Recommended Reading
Archer, J. (2011). Pet keeping: A case study in maladaptive behavior.
In C.A. Salmon & T.K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 281–296). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. Provides an overview of evolutionary
theories of pet keeping.
Herzog, H. (2010). (See References). An accessible introduction to
aspects of the psychology of human–animal interactions ranging
from the effects of pets on human health and happiness to how
people make moral decisions about the use of other species.
by Divya Menon on August 9, 2011cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Pets, Human Health, and Psychological Well-Being 239
Knight, S., & Herzog, H. (Eds.). (2009). New perspectives on
human–animal interactions: Theory, policy, and research [Special
issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 65. Journal issue devoted to cur-
rent research on aspects of human–animal relationships.
McCardle, P., McCune, S., Griffin, J.A., & Maholmes, V. (Eds.).
(2011). How animals affect us: Examining the influence of human–
animal interaction on child development and human health. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association. Edited volume
focused on pets and child development but also including excellent
reviews on the impact of animals on human health and well-being.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Allen, K. (2003). Are pets a healthy pleasure? The influence of pets
on blood pressure. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
12, 236–239.
Allen, K., Shykoff, B.E., & Izzo, J.L. (2001). Pet ownership, but not
ACE inhibitor therapy, blunts home blood pressure responses to
mental stress. Hypertension, 38, 815–820.
Becker, M. (2002). The healing power of pets: Harnessing the amaz-
ing ability of pets to make and keep people happy and healthy.
New York, NY: Hyperion Books.
El-Alayli, A., Lystad, A.L., Webb, S.R., Hollingsworth, S.L., & Ciolli,
J. L. (2006). Reigning cats and dogs: A pet-enhancement bias and
its link to pet attachment, pet–self similarity, self-enhancement, and
well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 131–143.
Friedmann, E., Katcher, A., Lynch, J., & Thomas, S. (1980). Ani-
mal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge
from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95, 307–312.
Gilbey, A., McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2007). A longitudinal
test of the belief that companion animal ownership can help
reduce loneliness. Anthrozoös, 20, 345–353.
Gillum, R.F., & Obisesan, T.O. (2010). Living with companion ani-
mals, physical activity and mortality in a US national cohort.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 7, 2452–2459.
Headey, B., & Grabka, M. (2011). Health correlates of pet ownership
from national surveys. In P. McCardle, S. McCune, J.A. Griffin
& V. Maholmes (Eds.), How animals affect us: Examining the
influence of human–animal interaction on child development and
human health (pp. 153–162). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Herzog, H. (2010). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: Why it’s
so hard to think straight about animals. New York, NY: Harper.
Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005). Why most published research findings are
false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696–701.
Koivusilta, L.K., & Ojanlatva, A. (2006). To have or not to have a pet
for better health? PloS One, 1, 1–9.
Miltiades, H., & Shearer, J. (2011). Attachment to pet dogs and
depression in rural older adults. Anthrozoös, 24, 147–154.
Müllersdorf, M., Granström, F., Sahlqvist, L., & Tillgren, P. (2010).
Aspects of health, physical/leisure activities, work and socio-
demographics associated with pet ownership in Sweden. Scandi-
navian Journal of Public Health, 38, 53–63.
Nimer, J., & Lundahl, B. (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-
analysis. Anthrozoös, 20, 225–238.
Parker, G., Gayed, A., Owen, C., Hyett, M., Hilton, T., & Heruc,
G. (2010). Survival following an acute coronary syndrome: A
pet theory put to the test. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121,
Parslow, R. A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., & Rodgers, B. (2005).
Pet ownership and health in older adults: Findings from a survey
of 2,551 community-based Australians aged 60–64. Gerontology,
51, 40–47.
Rozin, P. (2006). Domain denigration and process preference in aca-
demic psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1,
Straatman, I., Hanson, E.K.S., Endenburg, N., & Mol, J.A. (1997).
The influence of a dog on male students during a stressor. Anthro-
zoös, 10, 191–197.
Wells, D.L. (2009a). The effects of animals on human health and
well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 523–543.
Wells, D.L. (2009b). Associations between pet ownership and self-
reported health status in people suffering from chronic fatigue
syndrome. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine,
15, 407–413.
