Content uploaded by Jennifer Vonk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Vonk on Aug 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
Download by: [Oakland University], [Jennifer Vonk] Date: 23 November 2016, At: 07:35
Anthrozoös
A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals
ISSN: 0892-7936 (Print) 1753-0377 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20
Not So Cold-blooded: Narcissistic and Borderline
Personality Traits Predict Attachment to
Traditional and Non-traditional Pets
Jennifer Vonk, Chelsea Patton & Moriah Galvan
To cite this article: Jennifer Vonk, Chelsea Patton & Moriah Galvan (2016) Not So Cold-blooded:
Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Traits Predict Attachment to Traditional and Non-
traditional Pets, Anthrozoös, 29:4, 627-637, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1228762
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228762
Published online: 22 Nov 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 29, ISSUE 4 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2016
PP. 627–637 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
627 Anthrozoös DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1228762
Not So Cold-blooded:
Narcissistic and Borderline
Personality Traits Predict
Attachment to Traditional and
Non-traditional Pets
Jennifer Vonk, Chelsea Patton and Moriah Galvan
Department of Psychology, Oakland University, USA
ABSTRACT A growing number of studies have assessed the personality of
pet owners. However, although there is a large number of people who own
exotic pets, their personalities have seldom been examined. Furthermore,
studies of personality of pet owners have focused almost exclusively on typical
personality traits, ignoring associations with “dark” traits. Here, we assessed
both traditional and some dark personality features in association with pet
ownership and attachment in 325 pet owners via an online survey. We
predicted that individuals scoring higher on narcissism and borderline per-
sonality features would be a) more likely to own exotic pets, and b) less
attached to their pets compared with people scoring lower on narcissism and
traditional pet owners. Additionally, we theorized that neurotic pet owners
would be more attached to their pets compared with less neurotic pet owners.
We did not find an association between personality and exotic pet ownership
but we found that those high in grandiose narcissism were actually more
attached to their traditional pets. Those high in vulnerable narcissism were
more attached only if their pets were exotic. Those high in borderline features
were less attached to both kinds of pets. Personality assessments including
“dark” features of personality may therefore be useful in predicting attachment
to pets during the matching process of potential adopters to pets.
Keywords: attachment, borderline, narcissism, neuroticism, personality,
pet ownership
Researchers have become increasingly interested in the pet–
human relationship in the past several decades. In particular,
researchers have assessed the relationship between personality
of the pet owner with type or personality of their pet (Kidd and Kidd 1980;
Podberscek and Serpell 1997; Hergovich, Mauerer and Riemer 2011;
Wells and Hepper 2012), with the goal being to ascertain compatibility of
Address for correspondence:
Jennifer Vonk,
Department of Psychology,
Oakland University,
654 Pioneer Drive,
Rochester, MI 48309, USA.
E-mail: vonk@oakland.edu
❖
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 627
owner to pet (Budge et al. 1998). Most of the existing studies have focused on traditional pet
owners with typical personality traits (Gosling, Carson and Potter 2010). Although many people
choose a traditional pet, such as a cat or a dog, some people are drawn to more exotic pets.
Relationships with these pets have not been extensively examined (although see Hergovich,
Maurer and Riemer 2011 for one recent exception). Furthermore, prior research has focused
on the Big Five personality traits (McCrae and Costa 2008) but has not examined the rela-
tionship between “dark” personality features and pet ownership. Furthermore, few studies
have examined personality in conjunction with attachment to pets, and those that have are
limited to dog and cat owners (Bagley and Gonsman 2005; Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer and
Shaver 2011), with one exception: Reevy and Delgado (2015)’s large sample included only
6.8% who chose a pet other than a cat or dog as their favorite pet. Even in this recent study,
the authors focused on comparisons between “dog people” and “cat people.”
