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

Jessica Saunders,Susan H Babey,Layla Parast,Jeremy V Miles,Meghan Byrne

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179494

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.

Highlights

The funders had no role in the Approximately sixty-two percent of the American population live with a pet [1], and it is generally believed that these pets provide mental and physical health benefits to their human companions [2]
Another study found that heart attack patients with dogs were more likely to have another attack or hospital readmission than dog owners [9]. These results demonstrate the potential health outcome differences between pet- and non-pet owners, but since they were performed on small, distinct, and self-selecting populations, they cannot be applied to the general population and we cannot infer that the difference in survival was caused by the dog ownership
While this study clearly demonstrates that isolating pet ownership from confounds is important for precise estimates of its causal impact, it falls short of a definitive answer since there are other differences limiting its generalizability, such as cultural differences between German and Australia samples, the use of doctor’s visits as a proxy for health, potential missing variable bias, among others

Summary

Introduction

Sixty-two percent of the American population live with a pet [1], and it is generally believed that these pets provide mental and physical health benefits to their human companions [2]. Several studies have found that owning and/or interacting with a pet (mostly a dog) has benefits for the individual, including mental health outcomes such as decreased anxiety, and physical health outcomes such as improved immune response and physical activity [4,5,6,7,8].

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion