ArticlePDF Available

Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress



During times of social isolation, such as the global COVID-19 pandemic, the social distancing mantras that have been integral to COVID-19 responses position close human-to-human contact, including physical touch, as life threatening. Touch is commonly an overlooked sense, yet studies have shown that touch deprivation reduces survival rates of pre-term babies and contributes to stunted mental and emotional development in institutionalized orphaned humans. For people who experience less social contact, touch deprivation may impact on quality of life. This article explores the notion that human to non-human contact, such as that between animal guardians and their pets, may assist in promoting health and wellbeing when human contact is limited. Use is made of a qualitative research project interviewing people on the role of their pets in creating health. 90% of participants (n = 29/32) identified touch as core to this intersection. Inductive touch themes identified include comfort, relaxation and reciprocity, pointing to the impacts but also the mechanisms by which cross-species touch can create human wellbeing-a relational resource that may counter COVID-19 touch deprivation engendered by prohibition of human-human contact. With over half of the world's population having pets, these relationships may be one of our greatest health-promoting resources at this time.
Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Vol. 4, COVID-19 Special Issue 2, 25-33, 2020
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from
non-human touch through times of stress
Janette Young1*, Rhianna Pritchard1, Carmel Nottle1, Helen Banwell1
During times of social isolation, such as the global COVID-19 pandemic, the social distancing mantras that have
been integral to COVID-19 responses position close human-to-human contact, including physical touch, as life
threatening. Touch is commonly an overlooked sense, yet studies have shown that touch deprivation reduces
survival rates of pre-term babies and contributes to stunted mental and emotional development in institutionalized
orphaned humans. For people who experience less social contact, touch deprivation may impact on quality of
life. This article explores the notion that human to non-human contact, such as that between animal guardians
and their pets, may assist in promoting health and wellbeing when human contact is limited. Use is made of a
qualitative research project interviewing people on the role of their pets in creating health. 90% of participants (n
= 29/32) identified touch as core to this intersection. Inductive touch themes identified include comfort, relaxation
and reciprocity, pointing to the impacts but also the mechanisms by which cross-species touch can create human
wellbeing – a relational resource that may counter COVID-19 touch deprivation engendered by prohibition of
human-human contact. With over half of the world’s population having pets, these relationships may be one of
our greatest health-promoting resources at this time.
JEL Classification: H51; I1; I3
touch — pets — companion animals — COVID-19 — health
1Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia
*Corresponding author:
Public health responses seeking to manage the COVID-19
pandemic have imposed isolation and demonized human-to-
human contact in entire societies almost instantly (Pascoe et al.
2020; Wilder-Smith & Freedman 2020). Social distancing, or
more specifically physical distancing, has effectively removed
human-to-human touch from many people’s lives (Pascoe et
al. 2020). However, public health initiatives demanding that
people stay home unless engaging in or providing essential
activities or services have increased the amount of time spent
with non-human family members. Indeed, there has been a
global emptying of animal shelters as people have chosen to
adopt cats and dogs during lockdowns at unforeseen rates
(Frost 2020; Pesce 2020; Thomas 2020). Breeders have also
been inundated, with demand for new puppies quadrupling
some waiting lists (Pesce 2020; Thomas 2020). This paper
considers the role of touch in human lives; the evidence that
touch is beneficial to human wellbeing, including slices of
qualitative data from our research with pet owners illustrating
how contact with non-human others impacts human lives;
and concludes with implications for policy makers within the
unprecedented times of COVID-19.
Pets were big economic news prior to COVID-19. Globally,
the amount of money being spent on the animals who share
our domestic lives and spaces has been increasing steadily. It
has been anticipated that the worldwide spend on pets could
be over USD 269.9 billion by 2025 (Globenewswire, 2019).
This reflects year-on-year increases in the amounts pet owners
are spending on obtaining and maintaining their pets. For
example, spending in Australia has risen from AUD 8 billion
in 2013 (Animal Medicines Australia (AMA), 2013) to AUD
13 billion within six years (AMA, 2019). In the USA this in-
crease is mirrored, with spending increasing from USD 55.72
billion (Transparency Market Research, 2020) to USD 95.7
billion (American Pet Products Association (APPA) 2020).
From premiumization of food (Phillips-Donaldson, 2019) to
increasing spending on vet care, doggy daycare and specialist
training and nutrition (AMA, 2019), the amount spent on in-
dividual animals seems to be increasing (AMA, 2019). Pets
are also increasingly and overtly seen as family members
(McConnell, Lloyd & Humphrey, 2019) though the economic
manner in which this plays out in individual households varies.
For example, Schwarz, Troyer and Walker (2007) identified
that different household shapes spend money differently on
pets. There is also some evidence that pets are becoming co-
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 26/33
consumers (Kylkilahti et al., 2016), with some people making
economic choices, such as where and how to holiday, based
on having pets (Blichfeldt & Sakacova, 2018).
The rush to adopt pets during COVID-19 lockdowns (Mor-
row, 2020; Shine, 2020) suggests that there may even be an
unanticipated increase (i.e. ahead of aforementioned global
projections) in the numbers and amount being spent on pets at
this time. It is unclear, however, how long this phenomenon
of empty shelters, and increased pet numbers will last, and
animal welfare services are concerned that the lockdown rush
may be matched by a wave of pets being relinquished as
people return to work (Webb, 2020).
It has been estimated that over half of the global popu-
lation share their lives with one or more pets (GfK, 2016).
Millions of dogs, cats, fish, birds, reptiles and other species
share our domestic spaces and lives (GfK, 2016; AMA, 2019).
Pet owners are reportedly happier, healthier and even more
likely to live longer (Mubanga et al., 2017). Owning a pet has
been observed to reduce blood pressure, loneliness, anxiety,
fearfulness and generally to contribute to improved wellbe-
ing (Brooks et al, 2018; Hajek & K
onig, 2019). Pets are
emerging as particularly important in the health of some of
the most vulnerable populations, such as people with chronic
mental health conditions (Brooks, 2018) or physical
ill-health (Brooks, 2013 ). There is also evidence of
their health-creating benefits for older people (Gee & Mueller,
2019), children with major illness (Einberg, 2016), and
their health-creating impact can “ripple” through communities
(Wood et al., 2007; Wood et al. 2017). In summary, pets seem
to be particularly important when people are socially isolated
or excluded, providing comfort, companionship, and a sense
of self-worth. These human-animal relationships can soften
the harsh edges of life, feeding resilience. In view of the re-
search that increasingly reveals the impacts on life expectancy
of loneliness and isolation (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010), and
our own reporting on how relationships with pets can protect
some people from suicide (Young et al, 2020), pets are already
emerging as not only being life enhancing, but at times life
However, to date, little data exists regarding specific bene-
fits that physical contact, touch, with pets may bring – a gap
that in the COVID-19 era of “human: human touch = danger”
is of particular merit.
Skin is our largest organ, facilitating the sense we call touch.
Avoiding physical contact and prescribing isolation are not
unknown practices, often in response to serious medical con-
ditions (Vottero & Rittenmeyer, 2012). Yet, touch is integral
to human relating and relationships; from close intimate touch
with those we love, to handshakes and air-kisses as formal
greetings between strangers.