In the current study, we explored the idea that individuals who score higher on assessments
of “dark” traits, such as narcissism and borderline personality, would be more likely to own ex-
otic pets and would show lower levels of attachment to these pets compared with traditional
pet owners and those lower in dark personality features. Our hypothesis is based on the idea
that individuals high in narcissism might own exotic pets as a form of status, rather than as a
source of comfort. Narcissism is sometimes conceptualized as an extreme form of self-love
and can be described as being of two general types: vulnerable and grandiose (Cain, Pincus
and Ansell 2008; Pincus et al. 2009 Pincus and Lukowitsky 2010). Some traits of narcissistic
individuals are an inflated view of the self, lack of empathy, manipulation (Morf and Rhodewalt
2001), and unsatisfying or unfulfilling relationships with those around them (Campbell, Finkle
and Foster 2002). Grandiose narcissism is particularly associated with characteristics such as
exploitativeness and lack of empathy, whereas vulnerable narcissism is more clearly associ-
ated with dysregulation of the self in interpersonal contexts (Cain et al. 2008). We might ex-
pect grandiosity to be more strongly associated with exotic pet ownership whereas vulnerability
might be more strongly associated with dysfunctional attachment styles, in the context of pet
ownership. Narcissism in general has often been hypothesized to arise from dysfunctional
attachment relationships with early caregivers (Kernberg 1975; Kohut 1977; Cater, Zeigler-Hill
and Vonk 2011). Given some prior evidence that people’s attachment styles translate to pet
attachments (Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer and Shaver 2011), we were interested in the extent to
which personality traits associated with dysfunctional attachment to other humans might trans-
late to diminished attachment to pets.
To sustain an inflated view of the self, narcissists in general are often drawn to others who
vicariously improve their self-image and maintain shallow relationships to serve this goal. People
who score high on narcissistic tendencies use multiple mediums to seek attention and fulfill
their self-esteem. Marshall, Lefringhausen and Ferenczi (2015), for instance, found that
individuals high in narcissism posted status updates more often that boasted of their accom-
plishments, exercise, and diet routines. Individuals scoring high on narcissism were also more
likely to post suggestive photos of themselves on the Internet and used more profane words
to describe themselves (DeWall et al. 2011). This study illustrates the ability of a narcissist to
use an array of mediums to either attract or shock people for attention. Narcissists might thus
be drawn to less traditional pets because they deviate from the norm and might attract
attention to the owner.
Narcissists commonly use their personal relationships to draw attention to themselves or
increase their self-esteem. Accomplished or attractive romantic partners are often chosen
Not so Cold-blooded: Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Traits Predict Attachment to Traditional…
628 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 628
because their high status in one way or another vicariously creates a positive view of the
narcissistic person. However, these relationships do not usually epitomize deep connections or
happiness over time (Campbell, Finkle and Foster 2002). This goal-oriented pattern establishes
a basis for narcissistic persons to create shallow connections to boost their self-image. The de-
sire for low maintenance relationships that enhance self-image might lend itself to a desire for
some types of exotic pets, such as reptiles and insects, as there can be limited interactions with
such animals that, nonetheless, often evoke strong reactions from onlookers. The motivation for
the relationship with the pet would not necessarily involve the connection itself but would revolve
around improving the narcissist’s self-image. Therefore we predict lower levels of attachment for
the narcissistic pet owner compared with the traditional pet owner. Further, we might assume that
narcissists are more likely to own exotic pets because there is less maintenance needed than with
a more traditional pet. We also predict that those owning exotic pets in general may be less
attached to their pets compared with traditional pet owners. There is no prior research elucidat-
ing the relationship between narcissistic personality traits and attachment to pets. However,
narcissism and its relationship to pet preference has been explored to some extent. Alba and
Haslam (2015) hypothesized that traits related to dominance, including narcissism, might predict
dog rather than cat ownership. However, they found no clear associations.
