Cited by 30Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“We Lost a Member of the Family”: Predictors of the Grief Experience Surrounding the Loss of a Pet

Open access
Behler, Anna Maria C., Green, Jeffrey D., Joy-Gaba, Jennifer·2020·Human-animal interaction bulletin

Abstract

Pets play an important role in their owners’ lives and are often viewed as family members. However, research on human-animal relationships suggests that pet owners often receive relatively less emotional support when experiencing grief after the death of a beloved pet, a phenomenon known as disenfranchised grief. In this internet-based survey study, we explored how people experienced grief surrounding the loss of their pets, and how this experience mirrors emotions that result from the death of a human loved one. We examined how factors such as anthropomorphism, attachment to a pet, and social support influence the grief experience. We also explored how feelings of guilt and shame play a role when grieving the loss of a pet. We found that grief over the loss of a pet is similar to grieving a human loved one in large part due to the anthropomorphic qualities attribute that owners attribute to their pets. Avenues for future exploration of the psychological impact of pet ownership are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/hai.2020.0017

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The only published dog-related guilt research is limited to health issues (in particular, end-of-life) and relinquishment.

    “the only research pertaining to guilt and pets revolves around relinquishment [90,91,92], medical, and, especially, end-of-life care and euthanasia-related decisions [93,94,95,96,97].”

    From Disenfranchised Guilt-Pet Owners' Burden. (2022) · cites this paper as [94]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Adams, C. L., Bonnett, B. N., & Meek, A. H. (1999). Owners’ response to companion animal death: Development of a theory and practical implications. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 40, 33-39.
  2. 10.2307/352019 · DOI
  3. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1037/a0028134 · DOI
  5. 10.2752/089279308X274056 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1177/2167702618777454 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb01901.x · DOI
  8. 10.1080/15298868.2014.976253 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/019394502320555386 · DOI
  10. 10.17744/mehc.34.4.41q0248450t98072 · DOI
  11. Cowles, K. V. (2016). The death of a pet: Human responses to the breaking of the bond. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.) Pets and the family (pp. 135-148). New York, NY: Routledge. · DOI
  12. Cromer, L. D., & Barlow, M. R. (2013). Factors and convergent validity of the pet attachment and life impact scale (PALS). Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin, 1(2), 34-56.
  13. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.933 · DOI
  14. Davis, H. L. (2011). Death of a companion animal: Understanding human responses to bereavement. In C. Blazina, G. Boyra, & D.S. Shen-Miller (Eds.) The psychology of the human-animal bond. New York, NY: Springer.
  15. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/10778010022181778 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.642 · DOI
  18. 10.2752/089279394787001970 · DOI
  19. 10.1080/08927936.2018.1482117 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.004 · DOI
  21. Green, J. D., Mathews, M., & Foster, C. A. (2009). Another kind of “interpersonal” relationship: Humans, animal companions, and attachment theory. In E. Cuyler & M. Ackhart (Eds.), Psychology of Relationships (pp. 87-109). New York, NY: Nova Science Press.
  22. 10.1080/15298868.2016.1187669 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.2752/175303711X13045914865385 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1080/15401383.2017.1328291 · DOI
  25. 10.2752/089279306785415493 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/jts.21877 · DOI
  27. Lagoni, L. (2011). Family-present euthanasia: Protocols for planning and preparing clients for the death of a pet. In C. Blazina, G. Boyra, & D.S. Shen-Miller (Eds.) The psychology of the human-animal bond. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
  28. 10.1017/S1041610210000074 · DOI
  29. Marschall, D., Sanftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The state shame and guilt scale. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
  30. McConnell, A. R., Lloyd, E. P., Buchanan, T. M. (2017). Animals as friends: The social psychological implications of human–pet relationships. In M. Hojjat & A. Moyer (Eds.), Psychology of friendship (pp. 157-174). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  31. 10.1080/08927936.2017.1311050 · DOI
  32. 10.1080/15325024.2011.572046 · DOI
  33. 10.2752/175303714X14023922798192 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1111/1467-954X.12226 · DOI
  35. 10.1080/08927936.2017.1270600 · DOI
  36. 10.1017/S1041610213001506 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/1467-9566.12176 · DOI
  38. 10.1080/08927936.2019.1621545 · DOI
  39. 10.1371/journal.pone.0107205 · DOI
  40. 10.1080/08927936.2017.1270599 · DOI
  41. Trigg, J., Smith, B., & Thompson, K. (2015). Does emotional closeness to pets motivate their inclusion in bushfire survival plans? Implications for emergency communicators. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, 30(2), 24-30.
  42. 10.1080/13669877.2017.1405458 · DOI
  43. Villacieros, M., Serrano, I., Bermejo, J. C., Magaña, M., & Carabias, R. (2014). Social support and psychological well-being as possible predictors of complicated grief in a cross-section of people in mourning. Anales de psicología, 30, 944-951. · DOI
  44. Vitak, J., Wisniewski, P., Ashktorab, Z., & Badillo-Urquiola, K. (2017, July). Benefits and drawbacks of using social media to grieve following the loss of pet. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society. ACM.
  45. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2013.11.006 · DOI
  46. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Behler, A. M. C., Green, J. D., & Joy-Gaba, J.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Venue
Human-animal interaction bulletin
Published
2020-12-01
ISSN
2333-522X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3156353668
Cited by
30
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Human-animal interaction bulletin (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
pet loss, disenfranchised grief, human-animal relations, anthropomorphism, pet attachment, social support, guilt, shame, grief experience, pet owners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review