Touch is an understudied sense (Fulkerson, 2013), how-
ever, the evidence that exists indicates that touch is crucial for
growth, development and health in humans and other mam-
mals (Barnett, 2005; Feldman, Rosenthanl & Eidelman, 2014;
Field, 2014). Much of the research has focused on the im-
portance of touch in infant development, particularly preterm
babies where findings have shown that human touch improves
both short- and long-term health outcomes (Barnett, 2005;
Field, 1998). In fact, early work in the 1970s showed that
pre-term babies who were held and cuddled, as opposed to
just watered, fed and kept warm, had an increased survival
rate of almost 50% (Field, 1998). Human beings are able to
tell if touch is positive or negative (Hertenstein et al., 2009).
Biochemically, positive touch helps in the release of positive
hormones including dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin, all
of which have a role to play in human mood and sense of
wellbeing. Conversely, touch reduces the levels of cortisol
in the body – cortisol being a key (negative feeling inducing)
stress response within the body (Pascoe et al., 2020). Across
various age groups, touch can decrease stress, anxiety and
pain (Olson & Sneed, 1995; Field, 1998), and it is suggested
that touch may be of particular importance for older people
as other senses decline (Field, 2014). With public health
measures of social distancing in response to COVID-19 posi-
tioning human-to-human touch as life threatening, this leads
to questions of whether non-human touch could offer benefits
similar to those noted above.
There is a lack of research exploring the nature of touch
with pets on human lives and wellness. Here, we briefly
present our qualitative research describing and thematically
analyzing the impact of cross-species touch in the lives of
32 ‘older’ people with their pets – a topic focus that has
become dramatically and unexpectedly relevant in 2020. The
findings emerged from a qualitative study exploring how older
people identify and articulate the impact of their pets on their
health. While our study focused on an older cohort, at this
time when entire populations are being mandated to social
distance and stay home (Wilder-Smith & Freedman, 2020),
lifestyle differences between old and young are significantly
reduced. Hence the ways in which pets may mitigate isolation
and touch deprivation are more equitably spread across the
population. Although, as explored in the discussion following,
there are still relatively unique characteristics of some older
lives (e.g. living in care accommodation) that policy makers
need to address.
Our research
Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with
32 pet owners aged 59 to 83 years; with a mean age 70 years.
Participants were recruited via public calls on radio and snow-
ball sampling, with purposeful sampling employed later into
the recruitment process to ensure that both human and animal
diversity was encompassed. Interviewees’ pets reflected the
patterns of pet ownership globally and in Australia (AMA,
2016; GfK, 2016) of dogs, cats, birds and reptiles (including
one crocodile). The research was approved by the university
human ethics committee and interviews lasted half to one hour
with participants choosing the name they wanted used.
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 27/33
From a total of 32 interviewees, over 90% (29 people)
spoke of touch in relation to their pets, mostly unprompted.
This was across gender (19 females and 10 males) and the
age range of the cohort. Two main themes relating to cross-
species touch were identified: wellbeing and reciprocity; with
three subthemes: comfort, relaxation and familiarity. Figure 1
provides a visual summary of the theming and sub theming
process and analysis. Appendix A provides rich qualitative
data from our interviewees. Below is a synopsis of the themes
and their links to COVID-19. Our participants offer insights
into the ways in which touch with other, intimately known,
members of another species can foster wellbeing in the human
members of these dyads. Understandings that in the COVID-
19 era of limited physical contact are particularly resonant.
Figure 1. Theming process and analysis
Wellbeing – comfort and relaxation
Participants frequently described touch-based interactions
with their pets as being comforting or relaxing in a way that
contributed to their overall wellbeing. For our participants,
‘comfort’ is the sense of being somehow cared for by another
being. At times this reference was tied to a specific traumatic
event, such as the death of a human family member or pet.
For example, Anita noted how on the day that she had to put
one of her pets down, her dog appeared both to provide and
seek comfort, touching her, allowing Anita to cuddle her and
staying physically close. For Jen, the trauma was a fall. While
she was lying on the ground, her dog came and lay with her
until she was able to get herself up.
Comfort as relief from mental or physical illness was
another common topic among participants. Many referenced
a seemingly innate ability of pets to just “know” when their
human counterparts weren’t feeling well, providing comfort
via cuddles or pats, or even just sitting on them. Helen even
alluded to the ability of her pets to reduce her chronic pain.
In addition to reporting on the comforting qualities phys-
ical interaction with pets can have, many participants noted
the relaxing or calming effect these contacts provided. Dawn
reported being able to “feel” herself relax while patting an
animal; a kind of self-awareness of bodily relaxation. A key
point made by several participants was that to create a relaxing
touch experience, the animal needed to be the “right kind” of
animal. Participants noted that this related to both individ-
ual personalities within a species, as well as traits between
species. Many participants believed cats to be inherently more
relaxing than dogs, with others stating that patting dogs can
be relaxing (as long as they are the “right kind of dog”). Look-
ing beyond our typical furry pets, Helen compared cats to
fish and birds, believing cats to be particularly soothing, and
conversely that the inability to cuddle a fish or bird reduces
their capacity to relax. Touch with a companion animal can
be relaxing, but it is not just about any animal. Species makes
a difference for some people, and it can be that an individual
animal particularly engenders such feelings. This leads into
the next theme identified in our data as “Reciprocity”.
While the previous theme focused on human wellbeing, core
to the concept of touch was a notion of reciprocity. That is,
animals may request or encourage their human to touch them,
and they show signs of pleasure from this tactile interaction.
Participants frequently reported perceiving their pets as ‘de-
manding’ touch-based interaction. They also described the
perceived reciprocity of their pet, and the pet’s enjoyment
or dislike of touch-based interaction and how that then fed
into their human experience. For our participants, the giving
and receiving of touch and the visible joy that another being
displays in response to their owner’s touch was inherent to the
pleasure of touch. A cross-species reciprocity and mutuality.
For Jill and Helen, this expression of mutuality is a “look”
their pets give them, that says “I love you”. In comparison,
Jan’s birds express their delight through “happy” sounds and
by nibbling on his ear, and Jen’s frilled-neck lizard closes
his eyes contentedly. Others described mutuality as more
forceful displays for attention, such as in Jan’s case where her
cat would jump onto her husband, tightly wrapping his paws
around the husband’s neck for a cuddle.
Echoing previous comments about what kinds of animals
can bring comfort, people noted differences between animals
that could be touched and would reciprocate touch. Harry the
Sheep would run to greet Di when she got home but wasn’t an
animal she could pick up and cuddle. Although there may be
a general perception that cats are not as engaged with humans
as dogs, Frances identified her cats as more affectionate than
her dogs, head-butting her for attention.
Again, people also noted individual personality differ-
ences within species. Helen discussed her cats and how recip-
rocal cross-species interest in touch can engender a stronger
sense of connection with an individual animal, building greater
rapport than a pet who does not wish to be as affectionate.
This perceived animal enjoyment of human touch is often in-
terpreted as love by their human owners and meshes them into
the human networks of relationships. Pets become “family”,
which our participants described as their “pack”. Through
touch, animals become part of our pack (family); and perhaps
we become part of theirs.
There was a small sub-theme of reciprocity that we termed
“familiarity”. Emotive response to touch from another species
is not confined to what could be seen as mutual touch, but
still centers around the notion of reciprocity and particularly
animals choosing to engage with their humans. For Tom, who
had large aviaries of native Australian birds, having an un-
tamed creature (Tom refused to call his birds “pets”) choosing
to touch him was awe-inspiring and produced an enormous
level of positive emotion for Tom. He repeated his phrase
“they give me joy” multiple times throughout the interview.
In a similar, though perhaps less emotive tone Bob reported
somewhat proudly on how one of his many aviary birds would
touch him, hopping onto his shoulder. For Bob and Tom, the
choice made by an animal to physically engage with them was
hugely pleasurable. Touch itself does not need to be reciprocal
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 28/33
Figure 1. Theming process and analysis
to engender human pleasure – animals choosing to engage
with us is a source of wonder, or as Tom insisted “joy”.