Other personality variables, in addition to narcissism may influence one’s choice of pet, or
the nature of one’s relationship with pets. For example, borderline personality disorder is a dis-
order characterized by troubled interpersonal relationships and is often explained in terms of
insecure and fear-based attachment styles (de Zulueta 1999; Choi-Kain et al. 2009; Steele et
al. 2015). Thus, we expected borderline personality features to potentially be associated with
unhealthy attachment to pets as well. Borderline individuals are often highly neurotic, and neu-
roticism has been shown to be associated with psychological and life stress, maladjustment,
and poor coping (for a review, see Ormel, Rosemalen and Farmer 2004). Owners of traditional
pets have been observed to have less neuroticism than non-pet owners (Miltiades and Shearer
2011; Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer and Shaver 2012). Those who own aggressive versus non-
aggressive pets tend to be more neurotic (Podberscek and Serpell 1997; Wells and Hepper
2012). More neurotic people, or people going through a transition period increasing their neu-
rotic tendencies, have been shown to have an increased attachment to their traditional pet
(Sable 1989, 1991, 1995; Miltiades and Shearer 2011). A pet serves as a consistent emotional
support in times of need, and it follows that individuals with increased neurotic tendencies
would have increased attachment to their pet.
Neuroticism is just one of the “Big Five” personality traits examined in conjunction with pet
ownership. One of the very few studies to examine the personality of exotic versus traditional
pet owners (Hergovich, Maurer and Riemer 2011) found sex differences in personality traits
linked with exotic pet ownership. They found that females who owned cold-blooded exotic
pets scored higher on openness compared with females who owned more traditional pets.
They also scored higher on agreeableness compared with male owners of exotic pets. The au-
thors concluded that personality may predict choice of pets, but predictions depend upon the
sex of the owner. Kidd, Kelly and Kid (1983) also found sex differences in the relationship be-
tween personality features and choice of pet. Their study included a broader range of pet
species, but they did not assess Big Five personality traits, making it hard to compare their re-
sults with more traditional measures of personality. Personality traits that predict attachment
(or lack thereof) to different types of pets may be valuable in predicting commitment to pet
ownership, given the exorbitant number of pets returned to shelters each year.
Vonk et al.
629 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 629
The aims of this study were first to assess whether there is a greater degree of narcissis-
tic tendencies in exotic pet owners compared with more traditional pet owners and to assess
their attachment styles. We predicted that individuals high in narcissism would be both more
likely to own non-traditional pets and would be less attached to pets in general. We also
hypothesized that individuals high in borderline traits and low in neuroticism would show
weaker attachments to pets. Note that we did not assess clinical levels of these traits, but
rather focused on the variation that is evident in non-clinical samples.
Methods
Participants
Originally, 337 participants completed part of the survey. Of these, 325 (267 female) completed
all measures such that their data were included in the reported analyses. These participants
were recruited from various personal and public websites and the Psychology participant pool
at a mid-sized American University. We recruited participants specifically with the goal of ob-
taining a reasonable sample of exotic pet owners, so our sample may not be representative
of the general population. Of our 325 participants, 217 participants (181 female) responded
to the survey with regard to a traditional pet (e.g., cat, dog, hamster), whereas 108 participants
(86 female) responded to the survey with regard to a non-traditional pet (e.g. parrot, reptile,
nonhuman primate, barnyard animal). Only 10 of these non-traditional pet owners owned a
farm animal. The mean age of respondents was 20 years (Range 17–51). Pet owners were
classified as traditional or non-traditional as above. Missing data were handled by computing
the average scores for surveys.
Procedure
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Oakland University. Participants
followed a link provided to the online survey, posted on Surveymonkey.com. They provided
their electronic signature as consent to participate and proceeded to complete a series of
online questionnaires. Participants completed some additional surveys—data from which were
not considered in the reported analyses (e.g., measures of empathy and gender identity).
Participants first responded to some demographic questions about themselves and their
relationship with their pet. They then completed empathy and gender identity measures, then
the pet attachment scales, and lastly the personality measures.
