CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesUrban Green Space and Health

Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy

Open access
Saunders, Jessica, Parast, Layla, Babey, Susan H., Miles, Jeremy V.·2017·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0179494PMC PMC5482437
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is conflicting evidence about whether living with pets results in better mental and physical health outcomes, with the majority of the empirical research evidence being inconclusive due to methodological limitations. We briefly review the research evidence, including the hypothesized mechanisms through which pet ownership may influence health outcomes. This study examines how pet and non-pet owners differ across a variety of socio-demographic and health measures, which has implications for the proper interpretation of a large number of correlational studies that attempt to draw causal attributions. We use a large, population-based survey from California administered in 2003 (n = 42,044) and find that pet owners and non-pet owners differ across many traits, including gender, age, race/ethnicity, living arrangements, and income. We include a discussion about how the factors associated with the selection into the pet ownership group are related to a range of mental and physical health outcomes. Finally, we provide guidance on how to properly model the effects of pet ownership on health to accurately estimate this relationship in the general population.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0179494

Cites

11 of 11 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

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 majority of research evidence on pet-effect was considered inconclusive due to methodological limitations such as reliance on self-reports, small sample sizes, homogeneous populations, varying research designs, narrow outcome variables, and cross-sectional designs.

    “The majority of research evidence was also considered inconclusive due to methodological limitations such as reliance on self-reports, small sample sizes that may not be representative of the general population, homogeneous populations, varying research designs, narrow range of outcome variables that were examined, and the use of cross-sectional designs that do not consider long-term health outcom”

    From A One Health Perspective on the Human-Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects. (2020) · cites this paper as [107]