For our participants, human-animal touch generated positive
feelings of comfort, relaxation and a sense of cross-species
reciprocity. Benefits that are not one way as animal responses
to touch and initiation of touch indicate animals also positively
benefitting. In our analysis to-date, touch is one of the most
pervasive of themes we have identified. Touch emerges as
integral to understandings of the concept of a pet for most
participants, and meshes with that of reciprocity – the giving,
receiving and mutual enjoyment of touch as presented here.
This begins to give insights into the psycho-social mechanisms
by which pets can impact on human wellbeing.
Understandings of reciprocated cross-species touch links
to understandings of individual animal sentience. That is, ani-
mals, like people, are living, breathing others, with individual
interests, styles and preferences. The looseness of describing
what animal group or which individual animal “works” to
create human wellbeing in this intimate touching way perhaps
reflects the disjuncture between what have been largely aca-
demic understandings of individual animal sentience (Nottle
& Young, 2019). While culturally animals are still generally
seen as “not human” and somehow more homogenous than
the human species, in fact our participants’ discourses reveal
the nature of individual personality, likes, dislikes and pref-
erences of animals. Whilst species characteristics may have
influence, presuming species homogeneity e.g. all dogs like to
be walked (Nottle & Young, 2019) is erroneous. Discovering
the uniqueness of the animals that share our domestic lives
is part of the richness that makes having pets important for
wellbeing. The fact that a diversity of species was identified
(cats, dogs, birds even reptiles) as engaging in these reciprocal
touching engagements means that in principle a pet could be
any species that displays interest in relating to and specifi-
cally engaging in reciprocated touch. Good news for allergy
Reciprocity is core to understandings of human friendship
(Barclay, 2013). Akin to human friendship, pet-human rela-
tionships are freely chosen by humans. The “right kind” of
pet seems to be an animal that, like “true friends” (Ohtsubo et
al., 2014) in human-human relationships, shows us attention
(Dunbar & Shultz, 2010) and provides us with timely emo-
tional support (Ohtsubo et al., 2014). These characteristics of
friendship are also noted in the discourses of our participants
across species, and regarding human-animal touch.
The importance of touch for older people has not been
well-investigated. Previously, the two dominant assemblages
of touch that relate to ageing were sexualized and clinical
(Field, 2014; Olson & Sneed, 1995). Cases of sexual assault
in aged care facilities internationally exemplify this assem-
blage of touch and connect directly to the other commonly un-
derstood assemblage regarding touch and aging (Field, 2014).
Clinical touch is frequently invasive and highly personal. In
order to manage the risk of such touch transforming into
sexualized touch, precautions that include both physical (e.g.
gloves, gowns) and emotional barriers (e.g. dispassion) are
often engaged (Olson & Sneed, 1995). Our participants, how-
ever, identified a third model of touch; that of companionable,
caring, and comforting touch – the kind of touch that comes
from lovers, close friends and companions. The hug to say
“hello my special friend”, squashed up into a too-small sofa
with friends for a pizza-and-movies night in; companionable
passing touches of couples. This is the space where our partici-
pants’ human-animal touching engagements exists. Touch that
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 29/33
is life-enhancing. In the era of COVID-19, the mantra of “so-
cial distancing” – prescribing a society wide sub-assemblage
of the clinical, risk-infused understanding of touch – cuddly,
comforting touch with pets may be the only companionable
touch possible for many.
Our research provides some preliminary but positive re-
sponses to the concerns raised by Van Bavel et al. (2020)
regarding the negative impacts of social isolation and needs
for intimate relationships in the time of COVID-19 – in par-
ticular, concerns regarding social isolation and intimacy. We
concur that the experiences of COVID, including sudden lock-
downs and broad societal upheaval, job losses and sudden
impoverishment can all be seen as traumatic experiences for
people. Trauma characteristically exacerbates existing neg-
ative human experiences such as pain (Nicol et al., 2016;
McBeth et al., 2007), hence suggestions that pets may be able
to help to ease bodily and psychic ills is important. Concerns
have been expressed that people with chronic health condi-
tions (including mental health) may have these conditions
exacerbated during COVID-19 as they avoid health services
and/or have their conditions intensify due to stress (Torjesen,
2020; Webster, 2020). However, the presence of pets may be
a moderating factor that needs to be recognized and (foreshad-
owing a policy suggestion) signals that ensuring that people
are able to adequately care for their pets merits public funding
and support.
As Van Bavel et al. (2020) note, social distancing as a
policy clashes with human beings’ innate needs to connect
with others. Social connectedness assists people to cope with
stressful times, yet COVID-19 threats and interventions to
keep people mortally safe require physical isolation. While
emotional and social engagement may still be possible and
can be facilitated through the wonders of the internet and
online engagements, for many individuals physical contact
with other humans is crucial to connectedness (V, 2020). Our
research participants point to the manner in which pets may be
bridging the physical intimacy and connection gap for many
people at this time. The shelter-clearing masses may not
have articulated this action as being about substituting human-
human contact during COVID, but the research on touch,
human bio-physiology and the descriptions of our participants
suggest that they may well be interpreting the concept of “pet”
as touch-related too. That they, like the multitudes of humans
before them, are enacting some primeval urge to find comfort,
relaxation and pleasure though human-animal friendships and
engagements (Serpell, 2006). During COVID-19, pets offer
cross-species contact alternatives that our participants show
can occur across a diverse array of species, not just mammals,
but in our cohort birds and reptiles too. This indicates that for
people with allergies or unusual species interests, the potential
for these pets to also be helpful in reducing touch deprivation
stress in the COVID-19 era is possible.
Policy implications
Our explorations have implications for policy makers – specif-
ically in the COVID-19 era, but also to enhance opportunities
for continued human to non-human touch beyond the current
Pets and Healthcare
Facilitating pet connections, be this visits, sleep overs, or even
pet support programs for patients in health care settings such
as hospitals, hospices, and aged care, is indicated. Recog-
nizing and incorporating the benefits of close human-animal
relationships in these settings has implications for both clin-
ical care outcomes and quality of life experiences. Clinical
health care responses are enhanced when the emotional needs
of patients are responded to (Burres et al., 2016; Chen et
al., 2015). Systematic inclusion of animal-assisted support
projects in acute and high-level care is still a novelty, rather
than a recognized and embedded wellbeing facilitator in acute
and high-level care settings (Machova et al., 2019; Freedman,
Parmova & Senior, 2020). Yet the role of touch in facilitat-
ing their wellbeing and mental health in our participants is
clear. Developing managed systems that position emotional
connections (including pet contact) as part of good clinical
health care responses, both now and into the future, are well
indicated for improving quality of life outcomes for patients,
and the staff caring for them (Uglow, 2019).