Materials
There are no existing scales designed specifically to assess attachment to non-traditional pets.
However, there are a number of surveys that assess attachment to traditional pets and which
can be modified (i.e., terms changed from “holding” to “interacting/taking care of,” etc.) to be
more appropriate for both traditional and non-traditional pets. The following surveys were mod-
ified here to assess attachment to either type of pet: Pet Attitude Scale (Templer et al. 1981),
Comfort and Companion Animal Scale (Zasloff 1996), Companion Animal Bonding Scale
(Poresky et al. 1987), and Pet Attachment Scale (Holcomb, Williams and Richards 1985).
Pet Attitude Scale—Modified, PAS-M: Created by Templer et al. (1981) and modified by
Munsell et al. (2004), this scale was designed to assess a person’s attitude to pets. It consists
of 18 questions describing three categories: love and interaction, pets in home, and joy of pet
ownership. Each question is rated by the individual on a 1 to 7 Likert scale, from strongly
disagree to strongly agree (␣= 0.92).
Not so Cold-blooded: Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Traits Predict Attachment to Traditional…
630 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 630
Comfort from Companion Animals Scale (CCAS): Zasloff (1996) noted that many scales were
biased to the human–canine connection, with questions focusing on functional aspects like ex-
ercise and grooming. Not all animals directly interact with their owner in that way and therefore
Zasloff created the CCAS to more accurately assess emotional connection to a variety of pets.
The survey originally consisted of 13 questions with two questions focusing on functional as-
pects, to show a bias toward dogs. The version used here excludes those questions. Each
question follows a Likert rating scale ranging from 1 to 4, with strongly disagree to strongly
agree. The higher the score, the higher perceived emotional comfort from the pet (␣= 0.97).
Companion Animal Bonding Scale (CABS): Created by Poresky et al. (1987) to assess
attachment in children to pets, the CABS is used here because the questions are not specific
to childhood and measure time spent taking care of pets as well as intimacy with the pet. It
consists of eight questions. Participants are asked to rate each question on a Likert scale from
1 to 5, from “never” to “always,” (␣= 0.87).
Pet Attachment Scale (PAS): This scale (Holcomb, Williams and Richards 1985) assesses
attachment to the pet and consists of 27 statements where the participant is asked to rate
each on how often it occurs, on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4, from “almost never” to
“almost always.” The scale assesses two different aspects of connection to the pet: intimacy
and relationship maintenance. Overall reliability was high (␣= 0.94).
Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI): The PNI was designed by Pincus et al. (2009) to
assess pathological narcissism. The survey consists of 52 questions assessing seven sub-
scales of narcissism. The subscales are combined to identify two types of narcissism:
grandiose and vulnerable. Grandiose narcissism is associated with the following: entitlement
rage, exploitative, grandiose fantasy, and self-sacrificing self-enhancement (␣= 0.87).
Vulnerable narcissism is associated with the following: contingent self-esteem, hiding the self,
and devaluating (␣= 0.96). Each question is a statement with a Likert rating from 1 to 6, with
“not like me at all” to “very much like me.” Participants are asked to rate each statement with
a reflection of how it best describes them.
Borderline Personality Features: The Borderline Features Scale of the Personality Assessment
Inventory (Morey 1991) is a 24-item scale that captures four commonly agreed upon compo-
nents of borderline personality functioning: affective instability, identity problems, negative
relationships, and self-harm. Responses were made on scales that ranged from 0 (false, not
at all true) to 3 (very true). This instrument has been shown to possess strong psychometric
properties (Morey 1991; Morey and Glutting 1994). For the present study, the internal
consistency of this measure was 0.86.
Big Five Inventory (BFI): The BFI was created by John, Donahue and Kentle (1991) to assess five
unique areas of personality. The survey consists of 44 statements rated on a Likert scale ranging
from 1 to 5, with “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” respectively. The five subscales indicated
sufficient reliability: agreeableness (␣= 0.83), extraversion (␣= 0.80), conscientiousness
(␣= 0.75), neuroticism (␣= 0.80), and openness (␣= 0.74).
