Western Journal of Nursing Research

http://wjn.sagepub.com/

Can Pets Function as Family Members?

Susan Phillips Cohen
West J Nurs Res 2002 24: 621
DOI: 10.1177/019394502320555386

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://wjn.sagepub.com/content/24/6/621

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Nursing Research Society

Additional services and information for Western Journal of Nursing Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://wjn.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://wjn.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://wjn.sagepub.com/content/24/6/621.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 2002

What is This?

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

 Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2002, 24(6), 621-638

Western Journal of Nursing Research

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6

Can Pets Function

as Family Members?1

Susan Phillips Cohen

This exploratory study investigated how clients of a large urban veterinary center viewed the
role of their pet in the family and how they compared this role to that of humans. In Phase 1, ran-
domly selected clients (N = 201) completed a questionnaire containing scales delineating family
relationships and pet attachment. Being either a man or a college graduate was associated with
lesser feelings of psychological kinship and intimacy, both with pets and people. Neither living
with a partner nor having a child affected the strength of pet relationships. In Phase 2, 16 partici-
pants from Phase 1 completed a social network instrument and answered questions about family
roles and boundaries. Thirteen of the 16 respondents said that there were circumstances in which
they would give a scarce drug to their pet in preference to a person outside the family.

Despite the frequency with which humans describe pets as members of the
family, few clinicians or scholars have examined what people are trying to
convey in this description. There are several possibilities: (a) Pets are like
human family; (b) pets are part of a broader social network system but not
family; (c) pets are family members only in a linguistically playful way. If
pets confer the same social, emotional, and health benefits as human family,
then health care, social service, and governmental institutions have over-
looked a critical part of American social life.

DEFINING FAMILY

The family is a cornerstone of human society and a resource for its mem-
bers. Because of its naming significance, people define family to suit their
own needs. The U.S. Census Bureau declares a family to be a “group of two
people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage,
or adoption and residing together” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). One helping
professional offers a broader definition: “Two or more individuals who

Susan Phillips Cohen, D.S.W., the Animal Medical Center, New York, NY.
DOI: 10.1177/019394502236636
© 2002 Sage Publications

621

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

622 Western Journal of Nursing Research

consider themselves family and who assume typical family obligations”

(Hartman, 1990, p. 195).
Such descriptions fall short of what many other people call family, such as
lovers, roommates, friends, co-religionists, and pets. In the case of pets, lan-
guage used to define the relationship ranges from the affectionately vague,
“Fido’s my baby, aren’t you honey,” to the apparently literal (from a family
website):

Our family keeps growing. In April 2001 Nadine [human] had yet another baby
[pictures of dogs]. . . . Our family now consists of two cats, two pretty much full
sized dogs, and a doglet. . . . [One cat] . . . is . . . very smart. (Of course one’s
children are always very smart.) (Laxen & Laxen, 2001)

PETS IN FAMILIES

Investigators have studied the effects that gender, age, and the presence
of other people in the household have on the presence of pets. In 1997, nearly
59% of American households contained pets (American Veterinary Medical
Association [AVMA], 1997). According to one report, 79% of families with
children had pets, whereas only 30% of older people living alone had them.
In addition, women were the primary caregivers for pets in 72% of house-
holds (Edmondson & Galper, 1998). A 1999 study showed that 42% of
female homemakers had taken a pet to the veterinarian in the past year and
that 33% of male homemakers had done so (Mediamark Research Inc.,
1999).
Clinical experience (Cohen, 1985, p. 357; Lagoni, Butler, & Hetts, 1994,
p. 7; Quackenbush & Graveline, 1985, pp. 60-68) and at least one popular
survey (Horn & Meer, 1984) have confirmed that for many, loving an animal
is a profound experience. Most pet owners describe their pets as members of
the family, much like children (AVMA, 2000; Brody, 2001; Bulcroft &
Albert, 1987; Cain, 1985).
Surveys have illustrated warm, family-like relationships between people
and their dogs and cats. A wide majority of people with pets reported that
they refer to themselves as their pet’s parent (AVMA, 2000). Nearly three
quarters of married respondents indicated that they greet their pets before
their spouses (AVMA, 2000), and if stranded on a desert island, more than
half of those surveyed said they would choose pets over people for company.
Another poll found that 65% of cats and 39% of dogs slept on a family mem-
ber’s bed. In addition, 63% of dog owners and 58% of cat owners gave their
pets Christmas presents (Gallup, 1996).