Pets in Aged Care
Developing systems that facilitate pets in aged settings specif-
ically is needed. A recent systematic review focusing on the
role of pets in the lives of older people mirrored many of the
same positive health findings as in other vulnerable groups
(Gee & Mueller, 2019). However, pet ownership is more
likely to decline with age. For example, while over 60% of
Australian households have a pet, barely 40% of those over
seventy do (AMA, 2019). While some of this difference is
due to positive choices regarding convenience and competing
demands (Chur-Hansen, Winefield & Beckwith, 2008) other
research has revealed that some older people relinquish pet
keeping quite early on in ageing (Bridgman, 2014) for fear of
what will happen to an animal should something happen to
them. And they are right. Retirement villages and residential
aged facilities rarely accommodate people’s pets. Only one
article exploring the impacts of older people being able to
have a personal pet when living in an aged care home has
been identified (Freedman, Parmova & Senior, 2020) reflect-
ing that this is a rare occurrence and that residential aged care
is yet to recognize human-animal relationships as integral to
many people’s lives. Visiting animals may be healthful, happy
entertainment for some people, but they are not pets. Pets
are unique reciprocal relationships that occur across species
boundaries. Had more pets been living with their owners in
aged care when COVID-19 restrictions were applied, a health-
creating resource for their owners and other residents would
have been in-situ.
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 30/33
Pets in Society – including protecting pets
Increasingly, research is demonstrating that loneliness has
significant impacts on mental health (Beutel et al., 2017) in-
cluding mortality (Stickey & Koyanagi., 2016). The risk of
loneliness and poor mental health from the isolation, quaran-
tine and social distancing measures imposed as part of the
worldwide community containment response to COVID-19
were reported on rapidly (Sharma, Maheshwari & Bronsther,
2020; Wilder-Smith & Freedman, 2020). For those already ex-
periencing loneliness, the isolating measures during COVID-
19 had a disproportional impact (Armitage & Nellus, 2020).
Public policies that reduce or remove restrictions on pet own-
ership in various forms of accommodation would enable more
people who benefit from pet companionship to do so. This
includes renters (McKee, 2019) and older people who are
often denied pet ownership by a range of retirement accom-
modation. Systemic policy thinking is required in this regard.
Hence policies to support pet owners’ use of public transport
in tandem with accommodation policy changes are important
so that car-less owners are able to take their pets to services
such as vets, dog parks, and just to visit friends. These poli-
cies also need to include considerations of animal needs and
other (non-pet-loving) humans so that the best interests of all
species are kept in view.
Some authors (Van Bavel et al., 2020) have discussed
the negative impact of COVID-19 on intimate relationships.
Exacerbations and increases in the rates of family and do-
mestic violence have already been noted during COVID-19
(Bradbury-Jones & Isham, 2020), and there is a dark side to
the topic of pets in this regard as well, with indicators of pet
abuse and abandonment increases due to COVID-19 being
flagged by some researchers (Fraser, Riggs & Taylor, 2020).
It is important to note this bidirectionality, as policies that
encourage and enable pet ownership at this time need to also
increase vigilance to animal companions. While there is evi-
dence emerging that pets have been a major support to many
owners during COVID-19 (the internet is full of happy, home-
working pet owners posting their pet work colleague photos
online) looking to the future there is a need to investigate
the potentially dark side of cross-species relationships in the
pandemic to identify the kinds of risks that pets may face at
these times, and to include pet protection measures in future
pandemic plans.
Pets and Income Support
Finally, pet support should be considered as part of income
support systems. The role pets play in keeping people healthy
is emerging evermore strongly. In Australia, the introduction
of funds to support wildlife rescue and care post the 2019/20
bushfire season (Elsworthy, Rubbo & Wellauer, 2020), and in
COVID-19 to support zoos, wildlife parks (Macmillan, 2020)
and some animal rescues has occurred without comment. This
suggests public, animal-inclusive responses are becoming
normalised (May et al., 2009). That is, funding to support
animal welfare and care has become incorporated into public
perceptions of expected government support.
This leads to two recommendations – firstly, encourage-
ment of human-wild animal engagements during COVID. En-
abling wildlife parks and zoos to reopen as rapidly and as
safely as possible, and supporting their role in caring for the
animals housed there through public funds maintains a health-
creating human-animal resource for many people. Whale and
bird watching (Curtin, 2009), dolphin encounters (Yerbury &
Boyd, 2018), and zoo tourism (Frost, 2010; Roe, McConney,
& Mansfield, 2014) have all been shown to have positive emo-
tional impacts on human beings. Indicating that the public
funding of animals noted above has implications for not only
animals but also human wellbeing.
Secondly, Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011) have argued
for animal citizenship especially for the animals that we
choose to incorporate into our human societies. Having no
choice in living with us, but providing humans with compan-
ionship, joy and reciprocal love, the interests and rights of
these animals should be enshrined and incorporated into citi-
zenship frameworks that their human companions live within
– including the right to have their needs met through our col-
lective commonwealth.
COVID-19 has dramatically altered our interactions with other
humans, yet one of the most abiding and globalized of hu-
man behaviors – sharing our lives with non-human others –
continues at this time. Now is the time to grasp the value
of cross-species relationships we call pets and develop poli-
cies that recognize and include them in the fabric of law and
policies that frame the societies we share with them.
American Pet Products Association (APPA) (2020). Pet
industry market size & ownership statistics. APPA, industrytrends.asp.
Animal Medicines Australia (AMA) (2013). Pet ownership
in Australia
Animal Medicines Australia (2016). Pet ownership in Aus-
/uploads/2016/11/AMA Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-20
16-Report sml.pdf.
Animal Medicines Australia (AMA) (2019). Pets in Aus-
tralia: a national survey of pets and people. animalmedi
M001-Pet-Survey-Report19 v1.7 WEB high-res.pdf.
Armitage, R., & Nellus, L. B. (2020). COVID-19 and the
consequences of isolating the elderly. The Lancet, 5(5):
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 31/33
Barclay, P. (2013). Strategies for cooperation in biological
markets, especially for humans. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 34(3): 164–175.
Barnett, L. (2005). Keep in touch: The importance of
touch in infant development. Infant Observation, 8(2):
Beutel, M., Klein, E., Brahler, E., Reiner, I., Junger, C.,
Michal, M., Wiltink, J., Wild, P., Munzel, T., Lackner,
K., & Tibubos, A. (2017). Loneliness in the general
population: prevalence, determinants and relations to
mental health. BMC Psychiatry, 17(97).
Blichfeldt, B. S., & Sak
a, K. L. (2018). Domesticated
dogs and ‘doings’ during the holidays. Domestic Ani-
mals, Humans, and Leisure: Rights, Welfare, and Well-
being, 1st edn, Routledge, 113–127.
Bradbury-Jones, C., Isham, L. (2020). The pandemic para-
dox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic vio-
lence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(13–14): 2047–2049.
Bridgman, H. (2014). Relinquishment of companion animals
by people entering residential care in South Australia
[Hons Thesis]. University of Adelaide.
Brooks, H., Rushton, K., Lovell, K., Bee, P., Walker, L.,
Grant, L., & Rogers, A. (2018). The power of support
from companion animals for people living with mental
health problems: A systematic review and narrative
synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry, 18(31).
Brooks, H., Rogers, A., Kapadia, D., Pilgrim, J., Reeves,
D., & Vassilev, I. (2013). Creature comforts: Personal
communities, pets and the work of managing a long-
term condition. Chronic Illness, 9(2), 87–102.
Burres, S., Edwards, N., Beck, A. & Richards, E. (2016).
Incorporating pets into acute inpatient rehabilitation: a
case study. Rehabilitation Nursing, 41(6): 336–341.
Chur-Hansen, A., Winefield, H., & Beckwith, M. (2008).
Reasons given by elderly men and women for not own-
ing a pet, and the implications for clinical practice
and research. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(8):
Chen, C.-M., Tsai C.-C., Chung, C.-Y., Chen, C.-L., Wu,
K., & Chen, H. (2015). Potential predictors for health-
related quality of life in stroke patients undergoing in-
patient rehabilitation. Health and Quality of Life Out-
comes, 13(118).