Results
The bivariate correlations among the variables, along with descriptive statistics for each appear
in Table 1. Grandiose narcissism shows a strong positive correlation with attachment, while
Vonk et al.
631 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 631
Not so Cold-blooded: Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Traits Predict Attachment to Traditional…
632 Anthrozoös
Table 1. Descriptives and correlations among the variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Attachment –
2. Sex –0.18*** –
3. Pet Type 0.14** 0.05 –
4. Vulnerable 0.04 –0.01 –0.03 –
5. Grandiose 0.24*** –0.18*** –0.04 0.55*** –
6. Borderline –0.12* –0.06 –0.02 0.61*** 0.25*** –
7. Agreeableness 0.25*** –0.11 0.08 –0.43*** –0.01 –0.02*** –
8. Extraversion 0.14* –0.03 –0.07 –0.27*** 0.11 –0.25*** 0.25*** –
9. Conscientiousness 0.21*** –0.06 –0.01 –0.39*** –0.04 –0.43*** 0.60*** 0.24*** –
10. Neuroticism –0.07 –0.17** 0.08 0.44*** 0.11* 0.57*** –0.25*** –0.40*** –0.27*** –
11. Openness 0.16** 0.09 0.06 –0.08 0.24*** –0.08 0.28*** 0.19** 0.20*** –0.12* –
Mean 0.00 0.18 0.33 3.10 3.62 27.78 3.79 3.28 3.61 2.93 3.27
Standard Deviation 0.88 0.38 0.47 0.89 0.73 10.86 0.63 0.67 0.57 0.70 0.57
Minimum –3.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.56 1.00 2.22 1.00 1.60
Maximum 1.39 1.00 1.00 5.91 5.67 65.0 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.88 4.80
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 632
borderline personality features show a mild negative correlation with attachment. Agreeable-
ness, conscientiousness, and openness all show positive correlations with attachment. Sex
and pet ownership variables were dummy coded such that the mean of sex indicates the
percentage of males.
First, we conducted a logistic regression to determine whether individual personality char-
acteristics predicted the ownership of non-traditional pets. Only neurotic individuals were more
likely to own non-traditional pets, but this effect only approached significance, (= 0.45,
Wald = 3.66, p= 0.06, Exp (B) = 1.57). The odds ratio indicates that for each one unit increase
in neuroticism, individuals are 1.57 times as likely to own non-traditional pets.
We created a composite attachment variable by taking the average of the standardized
sums on the four attachment scales. We regressed this composite attachment score against
the classification of the pet as traditional or non-traditional (exotic), the sex of the owner, and
the personality variables of grandiosity, vulnerability, borderline, agreeableness, extraversion,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, which were entered on Step 2 of the hierar-
chical linear regression. On Step 3 we entered the interactions between these eight person-
ality variables and the classification of the pet (traditional/non-traditional). The data appear in
Table 2. Sex and type of pet ownership accounted for only 5% of the variability in attachment
to the pet. However, the addition of the personality traits increased the fit of the model, with
Vonk et al.
633 Anthrozoös
Table 2. Attachment to pet regressed on to personality features and classification of pet as
traditional or non-traditional (exotic).
