New Study Looks At The Effect Of Pet Dogs And Cats On Human Emotional Well-Being
A new study published in Frontiers in Psychology looked at human animal interaction and understanding the role of dog and cat interactions in emotional well-being.
“Our study builds on the notion that companion animals can benefit mental well-being, an idea often referred to as the ‘pet effect’,” Dr. Mayke Janssens told us. “We aimed to advance our understanding of this phenomenon and its underlying mechanisms by examining whether higher levels of interaction with a companion animal are associated with emotional well-being in daily life, and whether stress buffering serves as a mechanism underlying this association. To further refine our understanding of the pet effect, we also investigated whether these relationships differ between interactions with dogs versus cats.”
The researchers went into the study with several expectations based on previous research. A substantial body of literature suggests that companion animals can have a positive impact on emotional well-being. At the same time, findings in this field are quite heterogeneous, which means that researchers are increasingly trying to understand for whom, under which circumstances, and which aspects of human–animal interactions are beneficial.
“Our study was designed to contribute to this more nuanced understanding,” Dr. Janssens told us. “Because previous studies had already reported positive associations between interacting with companion animals and well-being, we expected to find a similar association in daily life.”
Based on the stress-buffering hypothesis, the research team also expected that interacting with a pet would reduce people’s emotional reactions to stress. In addition, the researchers anticipated that the effects and underlying mechanisms might differ between dogs and cats.
“Dogs and cats differ in their typical behavioural characteristics, and people often form somewhat different relationships with these species,” Dr. Janssens told us. “Therefore, we expected that these differences could be reflected in the way interactions affect well-being.”
The researchers tested their theories using an Experience Sampling Method (EMA) study. Dog and cat owners downloaded an app on their smartphone, which prompted them ten times a day for five consecutive days. At each prompt, participants reported whether they had experienced stress, how they were feeling at that moment, whether their pet was present, and the extent to which they were interacting with their pet.
“This approach allowed us to study these processes as they unfolded in participants’ everyday lives, rather than relying on retrospective reports,” Dr. Janssens told us. “We were able to examine whether people experienced more positive emotions and fewer negative emotions at moments when they interacted more with their pet. We also tested whether interacting with a pet reduced the emotional impact of stress, as predicted by the stress-buffering hypothesis.”
Because the sample included both dog and cat owners, the research team was able to compare interactions with dogs and cats to determine whether the associations between pet interaction, stress, and emotional well-being differed between the two species.
“I have always been intrigued by the idea that companion animals can have a positive impact on human well-being,” Dr. Janssens told us. “At the same time, I am somewhat skeptical of broad claims about the benefits of pet ownership. I do not think that companion animals are beneficial for all people, all pets, and all situations.”
What interests Dr. Janssens most is understanding this complexity. Rather than asking whether pets are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for well-being, Dr. Janssens thinks the more interesting question is for whom, under which circumstances, and through which mechanisms can companion animals contribute to well-being?
“Untangling these nuances is what motivates much of my research,” Dr. Janssens told us. “We found that higher levels of interaction with a companion animal were associated with increased positive affect and decreased negative affect. In other words, people tended to feel better at moments when they interacted more with their pet.”
However, noted Dr. Janssens, the researchers did not find evidence for a stress-buffering effect. Interacting with a pet did not appear to reduce the emotional impact of stress. The research team also found remarkably few differences between interactions with dogs and interactions with cats.
“The only notable species difference emerged for one of our two stress measures,” Dr. Janssens told us. “In this case, interactions with cats were associated with a slightly stronger negative emotional reaction to stress, rather than a weaker one. However, this effect was very small, was only found for one of the stress measures, and was based on a relatively small group of cat owners compared to dog owners. We therefore interpret this finding with caution and believe it requires replication before firm conclusions can be drawn.”
The absence of clear differences between dogs and cats was probably the finding that surprised the researchers the most, Dr. Janssens told us. By contrast, the fact that stress-buffering did not emerge as the primary mechanism was somewhat less surprising, as previous studies investigating stress-buffering by companion animals have also produced mixed and sometimes contradictory results.
“I think the results reinforce the idea that the relationship between companion animals and human well-being is more complex than it is often portrayed,” Dr. Janssens told us. “The question is not simply whether pets are good or bad for our well-being. Instead, future research should focus on understanding when, for whom, and through which mechanisms interactions with companion animals are beneficial. This is where I think the field needs to move next.”
