Cited by 14Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAttachment and Relationship DynamicsAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Human-animal bonds and mental health: Examining the roles of bond strength, interactions, and attachment security

Open access
Orlando, Elizabeth M., Chin, Brian N.·2025·Human-Animal Interactions

Abstract

This study examines how human-animal bonds and interactions impact human mental health. We hypothesized that stronger and more secure human-pet bonds and more frequent interactions would improve mental health, and that more frequent human-pet interactions would correlate with stronger and more secure human-pet bonds. We conducted a secondary analysis of data from 1028 US adults with pets who completed questionnaires assessing bond strength, pet interactions, and depression symptoms. Our results indicated that higher pet attachment anxiety was the only significant predictor of prevalent depression symptoms. Additionally, more frequent interactions with pets (e.g., affection, play) were linked to stronger and more secure bonds. Participants owning both cats and dogs reported more depression symptoms than those who owned cats or dogs only but pet type did not influence bond strength, security, or interaction frequency. These findings highlight attachment anxiety as a key characteristic of human-pet relationships that underlie their impact on mental health. Future research should explore whether fostering a more secure human-pet bond by increasing the frequency of pleasant human-pet interactions and whether human mental health can be improved by fostering a more secure bond with pets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/hai.2025.0005

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Orlando, E. M., & Chin, B. N.
Affiliations
Trinity College (US)
Corresponding author
  • Orlando, Elizabeth M.
  • Chin, Brian N.
Venue
Human-Animal Interactions
Published
2025-02-10
ISSN
2957-9538 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407293593
Cited by
12
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6
FWCI
7.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Human-Animal Interactions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
This work was supported by institutional funding provided to BNC from Trinity College.
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
human-animal bond, human-pet relationship, attachment security, bond strength, human-pet interaction, depressive symptoms, mental health, pet ownership, cats, dogs

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