Attachment to Pet
R2ßtp
Step 1 0.05 0.00
Sex –0.14 –2.52 0.01
Exotic –0.17 –2.98 0.00
Step 2 0.21 0.00
Grandiosity 0.14 1.91 0.06
Vulnerability 0.20 2.27 0.02
Borderline –0.18 –2.37 0.02
Agreeable 0.16 2.13 0.03
Extraverted 0.06 0.91 0.37
Conscientious 0.08 1.19 0.24
Neurotic 0.02 0.32 0.75
Open 0.12 2.08 0.04
Step 3 0.24 0.00
Grandiosity × Exotic –0.14 –1.52 0.13
Vulnerability × Exotic 0.28 2.62 0.01
Borderline × Exotic –0.03 –0.31 0.76
Agreeable × Exotic 0.02 0.16 0.87
Extraverted × Exotic –0.06 –0.71 0.48
Conscientious × Exotic 0.03 0.35 0.73
Neurotic × Exotic –0.16 –1.80 0.07
Open × Exotic 0.08 1.09 0.28
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 633
21% of the variance in attachment now accounted for by the model. Including interactions
between personality traits and type of pet owned accounted for 24% of the variance in
attachment. Interactions of pet type with grandiosity, vulnerability, and neuroticism accounted
for the greatest degree of variability subsumed by the model (14–28%).
In general, women reported higher levels of attachment to their pets than men did,
(= –0.14, t= –2.52, p= 0.01). People were generally more attached to traditional compared
to exotic pets (= –0.17, t= –2.98, p= 0.003). Vulnerable narcissism emerged as a unique
predictor of attachment whereby individuals higher in vulnerability were more attached to their
pets, (= 0.20, t= 2.27, p= 0.02), whereas people high in borderline traits were less attached,
(= –0.18, t= –2.37, p= 0.02). People higher in agreeableness (= 0.16, t= 2.13, p= 0.01)
and openness (= 0.12, t= 2.08, p= 0.04) were also more attached to their pets. There was
no unique effect of conscientiousness or neuroticism.
Vulnerability also interacted with pet classification to predict attachment, (= –0.28,
t= 2.62, p= 0.009). In order to understand the interaction, we ran separate regressions for
owners of traditional and non-traditional pets, including all of the same variables except for pet
type in the analyses. For traditional pets, vulnerability did not predict greater attachment,
although grandiosity did (= 0.20, t= 2.12, p= 0.04). For non-traditional pets, vulnerability
did predict greater attachment to pets, (= 0.53, t= 3.38, p= 0.001). Thus, individuals high
in vulnerable narcissism were especially attached to their less traditional pets.
Discussion
We found little evidence in support of our predictions. Although it does not appear that those
higher in narcissistic traits are more likely to own non-traditional pets compared with those
lower in narcissistic traits, we did find a relationship between narcissism and attachment to
pets that was dependent on the type of pet owned. For example, individuals high in vulner-
able narcissism were more attached to their pet only if their pet was non-traditional. Although
there was no overall effect of grandiose narcissism on pet attachment, when we analyzed the
results separately for traditional and non-traditional pet owners, those high in grandiose nar-
cissism were more attached to their traditional pets compared with those low in grandiose
narcissism. We also obtained a strong correlation between grandiose narcissism and pet
attachment, but grandiosity emerged as a unique predictor only when attachment to tradi-
tional pets was specifically considered. This result is somewhat counter to our original
hypothesis as we predicted that it would be the grandiose aspect of narcissism that would
link individuals high in narcissism to exotic pet ownership. Rather, we found that those higher
in vulnerable narcissism were most attached to their exotic pets. We had also predicted that
narcissism would generally be associated with lower levels of attachment to pets, but this was
not the case.
We had also anticipated that borderline individuals might be less attached to their pets
given the dysfunctional patterns of attachment shown by these individuals to other humans
(de Zulueta 1999; Choi-Kain et al. 2009; Steele et al. 2015). Consistent with this prediction,
we found that individuals high in borderline traits were less attached to their pets in general,
regardless of the type of pet.
We also assessed the relationship between the typical Big Five personality traits and
attachment to pets. Our primary prediction was that those higher in neuroticism might be more
attached to their pets, but this was not the case. In our sample, neuroticism was not associ-
ated with attachment to pets. Our data did, however, confirm that more agreeable individuals
Not so Cold-blooded: Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Traits Predict Attachment to Traditional…
634 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 634
were more attached to their pets, but we did not obtain unique effects of conscientiousness.
