Do Men Underreport and Mask Their Emotional Attachment to Animal Companions? The Influence of Precarious Masculinity on Men’s Bonds with Their Dogs

Abstract

ABSTRACTMales’ underreporting of psychological issues, physical symptoms, and personal information is commonplace both in medical and psychological settings in North America. One explanation for this occurrence is men that endorse traditional forms of masculine gender roles underreport or mask their symptoms to avoid being perceived as less masculine. In a similar way, the thesis of the current study was males may also mask and underreport the strength of attachment to their animal companions due to masculinity concerns. These males may also have more difficulty explaining why the bond is of importance. To address these notions, we developed the Human–Animal Interaction Conflicts scale (HAIC) consisting of two psychometrically sound subscales that measure conflicts male owners may have related to their pets. The first subscale involves limiting affection conflict (LAC), which measures underreporting or masking affectionate behavior around animal companions. The second entails conflict explaining the importance of the bond (EBC), which results in males not providing clear or accurate remarks when attempting to describe the bond’s significance. The results from linear regressions analyses support the hypothesis that males endorsing traditional forms of masculine gender (as measured by the Precarious Masculinity Scale) underreport or mask their affectionate behaviors toward animal companions. Similarly, these same men also report more difficulty placing into words the bond they have with their dogs. The current study not only has implications for mental health and medical providers but may also help explain past research where males self-report lower levels of attachment to dogs.