Wright, J.D., Kritz-Silverstein, D., Morton, D.J., Wingard, D.L., &
Barrett-Connor, E. (2007). Pet ownership and blood pressure in
old age. Epidemiology, 18, 613–617.
by Divya Menon on August 9, 2011cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... Given the restrictions on interaction with others, this may be a time when people have found solace in companion animals. Empirical studies have shown that human-companion animal bonds can have benefits for human psychological and physical well being (Fiocco & Hunse, 2017;Glassey, 2010;Headey & Grabka, 2011;Herzog, 2011;Smith, 2012;Wood et al., 2018). A study by Herzog (2011) found that people with companion animals made 15% fewer doctor visits than those without, as well as exercising more, sleeping better, feeling fitter, and missing less work. ...
... Empirical studies have shown that human-companion animal bonds can have benefits for human psychological and physical well being (Fiocco & Hunse, 2017;Glassey, 2010;Headey & Grabka, 2011;Herzog, 2011;Smith, 2012;Wood et al., 2018). A study by Herzog (2011) found that people with companion animals made 15% fewer doctor visits than those without, as well as exercising more, sleeping better, feeling fitter, and missing less work. These effects were stronger for individuals who reported being closely attached to their companion animal (Herzog, 2011). ...
... A study by Herzog (2011) found that people with companion animals made 15% fewer doctor visits than those without, as well as exercising more, sleeping better, feeling fitter, and missing less work. These effects were stronger for individuals who reported being closely attached to their companion animal (Herzog, 2011). Similarly, a systematic review of 70 empirical studies found companion animals often have a positive impact on older adults' physical and mental well-being, improving blood pressure, heart rate variability, and quality of life, and reducing depressive, anxiety, and dementia symptoms (Hughes et al., 2020). ...
... Nature experiences and interactions with animals have been proven to satisfy a person's innate needs for nurturing, bonding, and well-being [2][3][4]. Interactions with nonhuman animals may be very beneficial and significant for many individuals due to the emotional reactions elicited and the resulting well-being [5]. When individuals spend time outdoors and interact with animals, they build stronger emotional ties, which may increase empathy, compassion, and involvement in environmental-friendly actions [6,7]. ...
Full-text available
Interactions between humans and animals benefit human health and well-being. There has been little study on the effects of bird encounters on people. This study addresses this conceptual gap by analyzing the results of a between-subjects experiment with 136 undergraduate students who were randomly assigned to experience one of four 360 stereo panorama virtual environments representing four encounters, namely "bird depicted in images," "Birds in a Cage," "Watching Birds in Nature inside a path," and "Birds in nature." Following their encounter in a virtual environment, participants assessed their experience in terms of spatial awareness, emotions, psychological well-being, and connection to nature through the use of an online survey. Standard descriptive statistics, correlation, Kruskal–Wallis, and post hoc Bonferroni analysis are used in data analysis. The findings suggested that experiences with birds in open surroundings were more likely to affect participants' spatial perception, emotions, psychological health potentials, and connection to nature than encounters with birds in confined places. This study is critical for environmental awareness since maintaining biodiversity and wildlife is inextricably linked to the potential well-being and quality of life of the human population who are part of the ecosystem.
... Critical voices have identified that studies in this field often lacked scientific rigor [38][39][40][41] and systematic research and randomized-controlled trials to establish a robust knowledge base are scarce [41]. However, despite the lack of an established evidence base, animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are already employed in many educational settings world-wide and their use continues to increase rapidly (e.g. ...
Full-text available
Prolonged or excessive stress negatively affects learning, behavior and health across the lifespan. To alleviate adverse effects of stress in school children, stressors should be reduced, and support and effective interventions provided. Animal-assisted interventions (AAI) have shown beneficial effects on health and wellbeing, however, robust knowledge on stress mediation in children is lacking. Despite this, AAIs are increasingly employed in settings world-wide, including schools, to reduce stress and support learning and wellbeing. This study is the first randomized controlled trial to investigate dog-assisted interventions as a mediator of stress in school children with and without special educational needs (SEN) over the school term. Interventions were carried out individually and in small groups twice a week for 20 minutes over the course of 4 weeks. We compared physiological changes in salivary cortisol in a dog intervention group with a relaxation intervention group and a no treatment control group. We compared cortisol level means before and after the 4 weeks of interventions in all children as well as acute cortisol in mainstream school children. Dog interventions lead to significantly lower stress in children with and without special educational needs compared to their peers in relaxation or no treatment control groups. In neurotypical children, those in the dog interventions showed no baseline stress level increases over the school term. In addition, acute cortisol levels evidenced significant stress reduction following the interventions. In contrast, the no treatment control group showed significant rises in baseline cortisol levels from beginning to end of school term. Increases also occurred in the relaxation intervention group. Children with SEN showed significantly decreased cortisol levels after dog group interventions. No changes occurred in the relaxation or no treatment control groups. These findings provide crucial evidence that dog interventions can successfully attenuate stress levels in school children with important implications for AAI implementation, learning and wellbeing.