Openness also predicted greater attachment to pets (Reevy and Delgado 2015). Previous
studies on pet owner personality have focused more strongly on compatibility between pet
owners and their pets (Gosling, Sandy and Potter 2010; Turcsán et al. 2012), so the current
data adds to the little existing data on personality and attachment to pets of different species.
Possibly, personality screenings that include dark traits, as well as the more traditional per-
sonality traits, might help contribute to the information used to assess potential pet adopters.
Including both traditional and dark traits in our model allowed us to account for 24% of the vari-
ability in attachment to the pet. Thus, clearly other factors are also predictors of pet attachment,
but the contributions of personality traits are non-trivial.
Our study was the first to assess the relationship between both typical and dark person-
ality features and attachment to both traditional and non-traditional pets. However, despite
this strength, our study did have some limitations. First, we had a fairly small and limited
sample. Future studies should explore exotic pet ownership and a broader range of person-
ality features, while also examining specific patterns of attachment (c.f. Reevy and Delgado
2015). Furthermore, many scales assessing attachment to pets are biased toward traditional
pets and this leads to problems when attempting to generalize to different species. Despite
these limitations, the current findings are useful in identifying patterns of attachment between
those with dark personality traits and different types of pets. Understanding these relation-
ships can help match individuals to pets and may help identify individuals who might be more
likely to reject pets. Pet neglect and abandonment is a serious welfare issue and may be
mediated by reduced attachment and bonding to the pet.
Acknowledgements
We thank the pet owners for being willing to complete the surveys. Thanks also to Virgil Zei-
gler-Hill for statistical advice.
Conflicts of Interest
No conflict of interest is reported with Taylor and Francis.
References
Alba, B. and Haslam, N. 2015. Dog people and cat people differ on dominance-related traits.Anthrozoös 28:
37–44.
Bagley, D. K. and Gonsman, V. L. 2005. Pet attachment and personality type. Anthrozoös 18: 28–42.
Budge, R. C., Spicer, J., Jones, B. and St. George, R. 1998. Health correlates of compatibility and attachment
in human–companion animal relationships. Society & Animals 6: 219–234.
Cain, N. M., Pincus, A. L. and Ansell, E. B. 2008. Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of
pathological Narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical
Psychology Review 28: 638–656.
Campbell, W. K., Finkle, E. J. and Foster, C. A. 2002. Does self-love lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic
game playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 340–354.
Cater, T. E., Zeigler-Hill, V. and Vonk, J. 2011. Narcissism and recollections of early life experiences. Personality
and Individual Differences 5: 935–939.
Choi-Kain, L., Fitzmaurice, G. M., Zanarini, M. C., Laverdière, O. and Gunderson, J. G. 2009. The relationship
between self-reported attachment styles, interpersonal dysfunction, and borderline personality disorder.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 197: 816–821.
DeWall, C. N., Buffardi, L. E., Bonser, I. and Campbell, W. K. 2011. Narcissism and implicit attention seeking:
Evidence from linguistic analyses of social networking and online presentation. Personality and Individual
Differences 51: 57–62.
Vonk et al.
635 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 635
Gosling, S. D., Sandy, C. J. and Potter, J. 2010. Personalities of self-identified “dog people” and “cat people.”
Anthrozoös 23: 213–222.
Hergovich, A., Mauerer, I. and Riemer, V. 2011. Exotic animal companions and the personality of their owners.
Anthrozoös 24: 317–327.
Holcomb, R., Williams, R. C. and Richards, P. S. 1985. The elements of attachment: Relationship maintenance
and intimacy. Journal of the Delta Society 2: 28–34.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M. and Kentle, R. L. 1991. The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkely, CA:
University of California-Berkely, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Kernberg, O. F. 1975. Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Kidd, A. H., Kelley, H. T. and Kidd, R. M. 1983.Personality characteristics of horse, turtle, snake, and bird owners.