Curtin, S. (2009). Wildlife tourism: The intangible, psycho-
logical benefits of human–wildlife encounters. Current
Issues in Tourism, 12(5), 451–474.
Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: a political
theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press, USA.
Dunbar, R. I. M., & Shultz, S. (2010). Bondedness and
sociality. Behaviour, 147(2): 775–803.
Einberg, E., Nygren, J., Svedberg, P., & Ensk
ar, K. (2016).
“Through my eyes”: Health-promoting factors described
by photographs taken by children with experience of
cancer treatment. Child: Care, Health and Develop-
ment, 42(1): 76–86.
Elsworthy, E., Rubbo, L., & Wellauer, K. (2020). Govern-
ment pledges
50 million for wildlife impacted by bush-
fires as koalas may become endangered. ABC News, 13
Feldman, R., Rosenthal, Z., & Eidelman, A. (2014). Maternal-
preterm skin-to-skin contact enhances child physiologic
organization and cognitive control across the first 10
years of life. Biological Psychiatry, 75(1), 56–64.
Field, T. (2014). Touch, Second Edition, MIT Press, 2014.
ProQuest Ebook Central,
Field, T. (1998). Touch therapy effects on development. In-
ternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(4):
Fraser, H., Riggs, D., & Taylor, N. (2020). Abuse and aban-
donment: why pets are at risk during this pandemic. The
Conversation, April 15, 2020
Freedman, S., Parmova, P., & Senior, V. (2020). “It gives
you more to life, it’s something new every day”. An
interpretive phenomenological analysis of wellbeing
in older care home residents who keep a personal pet.
Aging and Society, 1–23.
Frost, H. (2020). More people adopting pets during coron-
avirus pandemic but screening has also increased. ABC
Frost, D. (2010). Zoos and tourism: Conservation, educa-
tion, entertainment? Bristol: Channel View Publica-
Fulkerson, M. (2013). The First Sense: A Philosophical
Study of Human Touch. MIT
Gee, N, Mueller, M. (2019). A systematic review of research
on pet ownership and animal interaction among older
adults. Anthrozo¨
os, 32(2): 183–207.
GfK (2016). Pet ownership: Global GfK survey.
admin/user upload/country one pager/NL/documents/
Global-GfK-survey Pet-Ownership 2016.pdf.
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 32/33
Globenewswire (2019). World Pet Care Market value to
269 billion by 2025: Global Market Insights, Inc.
Hajek, A., & K
onig, H. (2019). How do cat owners, dog
owners and individuals without pets differ in terms of
psychosocial outcomes among individuals in old age
without a partner? Aging & Mental Health, 24(10):
Hertenstein, M. J., Holmes, R., McCullough, M., & Keltner,
D. (2009). The communication of emotion via touch.
Emotion, 9(4): 566–73.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social
relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review.
PLoS Med, 7(7), e1000316.
Kylkilahti, E., Syrjala, H., Autio, J., Kuismin, A., & Autio,
M. (2016). Understanding co-consumption between
consumers and their pets. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies, 40(1): 125–131.
a, K., Proch
a, R.,
ıha, M., & Svobodov
a, I.
(2019). The effect of animal assisted therapy on the
state of patients’ health after a stroke: a pilot study.
International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(18): 1–10.
Macmillan, J. (2020). Zoos to receive
95 million coron-
avirus lifeline from Federal Government. ABC News.
May, C., Mair, F., Finch, T., MacFarlane, A., Dowrick, C.,
Treweek, S., Rapley, T., Ballini, L., Ong, B., Rogers,
A., Murray, E., Elwyn, G., Legare, R., Gunn, J., &
Montori, V. (2009). Development of a theory of im-
plementation and integration: normalization process
theory. Implementation Science, 4(29).
McBeth, J., Silman, A. J., Gupta, A., Chiu, Y. H., Morriss,
R., Dickens, C., King, Y., Macfarlane, G. J. (2007).
Moderation of psychosocial risk factors through dys-
function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress
axis in the onset of chronic widespread musculoskeletal
pain: Findings of a population-based prospective cohort
study. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 56(1): 360–371.
McConnell, A., Paige Lloyd, E., & Humphrey, B. (2019).
We Are Family: Viewing Pets as Family Members Im-
proves Wellbeing. Anthrozo¨
os, 32(4): 459–470.
McKee, K. (2019). Millennials aren’t the only ones strug-
gling – older renters share their challenges finding de-
cent housing. The Conversation,https://theconversation
Morrow, A. (2020). New York dog rescues report an unprece-
dented surge in applications as coronavirus keeps hu-
mans isolated. CNN, 30 March,
Mubanga, M., Byberg, L., Nowak, C., Egenvall, A., Magnus-
son, P., Ingelsson, E., & Fall, T. (2017). Dog ownership
and the risk of cardiovascular disease and death – a
nationwide cohort study. Scientific Reports, 7(15821).
Nicol, A. L., Sieberg, C. B., Cauw, D. J., Hassett, A. L.,
Moser, S. E., & Brummett, C. M. (2016). The associa-
tion between a history of lifetime traumatic events and
pain severity, physical function, and affective distress
in patient with chronic pain. Pain, 17(12): 1334–138.
Nottle, C., & Young, J. (2019). Individuals, instinct and
moralities: exploring multi-species leisure using the se-
rious leisure perspective. Leisure Studies, 38(3): 303–316.
Ohtsubo, Y., Matsumura, A., Noda, C., Sawa, E., Yagi,
A., & Yamaguchi, M. (2014). It’s the attention that
counts: interpersonal attention fosters intimacy and so-
cial exchange. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 25(3):
Olson, M., & Sneed, N. (1995). Anxiety and therapeutic
touch. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 16(2): 97.
Pascoe, M., Parker, A., Hosking, G., & Dash, S. (2020). Miss
hugs? Touch forms bonds and boosts immune systems.
Here’s how to cope without it during coronavirus. The
cope-without-it-during-coronavirus-137612?utm source
=twitter&utm medium=bylinetwitterbutton.
Pesce, N. L. (2020). ‘We needed each other in this crazy
mess’. Is the pandemic a good time to rescue a dog?
Phillips-Donaldson, D. (2019). 3 new frontiers for pet food
premiumization. Petfood
Roe, K., McConney, A., & Mansfield, C. (2014). How
do zoos “talk” to their general visitors? Do visitors
“listen”? A mixed method investigation of the commu-
nication between modern zoos and their general visitors.
Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2):
Pets, touch, and COVID-19: health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress — 33/33
Schwarz, P. M., Troyer, J. L., & Walker, J. B. (2007). Animal
House: Economics of Pets and the Household. The B.E.
Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 7(1).
Serpell, J. A. (2006). Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy.
Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice,
2nd ed., Academic Press, 3-19.
Sharma, R., Maheshwari, S., & Bronsther, R. (2020). COVID-
19 in the era of loneliness. Current Psychiatry, 19(5):
Shine, R. (2020). Coronavirus sees pet fostering surge, but
cat and dog homes brace for rise in pets being surren-
dered. ABC News, 21 March,
21/coronavi rus-brings-increase-in-pet-adoptions-and-
abandonments /12074914.
Stickey, A., & Koyanagi, A. (2016). Loneliness, common
mental disorders and suicidal behavior: Findings from
a general population survey. Journal of Affective Disor-
ders, 197: 81–87.
Thomas, D. (2020). UK faces puppy shortage as demand for
lockdown companions soars. Financial Times, 22 May, content/1d14541e-0c11-48bb-90a1-3f7dc05258
Torjesen, I. (2020). Covid-19: Mental health services must
be boosted to deal with “tsunami” of cases after lock-
down. BMJ, 369: m1994.