... The benefits of human-animal relationships for human health and well-being have attracted scientific interest for years [33][34][35][36]. This is not only evidenced in the veterinary research literature [16,37], but also in human medicine publications [38,39], including the human paediatric literature [40][41][42][43][44]. ...
Full-text available
Obesity in humans is a growing global problem and is one of the greatest public health challenges we face today. Most researchers agree that, as in humans, the incidence in the companion animal population is also increasing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors contributing to canine obesity in a region with a high rate of human obesity (Canary Islands, Spain), co-occurrence of obesogenic risk factors, and a canine population with a high percentage of unneutered dogs. We have focused on owner risk factors that promote obesity in humans, such as weight, lifestyle, nutritional habits, and low physical activity, among others. Thus, the human–animal interaction relationship that contributes to human obesity and influences canine obesity has been studied. A multicentre cross-sectional analytical study of 198 pairs of dogs from urban households and their owners was used. A multivariable logistic regression study was completed to analyse owner characteristics variables associated with canine obesity. This transdisciplinary study was conducted with physicians and veterinarians using a “One Health” approach. Our results suggest that, in a region of high obesogenic risk, obese/overweight dogs are primarily female, older than 6 years, and neutered. Being an overweight dog owner was found to be the most important factor in the occurrence of obesity in dogs. Owners of overweight dogs were mainly females, older than 40 years, who did not engage in any physical activity. A strong correlation has been found between dog owners with low levels of education and obesity in their dogs. We suggest that veterinarians should develop and design strategies to encourage pet owners to engage in physical activity with their dogs for the benefit of both.
... Hypothetically, dog and cat populations in Bangladesh are predicted as 1.6 million and 1 million respectively. This increasing trend of having a pet in the home has been attributed to various reasons including 'misfiring of parental instincts, biophilia (a hypothetical biologically based love of nature), social contagion, the tendency for the middle class to emulate the customs of the rich, the need to dominate the natural world, social isolation in urban societies, and the desire to teach responsibility and kindness to children' (Herzog, 2011). But several health problems of the pet make their owners more tensed and worried. ...
Full-text available
Keeping pet (dogs and cats) has become a cultural phenomenon throughout the world including Bangladesh. Hepatic problem is an important health issue that may cause mortality of these pet. This study was conducted with the aimed to detect the hepatic problem in dogs and cats along with its frequency in different sex, age and breeds of animals. A total of 100 clinically suspected animals (50 dogs and 50 cats) were included in the study. After thorough clinical examination, 2 ml bloods were collected by venue puncture in serum vials for biochemical analysis. After that all animals were subjected to x-ray and ultrasonography. In biochemical analysis standard deviation of hepatic enzymes (902. Abstract-Keeping pet (dogs and cats) has become a cultural phenomenon throughout the world including Bangladesh. Hepatic problem is an important health issue that may cause mortality of these pet. This study was conducted with the aimed to detect the hepatic problem in dogs and cats along with its frequency in different sex, age and breeds of animals. A total of 100 clinically suspected animals (50 dogs and 50 cats) were included in the study. After thorough clinical examination, 2 ml bloods were collected by venue puncture in serum vials for biochemical analysis. After that all animals were subjected to x-ray and ultrasonography. In biochemical analysis standard deviation of hepatic enzymes (902..81±0.74 mg/dl bilirubin in cat). The standard deviation of other parameters like albumin, total protein, BUN, glucose and cholesterol were below the mean value. Some abnormal morphology (misshaped and enlarged liver) and pharenchymal lesions (hypoechoic zone and thickened capsule) were also found in some animals in x-ray and ultrasonography respectively. Hepatic problems were recorded 18% and 12% by serum biochemistry and 6% and 4% by imaging techniques (x-ray and USG) in case of dogs and cats respectively. In age wise distribution, old animals (more than 5 years) (50% in both dog and cats) were more susceptible for hepatic problem that was statistically significant (P<0.05). In conclusion, a good percentage of hepatic problems were identified in both dogs and cats and was more in old animals. So, it is encouraging the pet owner to regular check up their pet in older age to diagnose the hepatic problems in earlier stage. This early diagnosis will be helpful for effective treatment.