Psychological Reports 52: 719–729.
Kidd, A. H. and Kidd, R. M. 1980. Personality characteristics and preferences in pet ownership. Psychological
Reports 46: 939–949.
Kohut, H. 1977. The Restoration of the Self. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K. and Ferenczi, N. 2015. The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as
predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates. Personality and Individual
Differences 85: 35–40.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. 2008. The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research. 3rd edn, 159–181. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Miltiades, H. and Shearer, J. 2011. Attachment to pet dogs and depression in rural older adults. Anthrozoös
24: 147–154.
Morey, L. C. 1991. Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Morey, L. C. and Glutting, J. H. 1994. The Personality Assessment Inventory and the measurement of normal
and abnormal personality constructs. In Differentiating Normal and Abnormal Personality, 402–420, ed. S.
Strack and M. Lorr . New York, NY: Springer.
Morf, C. C. and Rhodewalt, F. 2001. Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory
processing model. Psychological Inquiry 12: 177–196.
Munsell, K. L., Canfield, M., Templer, D. I., Tangan, K. and Arikawa, H. 2004. Modification of the Pet Attitude
Scale. Society & Animals 12: 137–142.
Ormel, J., Rosmalen, J. and Farmer, A. 2004. Neuroticism: A non-informative marker of vulnerability to
psychopathology. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology 39: 906–912.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, G. C. and Levy, K. N. 2009. Initial construction
and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment 21: 365–379.
Pincus, A. L. and Lukowitsky, M. R. 2010. Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology 6: 421–446.
Podberscek, A. L. and Serpell, J. A. 1997. Aggressive behavior in English cocker spaniels and the personality
of their owners. Veterinary Record 141: 73–76.
Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Mosier, J. E. and Samuelson, M. L. 1987. The Companion Animal Bonding Scale:
Internal reliability and construct validity. Psychological Reports 60(3, pt.1): 743–746.
Reevy, G. M. and Delgado, M. M. 2015. Are emotionally attached companion animal caregivers conscientious
and neurotic? Factors that affect the human–companion animal relationship. Journal of Applied Animal
Welfare Science 18: 239–258.
Sable, P. 1989. Attachment, anxiety and loss of a husband. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59:
550–556.
Sable, P. 1991. Attachment, loss of spouse and grief in elderly adults. Omega 23: 129–143.
Sable, P. 1995. Pets, attachment, and well-being across the lifecycle. Social Work 40: 334–341.
Steele, M., Bate, J., Nikitiades, A. and Buhl-Nielsen, B. 2015. Attachment in adolescence and borderline
personality disorder. Journal of Infant, Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy 14: 16–32.
Templer, D. I., Salter, C. A., Dickey, S., Baldwin, R. and Veleber, D. M. 1981. The construction of a pet attitude
scale. The Psychological Record 31: 343–348.
Turcsán, B., Range, F., Virányi, Z., Miklósi, Á. and Kubinyi, E. 2012. Birds of a feather flock together? Perceived
personality matching in owner–dog dyads. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140: 154–160.
Not so Cold-blooded: Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Traits Predict Attachment to Traditional…
636 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 636
Wells, D. L. and Hepper, P. G. 2012. The personality of “aggressive” and “non-aggressive” dog owners.
Personality and Individual Differences 53: 770–773.
Zasloff, R. L. 1996. Measuring attachment to companion animals: A dog is not a cat is not a bird. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 47: 43–48.
Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P. R. 2011. An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships:
Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality 45:
345–357.
Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P. R. 2012. Pets as safe havens and secure bases: The moderating
role of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality 46: 571–580.
de Zulueta, F. 1999. Borderline personality disorder as seen from an attachment perspective: A review. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health 9: 237–253.
Vonk et al.
637 Anthrozoös
AZ 29(4)_Layout 1 11/7/16 10:37 AM Page 637