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 623

Other research has shown that some people make sacrifices for their pets
as they might for a human family member. In one survey, nearly half of
1,225 respondents stated they “often stay[ed] at home because of their pets”
(AVMA, 1998). Another sacrifice that people with pets made was that,
despite orders from their physicians, 80% of people with pet allergies
refused to give up their pets, and 70% acquired new pets after the first pets
died (Coren, 1997).
Those with pets have reported that life with an animal companion brings
joy and emotional support during the pet’s life. They also described grief
when pets die. Research has shown that many pet lovers say the grief was
severe (Adams, Bonnett, & Meek, 2000; Cohen, 1985; Gerwalls & Labott,
1994; Kay et al., 1988).
Investigators have also studied the effect of gender, age, and household
size on feelings about pets. Research on the impact of a person’s gender on
the bond with pets has produced mixed findings. Mallon’s (1993) observa-
tional study found few gender differences. Other researchers found women
more deeply bonded to pets throughout the family life cycle (Albert &
Bulcroft, 1990; Johnson, Garrity, & Stallones, 1992; Kidd & Kidd, 1989). In
addition, being older, having no children, or living in a household of one or
two people has sometimes been associated with a stronger bond, whereas
having some college education has been associated with a weaker bond
(Johnson et al., 1992; Lago, Kafer, Delaney, & Connell, 1987).
As with human family members, research has shown that living with pets
is associated with human health benefits. Pet ownership, especially of dogs,
has been associated with greater survival after a heart attack (Friedmann,
Katcher, Lynch, & Thomas, 1980), lower blood pressure, cholesterol, and
triglyceride values (Anderson, Reid, & Jennings, 1992; Friedman, Locker,
& Lockwood, 1993) and longevity despite severe heart arrhythmia and a
prior heart attack. (Friedmann & Thomas, 1995). In addition, elderly pet
owners have been found to have fewer contacts with doctors (Siegel, 1990).
Like human family members, pets have been reported to provide social
and psychological benefits as well. Researchers have found that pets facili-
tate human socialization and help older women feel less lonely (Fick, 1993;
Mahalski, Jones, & Maxwell, 1988; McNicholas & Collis, 2000). Patients
with Alzheimer’s disease or psychiatric disorders become less agitated
around dogs (Barker & Dawson, 1998; Churchill, Safaoui, McCabe, &
Baun, 1999;; Fritz, Farver, Kass, & Hart, 1995; Holcomb & Meacham,
1989).
Although most research has focused on the positive effects of feeling
affection for pets, a few studies have indicated that people who are strongly

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

624 Western Journal of Nursing Research

bonded to pets may have fewer human contacts (Johnson et al., 1992;
Stammbach & Turner, 1999).
Investigators have not suggested which comes first—attachment to pets
or having a smaller network of friends and family. One clinician, however,
has argued that bonding to pets may interfere with human relationships
(Simon, 1984).

PURPOSE

This article reports an exploratory study that addressed two questions:

(a) What is the role of pets in urban American families? and (b) How does
this role compare to that of human family members?
In contemporary American society, families are more than genetic rela-
tives; they may be a matter of choice (Weston, 1991/1997). One way to think
about nonrelatives who come to be regarded as family is to conceptualize
them as “functional kin” (Pattison, DeFrancisco, Wood, & Crowder, 1975).
These are members of a social network that provide services as alternatives
or supplements to one’s biological family. Another way to conceptualize
people having special status is to define them as “psychological kin”
(Bailey, 1988; Bailey & Nava, 1989; Nava & Bailey, 1991). Bailey (1988)
defines psychological kinship as “feeling and behaving toward others as
family, irrespective of actual genetic relatedness.” This research explores
how people with pets conceptualize their relationships.

DESIGN

This research was conducted in two phases. In Phase 1, 201 randomly

selected pet owners were asked identical questions about the human family
member and the pet to whom they felt the closest. In Phase 2, a subgroup of
16 participants completed a social network instrument and answered ques-
tions designed to compare feelings about pets and human family members to
whom the participants felt close. Columbia University’s Human Subjects
Review Committee approved the design, instruments, and methodology.
Participants were clients of the Animal Medical Center (AMC). The
AMC, a veterinary teaching hospital, has the highest pet caseload in the
world. Although it is located on Manhattan’s prosperous Eastside and
attracts primarily urbanites, it serves the entire metropolitan area. The AMC
is known for state-of-the-art veterinary care.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 625

METHOD

In Phase 1, the researcher approached clients in the AMC waiting room

and asked them to fill out a questionnaire that took about 15 minutes to com-
plete. In Phase 2, she met individually with a subgroup of participants from
Phase 1. Wherever possible, participants were interviewed at home, which
offered a chance to see participants interact with their pets in familiar sur-
roundings. Completing the social network instrument and answering ques-
tions for the semistructured interview took approximately 2 hours.