... Some studies have shown dog acquisition improves human mental wellbeing [36][37][38], but other studies have found null effects [39][40][41] or even a detrimental association between pet ownership and mental health [42]. Despite the uncertainty in the scientific literature, extensive media coverage has led to a widespread belief that pet ownership is beneficial for mental health [43]. A 2016 survey by the Human Animal Bond Research Institute found that 71% of pet owners were aware of scientific evidence that showed pet ownership can improve human health [44], and studies have shown that most prospective dog owners expect their dog to improve their mental and physical health [19]. ...
Full-text available
Millions of animals are adopted from animal shelters in the United States each year, although some are returned post-adoption, which can decrease both the animals’ chances of future adoptions and the owners’ willingness to adopt again. In this study, we investigated the impact of adopter expectations for ownership and animal behavioral problems on post-adoptive dog returns at a large animal shelter in South Carolina. Between June–September 2021, 132 dog adopters completed a survey about their expectations for ownership through Qualtrics. Twenty-nine adopters returned their dogs to the shelter within three months of adoption, with a median length of ownership of eight days. Owners completed follow-up questionnaires about their perceptions of adoption and dog behavior at two days, two weeks, and four months post-adoption. Categorical principal component analysis revealed three factors pertaining to adopters’ expectations for ownership. Independent t-tests showed returning owners had significantly higher expectations for dog behavior and health (t = −2.32, p = 0.02) and the human–dog bond compared with non-returning owners (t = −2.36, p = 0.02). Expectations for ownership responsibilities did not differ between the groups. Two-thirds of adopters experienced dog behavioral problems post-adoption, although training difficulty decreased significantly between two days and four months (F = 5.22, p = 0.01) and nonsocial fear decreased between two weeks and four months post-adoption (X2 = 10.17, p = 0.01). Shelters may benefit from utilizing adoption counselling to ensure adopters understand the potential for dog behavioral problems in the early stages of ownership and develop appropriate expectations for the human–dog relationship. Post-adoption behavioral support may also help some owners to overcome behavioral difficulties as their dogs adapt to the new environment.
Drawing on the transactional theory of stress, the current study investigates whether employee job insecurity triggers employee behavioral strain reactions (i.e., alcohol use, marijuana use, and cigarette use) and psychological strain reactions (i.e., emotional exhaustion and depression) through stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we integrate social support theory and expect the moderating role of pet attachment support in the above relationships. By collecting two-wave data from 187 employees with pets in the United States, we found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, stress mediated the relationships between job insecurity and predicted behavioral and psychological reactions. Moreover, pet attachment support buffered the relationships between stress and these behavioral and psychological strain reactions (all except cigarette use). Pet attachment support also alleviated the conditional indirect effects job insecurity had on the two types of strain reactions via stress. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of this study.
Companion animals and humans are known to share extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC), but the extent of E. coli sequence types (STs) that cause extraintestinal diseases in dogs is not well understood. Here, we generated whole-genome sequences of 377 ExPEC collected by the University of Melbourne Veterinary Hospital from dogs over an 11-year period from 2007 to 2017. Isolates were predominantly from urogenital tract infections (219, 58.1%), but isolates from gastrointestinal specimens (51, 13.5%), general infections (72, 19.1%), and soft tissue infections (34, 9%) were also represented. A diverse collection of 53 STs were identified, with 18 of these including at least five sequences. The five most prevalent STs were ST372 (69, 18.3%), ST73 (31, 8.2%), ST127 (22, 5.8%), ST80 (19, 5.0%), and ST58 (14, 3.7%). Apart from ST372, all of these are prominent human ExPEC STs. Other common ExPEC STs identified included ST12, ST131, ST95, ST141, ST963, ST1193, ST88, and ST38. Virulence gene profiles, antimicrobial resistance carriage, and trends in plasmid carriage for specific STs were generally reflective of those seen in humans. Many of the prominent STs were observed repetitively over an 11-year time span, indicating their persistence in the dogs in the community, which is most likely driven by household sharing of E. coli between humans and their pets. The case of ST372 as a dominant canine lineage observed sporadically in humans is flagged for further investigation. IMPORTANCE Pathogenic E. coli that causes extraintestinal infections (ExPEC) in humans and canines represents a significant burden in hospital and veterinary settings. Despite the obvious interrelationship between dogs and humans favoring both zoonotic and anthropozoonotic infections, whole-genome sequencing projects examining large numbers of canine-origin ExPEC are lacking. In support of anthropozoonosis, we found that most STs from canine infections are dominant human ExPEC STs (e.g., ST73, ST127, ST131) with similar genomic traits, such as plasmid carriage and virulence gene burden. In contrast, we identified ST372 as the dominant canine ST and a sporadic cause of infection in humans, supporting zoonotic transfer. Furthermore, we highlight that, as is the case in humans, STs in canine disease are consistent over time, implicating the gastrointestinal tract as the major community reservoir, which is likely augmented by exposure to human E. coli via shared diet and proximity.
