Couples' Perception of Stressfulness of Death of the Family Pet

Author(s): M. Geraldine Gage and Ralph Holcomb

Source: Family Relations , Jan., 1991, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 103-105
Published by: National Council on Family Relations

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/585666

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/585666?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Family Relations

This content downloaded from

163.22.18.73 on Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:45:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Couples' Perception of Stressfulness of Death
M. Geraldine Gage and Ralph Holcomb**
A survey mailed to 1,650 mid-life couples resulted in a subsample of 242 couples whose pet had died during the 3 years pr
to the survey. Among the subsample who reported pet loss, about half of wives and more than a quarter of husbands re
they were "quite" or "extremely" disturbed by the death of a family pet. For husbands, pet loss was rated about as stre
the loss of a close friendship, for wives about as stressful as losing touch with their married children. There was conse
the rating of the stressfulness of pet loss by fewer than half of the couples.
My old dog Buster died in his
sleep. I felt as bad that night as I've
ever felt, I think ... tears ran off my
face like rain. "Oh, for crying out
loud," Luanne said, "Why don't you
grow up?" (G. Keillor, Lake Wobe-
gon Days, p. 23).
The observed association between
family stress and family functioning
and health (Boss, 1987; Kessler, Price, &
Wortman, 1985; Lavee, McCubbin, & Ol-
son, 1987; Mechanic, 1974; Monroe, 1983;
Thoits, 1983) legitimizes efforts to
understand under what circumstances
and for which family members psycho-
logical stress occurs. Anecdotal data
from practitioners of social work,
veterinary medicine, psychiatry, and
nursing (Carmack, 1985; Cowles, 1985;
Kay, 1984; Quackenbush, 1984; Quacken-
bush & Glickman, 1983) on the
responses of owners to the loss of a pet
reveal the seriousness of the trauma ex-
perienced by many owners. Albert and
Bulcroft (1988) note that more
households now have pets than have
children, suggesting that the dimension
of the problem is significant. With this
awareness has come the need for practi-
tioners and other family professionals
to understand the dynamics of pet loss
as a family stressor and its relationship
to the psychosocial welfare of families'
systems (Sussman, 1985). The results
of a survey of families about pet loss
and other family system changes and
their relationship to family stress are
reported here.
Background
Family stress theory defines nor-
mative family life events and transitions
as stressors (Boss, 1987; McCubbin &
Figley, 1983), among which loss of
members due to death ranks among the
most stressful (Holmes & Rahe, 1967).
Among families, changes in family
structure for reasons ranging from
January 1991
163.22.18.73 on Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:45:01 UTC
of the Family Pet*
death and divorce to children departing
family system dynamics. Pauline Boss
for college or marriage have been iden-
(personal communication, October 6,
tified as potential stressors. In their 1988), AAMFT supervisor at University
preliminary work for an investigation of of Minnesota, reports she has included
normative and unexpected life events pets in family therapy sessions. Fur-
encountered by families, Mederer and thermore, she notes that Kvebaek (see
Hill (1983) found that families included Cromwell, Fournier, & Kvebaek, 1980)
loss of family pet among stressful fami- added pets to his family sculpture ma-
ly life events. terials when it became apparent to him
A study (Gage & Guadagno, 1985) of that interactions with pets were signifi-
pet ownership among a random sample cant elements in family system dynam-
of 100,000 U.S. households found that ics.
61% had pets. The highest proportion
Method
of pet owning was among families with
children (70%), the lowest among The data used for this exploratory
retired couples (46%). Surveys of at- study were collected for a study of
titudes of pet owners find the majoritystress, coping, and adaptation in the
of urban dwellers (Albert & Bulcroft, middle years of the family life cycle,
1988), the readers of Psychology Today North Central Regional Project 164
(Horn & Meer, 1984), and military (Malia, Norem, & Garrison, 1989;
families (Cain, 1985) viewed their pets Norem,
as 1984). Samples of intact
an integral member of the family whose families with a child in the home and a
role is often analogous to that of a child.
wife between 35-54 years of age were
Across these studies, about 90% of systematically drawn from lists of a
respondents rated the pet as important direct mailing firm to provide equal