Transparency Market Research (2020) Animal Care Services
Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth.
Trends and Forecast, 2016–2024, transparencymarketre
Uglow, L. (2019). The benefits of an animal-assisted in-
tervention service to patients and staff at a children’s
hospital. British Journal of Nursing, 28(8): 509–515.
V (formerly Eve Ensler) (2020). Touch saved me from lone-
liness. What will we become without it? The Guardian,
21 April,
Van Bavel et al. (2020). Using social and behavioural sci-
ence to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature
Human Behaviour, 4: 460–471.
Vottero, B, & Rittenmeyer, L. (2012). The hospitalised
patients’ experience of being in protective/source isola-
tion: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. JBI
Library of Systematic Reviews, 10(16): 935–976.
Webb, C. (2020). Shelters remind owners that pets are
for life, not just for lockdown. The Age, 27 May, nal/victoria/pounds-remind-owners-
Webster, P. (2020). Virtual health care in the era of COVID-
19. The Lancet, 395(10231): 1180–81.
Wilder-Smith, A., & Freedman, D. (2020). Isolation, quar-
antine, social distancing and community containment:
pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the
novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Journal of
Travel Medicine, 27(2): 1–4.
Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M., & Bosch, D. (2007).
More than a furry companion: The ripple effect of
companion animals on neighbourhood interactions and
sense of community. Society and Animals, 15: 43–56.
Wood, L., Martin, K., Christian, H., Houghton, S., Kawachi,
I., Vallesi, S., & McCune, S. (2017). Social capital and
pet ownership – A tale of four cities. SSM - Population
Health, 5(3): 442–447.
Yerbury, R., & Boyd, W. (2018). Human–dolphin interac-
tions: Relationships, connections, and the reinforce-
ment of an ongoing nature relationship. Anthrozo
31(4): 443–458.
Young, J., Bowen-Salter, H., O’Dwyer, L., Stevens, K., Not-
tle, C., & Baker, A. (2020). A qualitative analysis of
pets as suicide protection for older people. Anthrozo
33(2): 191–205.
... COVID-19-related distress resulted in the United States' population experiencing a doubling in the self-reported rates of poor mental health days (Swaziek & Wozniak, 2020). Echoing findings by Young et al. (2020), this study reveals how cats nurtured their guardians by providing love, a calming presence, and companionship. Participants shared how their cat's jovial spirits and cuddly nature brought humor and a sense of connection when they, as humans, struggled with pandemic-related anxiety, fear, and depression. ...
... A study by the same authors (Bussolari et al., 2021) exploring the relationships between companion dogs and their guardians' during COVID-19 found that dog guardians proclaimed the pandemic solidified their companion dog's place as a family member in their household and verified their feelings that they could not live without the love and comfort shared by their dog. These results mirror those of other studies of household pets that proclaim dogs, cats, horses, and even fish, provide a comforting presence during the pandemic (Applebaum, 2021;Ratschen et al., 2020;Shoesmith et al., 2021;Young et al., 2020). Among the differences in guardian's experiences with their companion animals were those of dog guardians' necessity to attend to their dogs' demand for toileting, exercise and social activity. ...
... Our study extended the findings of Applebaum et al. (2020) by portraying guardians' frustrations with their cats' behaviors, and how they were more likely to joke about how their cats were annoyed by their humans always being at home, thus, disturbing their naps and quite solitude. Interestingly, cat guardians more frequently described their relationship with their companion animals as bringing unconditional love, which was not mentioned in the COVID-19 dog sample (Bussolari et al., 2021); thus, elaborating on findings by Young et al. (2020). ...
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated negative impacts on the psychological well-being of humans around the world. Most communities have followed social distancing mandates, resulting in social isolation and changes to daily work and social routines. Extended periods of social isolation can lead to boredom, loneliness, and increased risk for physical and mental health concerns. For many individuals during the pandemic, their household members and cats have represented their only daily contact with living beings. Cats have been shown to form strong attachments to their owners and to reduce humans’ stress responses, yet there is a dearth of research, especially when compared to dogs. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the thoughts, experiences, and concerns of adults regarding their relationships with their companion cat during the initial months of COVID-19. Data were collected between March 30 th and May 1 st , 2020, via an online questionnaire. Respondents (n=956) were recruited through social media outlets and human-animal focused organizations. Directed content analysis methods informed the process for discovering themes in the data. Themes include participants’ enhanced bonds, increased quality time, gratitude, worries about their cat’s well-being, and a reduced sense of isolation and emotional distress.
... Understandings drawn from the Ottawa Charter [5] of seeking to actively create health-promoting environments, rather than simply presume that medicalized health protection creates this could have been used to identify the risks in 'merely' preventing deaths [39,40]. Had aged care services routinely encompassed human-animal relationships prior to COVID, the intense stress experienced by many residents and their loved ones engendered through lack of face-to-face interaction and physical contact could have been reduced with animals filling some human needs for touch and physical contact [43]. ...
Full-text available
This study explores the challenges facing a pilot project aiming to foster homeless cats in an Australian residential aged care facility. The global COVID-19 pandemic stalled the project but also presented an opportunity to gain reflective insights into the perceived barriers, enablers and tensions involved in seeking to implement pet animal inclusion in residential aged care. Perspectives from aged care management, animal welfare services and researchers/project managers were all sought using semi-structured interviews, and themes developed using a qualitative descriptive analysis. Perceived barriers to the project before and after the pandemic were not dissimilar with four key themes emerging: competing priorities, risk and safety, resources, and timing. All existed differently across stakeholder groups creating tensions to be negotiated. These themes are then mapped to the competencies established by the International Union of Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) for undertaking health promotion, demonstrating that this skill base can be drawn on when seeking to implement human–animal inclusive projects. Creating supportive healthful environments for frail older persons is a moral imperative of extended lives. Health Promotion skills as outlined in the Ottawa Charter and IUHPE competencies for health promotion workers need to be extended to include animal services, agendas and cultures to promote multi-species health promotion into the future.
... Additionally, the "stay-at-home" orders as well as the social distancing measures that came with the COVID-19 restrictions have brought challenges to many. Studies from all over the world agree that during the 2020-2021 lockdowns, dogs helped prevent loneliness in adults and children (Morgan et al., 2020;Young et al., 2020;Bussolari et al., 2021;Martin et al., 2021;Oliva & Johnston, 2021;Lee, Song & Lee, 2022). Before the pandemic, the positive effect of dogs against loneliness for children was already being highlighted (Rew, 2000;Black, 2012;Purewal et al., 2017). ...