This is the second part of a two-part article presenting the theoretical and empirical case for nonhuman animal (hereafter, ‘animal’) spirituality. Part 1 discussed the relevance of evolutionary theory and species differences for understanding animals’ capacity to have spiritual experience, conceptual issues related to defining animal spirituality, and methodological considerations regarding analogical reasoning and animal-centered anthropomorphism as heuristic strategies in the study of animal spirituality. Issues related to the question of animal consciousness and the use of evolutionary panentheism as a philosophical/theological frame for theorizing about animal spirituality were discussed. Part 2 examines six biopsychosocial capabilities of animals that are building blocks of human spirituality—cognition, imagination, emotion, moral sense, personality, and value-life (Maslow’s phrase)—and proposes an ontic pluralism of animal spiritualities. Part 2 concludes with a discussion of the wide-ranging implications for human society of consciously accepting the possibility of animal spirituality and capacity to have spiritual experience.
Full-text available
During two retreats in 2017 and 2020, a group of international scientists convened to explore the Human-Animal Bond. The meetings, hosted by the Wallis Annenberg PetSpace Leadership Institute, took a broad view of the human-dog relationship and how interactions between the two may benefit us medically, psychologically or through their service as working dogs (e.g. guide dogs, explosive detection, search and rescue, cancer detection). This Frontiers’ Special Topic has collated the presentations into a broad collection of 14 theoretical and review papers summarizing the latest research and practice in the historical development of our deepening bond with dogs, the physiological and psychological changes that occur during human-dog interactions (to both humans and dogs) as well as the selection, training and welfare of companion animals and working dogs. The overarching goals of this collection are to contribute to the current standard of understanding of human-animal interaction, suggest future directions in applied research, and to consider the interdisciplinary societal implications of the findings.
Full-text available
The widely held belief that companion animal ownership can help to reduce loneliness was tested using a quasi-experimental longitudinal design. Over a six-month period, 59 participants completed the UCLA-Loneliness Scale when they were seeking to acquire a companion animal. Participants' loneliness was measured again six-months after their initial recruitment, by which time 35 of the 59 participants had acquired a new companion animal. There was no evidence that companion animal acquisition helped to reduce levels of loneliness, irrespective of whether participants already owned a companion animal at the time of seeking to acquire a new companion animal, or the type of companion animal that was acquired. There was no evidence that participants who ultimately acquired a new companion animal differed from participants who did not, suggesting that the findings were not a consequence of a self-selection bias. The perseverance and apparent strength of the belief that companion animal ownership can alleviate loneliness is discussed in relation to the current findings.
Pet owners often describe their pets as important and cherished family members who offer solace in times of stress. This article considers evidence suggesting that pets influence human blood pressure. Studies on this topic extend current research testing the hypothesis that having other people around in stressful times can buffer the negative consequences of stress. The existing data suggest that people perceive pets as important, supportive parts of their lives and that the presence of a pet is associated with significant cardiovascular benefits, among both people with normal blood pressure and those with high blood pressure. Studies about pets and blood pressure have examined both naturally occurring and randomly assigned pet ownership but are limited by their focus on responses to short-term, acute stress. Future prospective studies should explore the influence of pets on people at risk for cardiovascular disease and also consider explanatory mechanisms for the pet effect.
Substantial sums of money are invested annually in preventative medicine and therapeutic treatment for people with a wide range of physical and psychological health problems, sometimes to no avail. There is now mounting evidence to suggest that companion animals, such as dogs and cats, can enhance the health of their human owners and may thus contribute significantly to the health expenditure of our country. This paper explores the evidence that pets can contribute to human health and well-being. The article initially concentrates on the value of animals for short- and long-term physical health, before exploring the relationship between animals and psychological health, focusing on the ability of dogs, cats, and other species to aid the disabled and serve as a “therapist” to those in institutional settings. The paper also discusses the evidence for the ability of dogs to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of specific chronic diseases, notably cancer, epilepsy, and diabetes. Mechanisms underlying the ability of animals to promote human health are discussed within a theoretical framework. Whereas the evidence for a direct causal association between human well-being and companion animals is not conclusive, the literature reviewed is largely supportive of the widely held, and long-standing, belief that “pets are good for us.”