or extremely important to the family. representation of urban, rural-nonfarm,
Anthromorphism, the attribution of and farm families in nine midcontinent
human characteristics to nonhuman states. Altogether 1,650 families were
things, is commonplace particularly surveyed with a response rate of 350%0.
among single and divorced persons and Those families in which both huisband
childless couples (Albert & Bulcroft, and wife reported death of the family
1988). pet in the 3-year period prior to the
survey (n = 242) were the basis of the
Bowen (1978) identified pets as a
component of the family emotional study reported here. Respondents were
system. In a study (Gage, 1987) of
couples with their first child, 70% of
wives and 64% of husbands rated *This research was supported by the University of Min-
themselves as quite or extremely at- nesota Agricultural Experiment Station Project # MIN
52-048. Portions of this research were reported at the Inter-
tached to the family dog; 33% of wives national Conference of the Delta Society, Boston, 1986.
and 18% of husbands said they were **Geraldine Gage is Professor, Department of Family
Social Science, 284 McNeal Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108.
quite or extremely emotionally depen- Ralph Holcomb is Assistant Professor, Department of
dent on the family pet. Never married, Sociology and Social Work, College of St. Benedict, St.
divorced, widowed, and childless per- John's University, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Both are
members of the Center for the Study of Human-Animal
sons scored higher on pet attachment Relations and Environment (CENSHARE), University of
than others (Albert & Bulcroft, 1988). Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Family therapists using a system
perspective may include significant Key Words: death, family, life events, pets, stress.
family pets in therapy sessions to help
get a more comprehensive picture of (Family Relations, 1991, 40, 103-105.)
__ FAMILY RELATIONS 103
This content downloaded from
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
overwhelmingly white (98%), Protes-
tant (70%), had an average of 13 years
of education, a mean family size of 4.8
members, and a median family income
of $32,000. Slightly more than half
(56%) of families resided in urban
areas, and 50% of wives were in the
labor force.
Data were collected from both hus-
band and wife by means of self-
administered 28-page mailed question-
naires that included a modified form of
The Family Inventory of Life Events and
Changes (FILE) (McCubbin, Patterson, &
Wilson, 1981). The modifications were
the deletion of events not frequently
cited as stressful by families at mid-life
(Mederer & Hill, 1983). The stress scale
as adapted was designed to determine
(a) whether mid-life respondents had ex-
perienced any of 48 commonly identi-
fied stressful life events in the past 12
months and (b) the respondents' percep-
tion of the degree of stress connected
with the events they experienced.
Among the life events listed were
changes in family social structure due
to death, divorce, marriage, departure,
and return of family members. The
death of the family pet was included
among these. In addition to structural
changes, changes in relationships such
as losing touch with friends or relatives
were listed. Respondents rated the per-
ceived stressfulness along a 5-point
scale from not at all disturbing to ex-
tremely disturbing.
Results
For the total sample (N = 1,650),
death of the family pet was the most fre-
quently occurring of all stressors ex-
perienced by mid-life families; twice as
many families experienced pet loss as
the next most frequent event, children
leaving home.
Among the subsample who re-
ported pet loss (N = 242), wives, on
average, experienced higher stress
than husbands, for all relationship
losses and changes, a finding consis-
tent with other studies of gender dif-
ferences in stress response (Harme-
link, 1985; Olson & McCubbin, 1983).
Forty percent of wives reported
that the loss of a pet was "quite" or
"extremely" disturbing compared to
28% of husbands. For both husbands
and wives, the death of a pet was, on
average, less stressful than the death of
a member of the immediate family or a stress levels among their clients may
close friend, but more stressful than the need to be alert to the potential stress
death of another relative. For husbands, of pet loss since clients may be reluc-
on average, the loss of the family pet
fear of being ridiculed. During initial
was about as stressful as the loss of a
close friendship, but more stressful engagement therapists need to present
themselves
than ch iId ren leavi ng or retu rn ing home
104 __ FAMILY RELATIONS January 1991