    The Introduction (page not provided) says the evidence is insufficient for strong conclusions and identifies small or convenience samples, self-report measures, narrow outcome ranges, and cross-sectional designs as limitations. It does not identify homogeneous populations or varying research designs as reasons the evidence is inconclusive. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. [1]Shepherd AJ. Results of the 2006 AVMA survey of companion animal ownership in US pet-owning households. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008; 232(5): 695– 6. doi: 10.2460/javma.232.5.695 18312174 · DOI
  2. [2]Olmert MD. Made for each other: The biology of the human-animal bond: Da Capo Press; 2009.
  3. [3]Herzog H. The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011; 20(4): 236– 9.
  4. [4]Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC. Which Dogs Bite—a Case-Control Study of Risk-Factors. Pediatrics. 1994; 93(6): 913– 7. 8190576
  5. [5]Kaye AE, Belz JM, Kirschner RE, editors. Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5-Year Review of the Experience at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 76th Annual Conference of the American-Society-of-Plastic-Surgeons; 2007 Oct 29–30; Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  6. [6]Schalamon J, Ainoedhofer H, Singer G, Petnehazy T, Mayr J, Kiss K, et al Analysis of dog bites in children who are younger than 17 years. Pediatrics. 2006; 117(3): E374– E9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1451 16510617 · DOI
  7. [7]Chang Y-F, McMahon JE, Hennon DL, LaPorte RE, Coben JH. Dog bite incidence in the city of Pittsburgh: a capture-recapture approach. Am J Public Health. 1997; 87(10): 1703– 5. 9357359 PMC1381140
  8. [9]Parker G, Gayed A, Owen C, Hyett M, Hilton T, Heruc G. Survival following an acute coronary syndrome: a pet theory put to the test. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2010; 121(1): 65– 70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01410.x 19522884 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [10]Marino L, Lilienfeld SO. Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals. 2007; 20: 239– 49.
  10. [11]Coleman KJ, Rosenberg DE, Conway TL, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Preventive Medicine. 2008; 47(3): 309– 12. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.05.007 18572234 PMC2587031 · DOI
  11. [12]Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Timperio A, Bull F. Understanding dog owners' increased levels of physical activity: Results from RESIDE. Am J Public Health. 2008; 98(1): 66– 9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.103499 18048786 PMC2156050 · DOI
  12. [13]Timperio A, Salmon J, Chu B, Andrianapoulos N. Is dog ownership or dog walking associated with weight status in children and their parents? Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2008; 19(1): 60– 3. 18481934
  13. [14]Shiloh S, Sorek† G, Terkel J. Reduction of state-anxiety by petting animals in a controlled laboratory experiment. Anxiety, stress, and coping. 2003; 16(4): 387– 95.
  14. [17]Brodie SJ, Biley FC. An exploration of the potential benefits of pet-facilitated therapy. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 1999; 8(4): 329– 37. 10624248
  15. [18]Nimer J, Lundahl B. Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis. Anthrozoos. 2007; 20(3): 225– 38.
  16. [19]Braun C, Stangler T, Narveson J, Pettingell S. Animal-assisted therapy as a pain relief intervention for children. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. 2009; 15(2): 105– 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2009.02.008 19341990 · DOI
  17. [20]Barak Y, Savorai O, Mavashev S, Beni A. Animal-Assisted Therapy for Elderly Schizophrenic Patients: A One-Year Controlled Trial. 2001 p. 439– 42. 11739071
  18. [21]Vidrine M, Owen-Smith P, Faulkner P. Equine-facilitated group psychotherapy: Applications for therapeutic vaulting. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2002; 23(6): 587– 603. doi: 10.1080/01612840290052730 12217223 · DOI
  19. [22]O'Haire ME, McKenzie SJ, Beck AM, Slaughter V. Animals may act as social buffers: Skin conductance arousal in children with autism spectrum disorder in a social context. Developmental psychobiology. 2015; 57(5): 584– 95. doi: 10.1002/dev.21310 25913902 PMC8447904 · DOI
  20. [23]Chen CM, Morgenstern V, Bischof W, Herbarth O, Borte M, Behrendt H, et al Dog ownership and contact during childhood and later allergy development. European Respiratory Journal. 2008; 31(5): 963– 73. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00092807 18256062 · DOI
  21. [24]Friedmann E, Katcher AH, Thomas AH, Lynch JJ. Animal companions and one year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports. 1980; 95: 307– 12. 6999524 PMC1422527
  22. [25]Friedmann E, Thomas SA, Stein PK, Kleiger RE. Relation between pet ownership and heart rate variability in patients with healed myocardial infarcts. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2003; 91(6): 718– 21. 12633806
  23. [27]Headey B, Grabka M. Pets and Human Health in Germany and Australia: National Longitudinal Results. Social Indicators Research. 2007; 80(2): 297– 311.
  24. [29]Westgarth C, Pinchbeck GL, Bradshaw JW, Dawson S, Gaskell RM, Christley RM. Factors associated with dog ownership and contact with dogs in a UK community. BMC Veterinary Research. 2007; 3(1): 5. 17407583 PMC1852100
  25. [30]Lee S, Brown ER, Grant D, Belin TR, Brick JM. Exploring nonresponse bias in a health survey using neighborhood characteristics. Am J Public Health. 2009; 99(10): 1811 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.154161 19696379 PMC2741510 · DOI
  26. [33]Ponce NA, Lavarreda SA, Yen W, Brown ER, DiSogra C, Satter DE. The California Health Interview Survey 2001: translation of a major survey for California's multiethnic population. Public Health Reports. 2004; 119(4): 388 doi: 10.1016/j.phr.2004.05.002 15219795 PMC1497648 · DOI
  27. [34]Pellmar TC, Brandt EN Jr, Baird MA. Health and behavior: the interplay of biological, behavioral, and social influences: summary of an Institute of Medicine report. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2002; 16(4): 206– 19. 11913326
  28. [35]McGinnis JM, Williams-Russo P, Knickman JR. The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Affairs. 2002; 21(2): 78– 93. 11900188
  29. [36]Schroeder SA. We can do better—improving the health of the American people. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 357(12): 1221– 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa073350 17881753 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [39]Marmot MG, Stansfeld S, Patel C, North F, Head J, White I, et al Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. The Lancet. 1991; 337(8754): 1387– 93. 1674771
  31. [41]Anderson KM. How far have we come in reducing health disparities? National Academies Press, 2012. 23193624
  32. [43]Newey WK, Powell JL. Instrumental variable estimation of nonparametric models. Econometrica. 2003; 71(5): 1565– 78.
  33. [44]Hahn J, Todd P, Van der Klaauw W. Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica. 2001; 69(1): 201– 9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saunders, J., Parast, L., Babey, S. H., & Miles, J. V.
Affiliations
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Parast, Layla
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2017-06-23
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
e0179494
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0179494
PMC
PMC5482437
OpenAlex
W2646529287
Cited by
141
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • WBI Studies Repository (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD066591)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
Keywords
pet ownership, human-animal interaction, mental health, physical health, sociodemographic differences, causal inference, health policy, California
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Human-Animal Bond, California, Cats, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dogs, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Ownership, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Class, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models

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