Full-text available
Personal wellbeing is greatly influenced by our childhood and adolescence, and the relationships formed during those phases of our development. The human-dog bond represents a significant relationship that started thousands of years ago. There is a higher prevalence of dog ownership around the world, especially in households including children. This has resulted in a growing number of researchers studying our interactions with dogs and an expanding evidence base from the exploration of child-dog interactions. We review the potential effects of child-dog interactions on the physical, mental, and social wellbeing of both species. A search of the SCOPUS database identified documents published between January 1980 and April 2022. Filtering for key inclusion criteria, duplicate removals, and inspecting the references of these documents for additional sources, we reviewed a total of 393 documents, 88% of which were scientific articles. We were able to define the numerous ways in which children and dogs interact, be it neutral ( e.g ., sharing a common area), positive ( e.g ., petting), or negative ( e.g ., biting). Then, we found evidence for an association between childhood interaction with dogs and an array of benefits such as increased physical activities, a reduction of stress, and the development of empathy. Nonetheless, several detrimental outcomes have also been identified for both humans and dogs. Children are the most at-risk population regarding dog bites and dog-borne zoonoses, which may lead to injuries/illness, a subsequent fear of dogs, or even death. Moreover, pet bereavement is generally inevitable when living with a canine companion and should not be trivialized. With a canine focus, children sometimes take part in caretaking behaviors toward them, such as feeding or going for walks. These represent opportunities for dogs to relieve themselves outside, but also to exercise and socialize. By contrast, a lack of physical activity can lead to the onset of obesity in both dogs and children. Dogs may present greater levels of stress when in the presence of children. Finally, the welfare of assistance, therapy, and free-roaming dogs who may interact with children remains underexplored. Overall, it appears that the benefits of child-dog interactions outweigh the risks for children but not for dogs; determination of the effects on both species, positive as well as negative, still requires further development. We call for longitudinal studies and cross-cultural research in the future to better understand the impact of child-dog interactions. Our review is important for people in and outside of the scientific community, to pediatricians, veterinarians, and current or future dog owners seeking to extend their knowledge, and to inform future research of scientists studying dogs and human-animal interactions.
... Pets seem to play an especially significant role in the lives of people who are socially isolated or excluded, as they can provide solace, companionship, and a sense of worth. The bonds between people and animals can help smooth over life's rough edges, providing fuel for perseverance [43], especially during financial crises. For example, a study in Malaysia demonstrated that during the COVID-lockdown, pet owners were found to have significantly higher levels of coping self-efficacy, positive emotions, and psychological well-being in comparison to non-pet owners [44]. ...
Full-text available
Limited literature explores the relationship between economic impacts and pet ownership. Do people have more pets as a result of economic crises? In the current study, we answer this question by looking at the time series of pet ownership and children present in U.S. households from 2003 to 2018. We utilize a causal inference technique to compare the estimated real trend of pet ownership in American households against the scenario in which the 2007–08 financial crisis would not have occurred. Our findings suggest that the financial crisis triggered households to own more pets, specifically dogs and cats.
... Additionally, the "stay-at-home" orders as well as the social distancing measures that came with the COVID-19 restrictions have brought challenges to many. Studies from all over the world agree that during the 2020-2021 lockdowns, dogs helped prevent loneliness in adults and children (Morgan et al., 2020;Young et al., 2020;Bussolari et al., 2021;Martin et al., 2021;Oliva & Johnston, 2021;Lee, Song & Lee, 2022). Before the pandemic, the positive effect of dogs against loneliness for children was already being highlighted (Rew, 2000;Black, 2012;Purewal et al., 2017). ...
Our wellbeing is greatly influenced by our childhood and adolescence, and the relationships that we form during those phases of our development. The human-dog bond started thousands of years ago. The higher prevalence of dog ownership around the world, especially in households including children along with the growing number of people studying dogs most likely explain the growing literature focusing on child-dog interactions. We review the potential effects of child-dog interactions on the physical, mental, and social wellbeing of both species. A scoping search of the SCOPUS database found several hundred documents meeting selection criteria. It allowed us to define the numerous ways in which children and dogs can interact, be it neutral (e.g., sharing a common area), positive (e.g., petting), or negative (e.g., biting). Then, we found evidence for an association between interacting with dogs during childhood and an array of health and mental benefits like stress relief and the development of empathy. Walking a dog and playing with one are perfect physical activity opportunities. Additionally, interacting with a dog can help lower stress and may have a role in the development of empathy. Nonetheless, a number of detrimental outcomes have also been identified in both humans and dogs. Children are the most at-risk population regarding dog bites and dog-borne zoonoses, which may lead to a subsequent fear of dogs or even death. Moreover, pet bereavement is generally inevitable when living with a canine companion and should not be trivialized. In terms of dogs, children sometimes take part in caretaking behaviors toward them which include going on walks. They are opportunities for dogs to relieve themselves outside, but also to exercise and socialize. In contrast, a lack of physical activity can lead to the onset of obesity. Dogs may present greater levels of stress when in the presence of children. Finally, the welfare of assistance, therapy, and free-roaming dogs remains underexplored. Overall, the study of the effects, positive as well as negative, on both species still requires further development. We call for more longitudinal studies and hope for cross-cultural research in the future in order to better understand the impact child-dog interactions might have.
... Perhaps the most surprising aspect of our study is the lack of a significant relationship between stress levels and pet ownership, which has shown a negative correlation in existing academic and popular studies [16,57,58]. The relationship between stress levels and the presence of domestic animals, especially dogs, has been shown in many studies on the basis of both individuals' perceptions and changes in physiological variables [31,32,59,60]. ...
Full-text available
Mental health problems, specifically those related to stress, anxiety, and depression, have become more prevalent among college students compared to data available prior to the levels of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent studies have shown that in different geographical areas, there is a high prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in university students compared to pre-pandemic levels. Thus, our objective was to establish self-perceived levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in university students earning an education degree at the University of Granada and the University of Costa Rica during periods of confinement and virtual learning associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The final study sample consisted of 942 students from both universities. Two questionnaires were administered: The state trait anxiety inventory and the depression, anxiety, and stress scale 21. Descriptive analyses, mean comparisons, Pearson correlation coefficients, and multivariate regression were performed. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and the effect size was analyzed using Cohen’s d. The results indicated that levels of depression, anxiety, and stress were mild or moderate despite the confinement and virtual learning associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Women had higher levels of anxiety than men, and singles had higher levels of anxiety than individuals in other family situations. Younger individuals had higher levels of stress and anxiety.
... These associations attenuated slightly after controlling for parent/ child mental health, reflecting environmental and genetic origins of anxiety, whereby children are more likely to experience anxiety if their parents do [45]. Although this finding might seem counter-intuitive, due to evidence that pets are health-promoting [e.g., 17,46], this negative association between pet attachment and mental health has been reported elsewhere, both generally and during COVID-19 [e.g., [21][22][23]31]. Given that causality cannot be inferred, there are two possibilities. ...
Full-text available
Restrictions, social isolation, and uncertainty related to the global COVID-19 pandemic have disrupted the ways that parents and children maintain family routines, health, and wellbeing. Companion animals (pets) can be a critical source of comfort during traumatic experiences, although changes to family routines, such as those caused by COVID-19, can also bring about challenges like managing undesirable pet behaviours or pet-human interactions. We aimed to examine the relationship between pet attachment and mental health for both parents and their children during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. A total of 1,034 parents living with a child under 18 years and a cat or dog completed an online cross-sectional survey between July and October 2020. Path analysis using multivariate linear regression was conducted to examine associations between objective COVID-19 impacts, subjective worry about COVID-19, human-pet attachment, and mental health. After adjusting for core demographic factors, stronger pet-child attachment was associated with greater child anxiety (parent-reported, p<.001). Parent-pet attachment was not associated with self-reported psychological distress (p=.42), however, parents who reported a strong emotional closeness with their pet reported greater psychological distress (p=.002). Findings highlight the role of pets during times of change and uncertainty. It is possible that families are turning to animals as a source of comfort, during a time when traditional social supports are less accessible. Alternatively, strong pet attachment is likely to reflect high levels of empathy, which might increase vulnerability to psychological distress. Longitudinal evidence is required to delineate the mechanisms underpinning pet attachment and mental health.