163.22.18.73 on Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:45:01 UTC
or getting married. On average, pet loss
was, for wives, about as stressful as los-
ing touch with their married children
and more stressful than loss of a close
friendship or children leaving home or
getting married. The wide range of
responses adds support to Boss' (1987)
opinion of the power of perception in
the determination of the stressfulness
of events.
When couples' ratings of stressful-
ness of pet loss was cross-tabulated [X2
(16,N = 235) = 45.33,p = .0001], there
was consensus for fewer than half of
couples at each level of stress; when the
response categories not at all disturb-
ing or slightly disturbing were com-
bined 410% of couples ratings were con-
cordant; 29% of couples were in agree-
ment that the loss was either quite
disturbing or extremely disturbing. Of
wives who were not disturbed by the
death of the family pet, 14% had
husbands who considered the loss ex-
tremely stressful; 21% of husbands
whose wives regarded the loss as ex-
tremely stressful themselves felt the
event was of little consequence.
Implications for Practice
These findings suggest that in
some family systems, the death of a pet
is a stressor at the family system level
that adds significantly to total family
system stress and pile-up with conse-
quent increased risk of disorganization.
Loss of significant social relationships
in particular has been associated with
increased risk of illness and death
(Doherty & Campbell, 1988). Further-
more, if the family's social environment
does not view the family's perception of
and response to the death as legitimate,
the usual social support resources for
coping with stress may not be available,
increasing the importance of the practi-
tioner's role in supporting the family
coping with stress. Disparity in couples'
perception of the stressfulness of an
event is not particularly rare or
necessarily harmful. However, in
families where the perception of the
event and the experience of stress by
spouses is disparate, the family member
for whom the event is stressful may be
stigmatized, as the epigraph illustrates,
in which case the disparity itself may
cause system disequilibrium and strain.
Family practitioners assessing
tant to acknowledge their feelings for
as open to and remai n
This content downloaded from
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
speculative about whatever role the
animal may have played in the client's
life. Photos and artifacts of companion
animals in the office telegraph to clients
that the therapists are open to client ex-
ploration of the meaning of the animal
in the life of the family.
Data collection and assessment
around the animal loss encompasses
two elements: (a) information about the
role of the animal in the client and fami-
ly's life and (b) information about the
social environment. As stated and im-
plied by the findings, companion
animals have distinct projected roles in
the family. Additionally, these roles may
vary among family members, represent-
ing the quality of attachment to the
animal. Three common roles companion
animals play are the surrogate child, the
intimate companion, and the more dis-
tant companion. It is not unusual for
clients seeking help to be experiencing
intense feelings of guilt (Was eutha-
nasia the right thing to do? Did they
betray the pet's trust? Did they do
enough for an ill or injured animal?) and
despair over the loss of a highly valued
nurturing role. The social environment,
including the family environment, may
be hostile or supportive of clients ex-
periencing loss, either reinforcing or
disparaging of grief behavior associated
with the loss.
Intervention may take the form of
helping the family discover ways to
cope as it faces the stress of loss. Con-
ventional grieving rituals around human
loss which have proved therapeutic
(Reeves & Boersma, 1989-90) may need
to be patched onto this experience.
Since rituals for death of pets have not
been conventionalized, families may
need some help developing rituals that
have meaning and utility for them (see
Rando, 1985).
Inevitably, family norms around
death and loss are brought to the sur-
face and provide an opportunity for ex-
amination. As the family system is
altered by the death of the animal,
issues of intimacy and loyalty can be
raised between remaining members of
the system. The following case study is
a brief example of the role of animal
loss in a family system.
Bill and Martha attended a
companion animal loss group
sponsored by one of the authors.
During the course of the evening,
Bill told of how he was practically
paralyzed with grief now 6 weeks
old, and how his hunting dog had
served the role of intimate compan-
ion for him. Martha looked on with
boredom, then anger. Her stated