We extended past research on the self-enhancement bias and the mere ownership effect to examine whether people have favorably distorted views of their pets. Participants in Study 1 rated their own pet and the average pet on a series of desirable and undesirable personality traits. Participants rated their own pet more favorably than the average pet, revealing a pet-enhancement bias. Study 2 found that the extent of bias was positively correlated with pet attachment, pet-self similarity, and self-enhancement. Pet enhancement was also correlated with some indexes of subjective well-being but for only a subsample of participants. Pet-self similarity was more consistently related to well-being. Results are discussed in terms of their relevance to the potential psychological and physiological benefits that can be derived from people's perceptions of their pets.
Unlike most other disciplines, psychology parses its field primarily in terms of processes or mental entities (e.g., learning, sensation, perception, memory), rather than domains of life (e.g., eating, work, leisure). Although there are merits in this organization, a perhaps unintended result is that psychology has paid minimal attention to the major domains of life and how people function in them. Examination of contemporary major introductory, social, and developmental psychology textbooks reveals that their indexes include almost no terms representing five critical domains: food, politics, religion, leisure-entertainment, and work. The process division of psychology dates back at least to Wundt and James, and probably derives from psychology's origins and early dedication to discovering general laws of the mind. The avoidance of study of life domains in psychology is related to several forces, including a downgrading of both applied research and descriptive research in favor of theory and laboratory experimentation. Psychology would profit from paying greater attention to describing and explaining what people actually do, an endeavor that would perhaps be facilitated by a focus on the domains of daily life. © 2006 Association for Psychological Science.
Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) has been practiced for many years and there is now increasing interest in demonstrating its efficacy through research. To date, no known quantitative review of AAT studies has been published; our study sought to fill this gap. We conducted a comprehensive search of articles reporting on AAT in which we reviewed 250 studies, 49 of which met our inclusion criteria and were submitted to meta-analytic procedures. Overall, AAT was associated with moderate effect sizes in improving outcomes in four areas: Autism-spectrum symptoms, medical difficulties, behavioral problems, and emotional well-being. Contrary to expectations, characteristics of participants and studies did not produce differential outcomes. AAT shows promise as an additive to established interventions and future research should investigate the conditions under which AAT can be most helpful.
The psychological and cardiovascular influence of a friendly, unfamiliar dog on a group of 17 male students was compared to a group of men (19) who did not have access to the dog, during a stressor. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured during 4 test conditions (rest, preparation, speech task, recovery). State-anxiety was measured before and after the preparation and speech task. Subjects from the experimental group(E) but not from the control group(C) interacted with a dog during the preparation and speech tasks. The preparation and speech tasks caused statistically significant increases in cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure, heart rate) (F(12,22) = 17.60; p = 0.000), and state-anxiety (E-group: ¯xsta1 = 29.8; ¯xsta 2 = 47.9; t = -6.12; df = 16; p = 0.000, C-group: ¯xsta1 = 31.4; ¯xsta2 = 47,0; t = -5.68; df = 18; p = 0.000). No significant differences were found between the control and the experimental group with regard to state-anxiety anxiety (¯xc =15.6; ¯xe =-18.2; t = 0.63; df = 34; p = 0.533), blood pressure and heart rate (F(4,30) = 1.18; p = 0.338), even after controlling for the effects of daily stress (F(4,29) =1.427; p = 0.250). It is concluded that a friendly but unfamiliar dog has no significant psychological or cardiovascular effect on male students during a speech task in a laboratory setting. Possibly the stress of the speech task and the laboratory setting overrided the influence of the pet.
The purpose of this study was to learn more about the relationship between pet attachment, the ability to care for a pet, and depression in older adults. One hundred and seventeen Caucasian, older, adult dog owners in rural, south-central Pennsylvania were recruited using non-random sampling methods through veterinary offices and dog grooming salons in south-central Pennsylvania, USA. They completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire, which was returned by mail. Half of the respondents were female, 74% were married, and 27% were employed. Attachment to pet dogs was measured by the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale. Regression analysis revealed that higher levels of pet attachment and widowhood were associated with higher levels of depression, and the ability to care for the dog and satisfaction with human relationships were associated with lower levels of depression. Higher levels of pet attachment may indicate that the pet plays a central role in the older adult's life and may substitute for human companionship.