... A companion animal may serve as a (partial) solution for loneliness and social distancing. Previous studies demonstrate that interaction and especially petting a companion animal can provide a calming effect and increase positive emotions (Walsh, 2009;Beetz et al., 2012;Bao and Schreer, 2016;Gee et al., 2017;Charry-Sánchez et al., 2018;Young et al., 2020). However, not everyone is willing or able to take care of a pet. ...
Full-text available
Social touch between humans, as well as between humans and animals, was previously found to reduce pain and stress. We previously reported that touching a social robot can also induce a reduction in pain ratings. However, it is unclear if the effect that touching a robot has on pain perception is due to its appearance and its pleasant touch, or due to its ability to socially interact with humans. In the current experiment, we aimed to assess the contribution of the interactive quality to pain perception. We assessed the effect of touching the social robot PARO on mild and strong pain ratings and on stress perception, on a total of 60 healthy young participants. The robot either interacted with participants (ON group, n = 30) or was turned off (OFF group, n = 30). Touching the robot induced a decrease in mild pain ratings (compared to baseline) only in the ON group while strong pain ratings decreased similarly in both the ON and the OFF groups. The decrease in mild pain ratings in the ON group was significantly greater in participants with a higher positive perception of the interaction with PARO. We conclude that part of the effect that touching the robot has on pain stems from its interactive features.
... Extended periods of social isolation are a notable component of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were widely available in the U.S. One study on older adults found that among those who experienced high social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, walking a dog one or more times per day was not associated with a significant increase in loneliness (Carr et al., 2021). A number of studies across the world which focused on the experiences of those in quarantine reported that pet owners received substantial support from their pets (Bowen et al., 2020;Bussolari et al., 2021;Young et al., 2020). In a paper published early in the pandemic, Nieforth and O'Haire (2020) theorized that pets may provide this perceived support by offering unconditional positive regard, nonjudgmental support, and additionally by necessitating a consistent routine, thereby managing uncertainty in the personal sphere. ...
Full-text available
The global COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives of both people and animals worldwide. Research conducted during the early phases of the pandemic indicated mixed but generally positive relationships with pets, which were exacerbated both positively and negatively during the early lockdown phases of the pandemic. This longitudinal study of U.S. residents (n = 63) sought to collect novel data related to the perceived attitudes toward, attachment to, and relationship with pets held by participants at two points during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many participants reported a positive relationship with their pets and appreciated the increased amount of time they could spend with them during the pandemic. Some participants noted an increase in negative behaviors, such as separation anxiety, in their pets. This study contributes to a body of research collected within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.
COVID-19 is, at its core, an environmental crisis borne out of imbalanced or unjust human-animal relations such as habitat destruction, the wildlife trade, and intensive livestock production. COVID-19 underscores the need for the subfield of animal geographies to help advance societal understanding of socio-ecological dynamics and crises as rooted in human-animal relations, yet animal geographers themselves are experiencing this unexpected and disruptive force in their daily work and home lives. So, what does COVID-19 mean for animal geographies? How might animal geographers make sense of this pandemic moment in the subfield’s history? This chapter directly engages animal geographers to reflect on these central questions through a broad-based survey of the Animal Geography Specialty Group of the AAG’s members (~n = 50) and follow-up interviews (n = 5) of a diverse cross-section of animal geographers. By exploring how the pandemic is shaping their professional practices (e.g., approaches to teaching and learning, research activities, activism and policy engagement), areas of research interest (e.g., topics, theories, methods), and perspectives on the role of animal geographies in the time of COVID-19, we document this pivotal moment to advance understanding of human-animal relations and our active pursuit of animal justice.KeywordsSocio-ecological crisisProfessional practiceResearchTeachingActivism
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.
Full-text available
A stroke is a condition that can give rise to consequences such as cognitive and physical constraints, which sometimes manifest in the psychological condition of the patient. Such patients commence rehabilitation as soon as is possible, which involves a multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. One aspect of complementary rehabilitation could be animal-assisted therapy (AAT). A total of 15 individuals were split into an experimental group comprising 6 patients (2 males, 4 females), and a control group of 9 patients (3 males, 6 females). The participants in the control group were aged from 43 to 87 years and the experimental group featured participants aged from 45 to 76 years. Both groups received standard physiotherapy and occupational therapy. In addition, the experimental group was supplemented with AAT, with the animal in question being a dog. The tools primarily applied to measure the outcomes were the Barthel index, blood pressure, and heart rate measurements, whereas the Likert scale was employed to discern the mood of the patients. The results showed that changes in the values for heart rate and blood pressure were insignificant. However, a statistically significant aspect of the research pertained to the patients confirming that they felt better after the AAT sessions. Hence, AAT could potentially bolster the effectiveness of other therapies.
COVID‐19 (the new strain of coronavirus) has been declared a global pandemic. Measures announced over recent weeks to tackle it have seen people’s day‐to‐day life drastically altered. These changes are essential to beat coronavirus and protect health systems (UK Home Office 2020). However, there are unintended, negative consequences. As the virus continues to spread across the world, it brings with it multiple new stresses, including physical and psychological health risks, isolation and loneliness, the closure of many schools and businesses, economic vulnerability and job losses. Through all of that, children (and their mothers) are particularly vulnerable (End Violence against Children, 2020) to the risk of domestic violence. Domestic violence refers to a range of violations that happen within a domestic space. It is a broad term that encompasses intimate partner violence (IPV), a form of abuse that is perpetrated by a current or ex‐partner.
An unanticipated finding during research on the role that pets play in the health of older adults was that pets had protected some from suicide. Given that older people are more vulnerable to fatal first attempts, understanding protective factors in this population is vital. Twelve older adults interviewed about the role of pets on their health spoke overtly of suicide (n = 2), obliquely referred to suicidal ideation (n = 5), or reported high levels of distress and/or depression (n = 5). These participants were aged 60 to 83 years; five were male and seven were female. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive thematic approach in order to understand how they (collectively) identified pets as protecting them from suicide. Concepts of function, presence, known-ness, and reciprocity emerged as factors protective against suicide. These factors may counter those already identified as underpinning suicidal behavior: perceived burdensomeness and social alienation. For some older people, relationships with nonhuman others may be protective against suicide. Systemic responses that incorporate human–animal relationship awareness need to be explored to promote and protect some humans while also considering the impact on pets.
There is a substantial amount of literature that suggests that animals, and specifically animals kept as pets, can have a positive effect on wellbeing. Research exploring the impact of animals on wellbeing in care homes mainly concerns visiting animals as well as shared communal pets. In light of the lack of research regarding personal pets in care homes, the aim of this study was to explore what the experience of keeping a personal pet in a care home means for residents’ sense of wellbeing. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven care home residents who were currently living with their pet in a care home. Interviews were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Analysis revealed four master themes deemed to be relevant to participants’ wellbeing. these were: ‘sense of self and identity’, ‘responsibility and ownership’, ‘motivation and desire to live’ and ‘feeling content in the care home’. The analysis indicated that living with a personal pet in a care home has the potential to enhance residents’ wellbeing. At the same time, it also found that the benefits of keeping a personal pet may be dependent on specific circumstances, such as the attitudes of staff and fellow residents at the care home. This study indicates that it may be advisable for more care homes to accept personal pets.
Public health measures were decisive in controlling the SARS epidemic in 2003. Isolation is the separation of ill persons from non-infected persons. Quarantine is movement restriction, often with fever surveillance, of contacts when it is not evident whether they have been infected but are not yet symptomatic or have not been infected. Community containment includes measures that range from increasing social distancing to community-wide quarantine. Whether these measures will be sufficient to control 2019-nCoV depends on addressing some unanswered questions.