purpose in attending was to get Bill
out of his grieving and on with life.
During the course of the evening,
Martha was able to express her
anger about the situation directly
to Bill for the first time, accusing
him of using the animal as a sur-
rogate for the intimacy which she
felt entitled to. Now that the animal
was dead, she claimed he was us-
ing his grief to continue to
distance her. Bill expressed for the
first time that he was willing to ex-
amine his intimate investment in
the marriage. The couple was re-
ferred for family counseling.
Finally, as in most reactions to
loss, the richness of the supporting en-
vironment plays a critical role in the in-
tensity and duration of the grief. Pet
loss support groups, available in many
cities, provide secure environments for
sharing feelings and release of emo-
tional energy. These groups are effec-
tive as short-term therapy and social
support for those grieving.
Conclusion
Increases are projected in popula-
tions (divorced, widowed, and empty
nesters) for which pets play an especial-
ly important social and emotional role.
Family therapists, counselors, and
social workers should anticipate seeing
more clients who may find the loss of a
valued animal a stressful transition. For
those family practitioners who may
want additional information to help
families cope with the stress of pet loss,
humane societies in many cities provide
resource materials and offer support
groups. CENSHARE (1989) has pro-
duced a one-hour video cassette and
accompanying guide for use by
ADEC PRECONFERENCE WORKSHOPS
The Association for Death Education and Counseling (ADEC) is pleased to announce that five
PRECONFERENCE WORKSHOPS FOR PROFESSIONALS will be offered Thursday, April
25, 1991, the day prior to its 13th Annual Conference, in Duluth, Minnesota, April 26-28, 1991.
The Workshops will be conducted by recognized authorities in their fields.
For additional information, contact Richard R. Ellis, 19 Lake Gilead Road, Carmel, NY 10512.
January 1991
163.22.18.73 on Sat, 23 Apr 2022 04:45:01 UTC
trainers that provide a framework for
viewing pet loss and suggestions for
facilitating intervention. These
materials were developed for use in
brief training sessions, in group set-
tings, for social workers and other
practitioners who wish to sensitize
themselves to mental health needs of
bereaved owners. The articles by
Cowles (1985), Carmack (1985), and
Quackenbush (1983, 1984) are par-
ticularly helpful for practitioners want-
ing an introduction to the topic of pet
loss and grief.
REFERENCES
Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1988). Pets, families and the life
course. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 543-552.
Boss, P. (1987). Family stress: Perception and context. In
M. Sussman & S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage
and the family (pp. 695-723). New York: Plenum Press.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New
York: Jason Aronson.
Cain, A. N. (1985). Pets as family members. In M. Sussman
(Ed.), Pets and the family (pp. 3-10). New York: The
Haworth Press.
Carmack, B. (1985). The effects on family members and
functioning after the death of pet. In M. Sussman (Ed.),
Pets and the family (pp. 149-162). New York: The Haworth
Press.
CENSHARE (1989). Grieving the loss of animals in our lives
[film]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, The Center
to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environment.
Cowles, K. V. (1985). The death of a pet: Human responses
to the breaking of the bond. In M. Sussman (Ed.), Pets
and the family (pp. 135-148). New York: The Haworth
Press.
Cromwell, R., Fournier, D., & Kvebaek, D. (1980). The
Kvebaek family sculpture technique. Jonesboro, TN:
Pilgrimage.
Doherty, W. J., & Campbell, T. L. (1988). Families and
health. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Gage, M. G., & Guadagno, M. A. (1985, October). And Rover
makes four. Paper presented at the International Con-
ference of the Delta Society, Denver, CO.
Gage, M. G. (1987). Family careers and companion animal
experience: A study of anticipatory socialization. Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota, The Center to Study
Human-Animal Relationships and Environments.
Harmelink, R. (1985). Gender differences in perceptions of
family stressors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa
State University, Ames.
Holmes, T., & Rahe, R. (1967). The social readjustment rating
scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
__ FAMILY RELATIONS
This content downloaded from
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Horn, J. C., & Meer, J. (1984, August). The pleasure of their
company. Psychology Today, pp. 60-64.
Kay, W. J. (Ed.). (1984). Pet loss and human bereavement.
Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Keillor, G. (1985). Lake Wobegon days. New York: Viking.
Kessler, A. D., Price, R. H., & Wortman, C. B. (1985). Social
factors in psychopathology: Stress, social support, and
coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 36,
531-572.
Lavee, Y., McCubbin, H. I., & Olson, D. (1987). The effect of
stressful life events and transitions on family function-
ing and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
49, 857-873.
Malia, J., Norem, R., & Garrison, M. E. (1989, November). A
longitudinal study of the stress process in balanced,
midrange and extreme families. Paper presented at the
51st Annual Conference of the National Council on Fami-
ly Relations, New Orleans, LA.
McCubbin, H., & Figley, C. (Eds.). (1983). Stress and the
family: Coping with normative transitions. New York:
Bru nner/Mazel.
McCubbin, H. I., Patterson, J., & Wilson, L. (1981). Family
Inventory of Life Events Scale (FILE). St. Paul: University
of Minnesota, Department of Family Social Science.
Mechanic, D. (1974). Discussion of research programs on
relations between stressful life events and episodes of
physical illness. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend
(Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects (pp.
87-98). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Mederer, H., & Hill, R. (1983). Critical transitions over the
life-span: Theory and research. In H. I. McCubbin, M.
Sussman, & J. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and the
family: Advances and developments in family stress
theory and research (pp. 39-60). New York: Haworth Press.
Monroe, S. M. (1983). Major and minor life events as pre-
dictors of psychological distress: Further issues and
findings. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6(2), 189-205.
Norem, R. (1984, November). Opportunities, organization
and outcomes of consortium research: 1000 families
and stress. Paper presented at Theory Construction
Workshop of the National Council on Family Relations,
San Francisco, CA.
Olson, D. H., & McCubbin, H. I. (1983). Families: What makes
them work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Quackenbush, J. (1984). Helping people adjust to the
death of their pet. Health and Social Work, 9, 42.
Quackenbush, J., & Glickman, L. (1983). Social work services
for bereaved pet owners: A retrospective case study in a
veterinary teaching hospital. In A. Katcher & A. Beck
(Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with companion
animals (pp. 377-389). Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania Press.
Rando, T. A. (1985). Creating therapeutic rituals in the
psychotherapy of the bereaved. Psychotherapy, 22,
236-240.
Reeves, N. C., & Boersma, F. J. (1989-90). The therapeutic use
of ritual in maladaptive grieving. Omega, 20, 281-291.
Sussman, M. (Ed.). (1985). Pets and the family. New York: The
Haworth Press.
Thoits, P. A. (1983). Dimensions of life events that influence
psychological distress: An evaluation and synthesis of
the literature. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychological stress:
Trends in theory and research (pp. 33-100). New York:
Academic Press.
105