Sample

Phase 1

Participants (N = 201) were selected by a computer-generated random

table of numbers. To help ensure that people were responding to their ordi-
nary views of pets and of human family members, the researcher approached
only clients who arrived during scheduled appointment hours and elimi-
nated people who appeared to have pets in crisis or who said they were very
distressed. Of the 215 people approached, 9 chose not to fill out the question-
naire and 5 others failed to complete it, a total of 6.5%. Those who either
declined to participate or did not complete the questionnaire did not differ
statistically from those who did participate by gender, educational level, or
parental status.
Nearly 75% of participants in Phase 1 were women; 66% of the partici-
pants were college graduates. Participants’ ages ranged from 18-85, with a
median age of 40.6. Nearly 54% were married or living with a partner.
Thirty-five percent had at least one child. More people had dogs (55%) than
cats (27%), though some had both (18%). Seventy-three percent of respon-
dents identified themselves as non-Latino Caucasian, 3% as African Ameri-
can, 5% as Asian, and 12% as Latino; 7% did not identify themselves as
belonging to any ethnic group.

Phase 2
For the second phase of the study, another random table of numbers was
generated to select a subsample of 16 people from the original group of 201.
The researcher invited participants to join by calling them in the order gener-
ated by the random table. The greatest influences on answers to questions in
Phase 1 were gender and educational level; therefore, for Phase 2 the
researcher selected 50% men and 50% women, as well as 50% college

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

626 Western Journal of Nursing Research

graduates and 50% nongraduates. There were 4 male college graduates, 4

male nongraduates, 4 female college graduates, and 4 female nongraduates,
for a total of 16 people. Although the second group was divided equally by
gender and by educational level, most of the other demographic variables
were similar to participants in Phase 1.
Not all selections were random. As Phase 1 had already shown that scores
on intimacy and kinship scales tended to be different for people with dogs
rather than cats, the researcher ensured that at least 1 participant with a cat
was in each subgroup of 4 people. In addition, by checking addresses, the
researcher made sure that at least 1 participant from each of the five bor-
oughs of New York City and suburban New Jersey was included.

Instrumentation

Phase 1

The researcher compiled a questionnaire designed to accomplish four

tasks: (a) to allow participants to compare their relationship with the human
family member and with the pet to whom they felt the closest, (b) to allow
pet owners with children to compare those two relationships, (c) to briefly
explore the notions that people with close pet relationships are lonely or that
they dislike other people, and (d) to measure the strength of the bond
between these participants and their pets. Items were taken from existing
instruments with small modifications in language to make them applicable
to pets and in scoring to make them consistent with each other. In each scale
but one, a higher score indicated stronger feelings. With the Companion
Animal Bonding Scale, a lower score indicated a stronger bond.
The complete family subscale of the Revised Kinship scale by Nava and
Bailey (1991) was used. This 11-item 5-point Likert-type scale was
designed to measure psychological kinship. For this article, scores for feel-
ings of kinship with humans were designated KH, and scores for feelings of
kinship with pets were designated KP.
Sixteen items of the 17-item Likert-type Intimacy Scale by Walker and
Thompson (1983) were used. The Intimacy Scale asked respondents to
judge how often a positive element in the relationship was true of their loved
one. For purposes of identification in this study, scores for feelings of inti-
macy with human family were called IH and for feelings of intimacy with
pet, IP.
Four questions from the 20-item 4-point Likert-type UCLA Loneliness
Scale (RULS) by Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona (1980) were selected. The

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 627

TABLE 1: Reliability of Scales

Scale Alpha

a,b
Revised kinship (with people) .8833
a,b
Revised kinship (with pets) .9120
c,e
Intimacy (with people) .8059
c,e
Intimacy (with pets) .8948
Companion animal bonding .8058
c
Attitude toward child .7809
c,d
Attitude toward pet .6521
f
Social fear .7028
g
Loneliness .7639
a. Item 1 was changed as follows: “To show me physical affection (hug, nuzzle).”
b. Item 6 was changed as follows: “To be a loving being.”
c. Scale was reduced from 7 to 5.
d. The word pet was substituted for the word child in all questions.
e. Item 4 was eliminated.
f. Scale was increased from 2 to 5.
g. Scale was increased from 4 to 5.

complete scale was designed to measure feelings of loneliness and had been
used in another study to examine whether pet owners were less lonely than
nonowners (Mahalski et al., 1988). These four questions used in this study
were alternated with four from the Social Fear Scale (SFS) by Raulin and
Wee (1984) (see below) and were selected to give some indication of
whether feelings for pets were related to a lack of human contact.
Four questions from the 36-item SFS were selected. The SFS was
designed to measure avoidance of social contact. Three of the four questions
used in this research dealt with preferring nonhuman contact.
Six questions from the 25-item Likert-type Index of Parental Attitude
(IPA) by Hudson (1982) were selected. The scale was designed to measure
the extent of problems in the parent-child relationship; for this study, the
word child was changed to pet. Participants who had children also answered
the questions in their original form.
The entire eight-item 5-point Companion Animal Bonding Scale (CABS)
by Poresky, Hendrix, Mosier, and Samuelson (1987) was used. CABS was
designed to measure the extent of a person’s bond with a pet, and the lower
the score, the stronger the bond. Many questions dealt with caregiving activ-
ities and logistical arrangements for the pet.
Reliability for each scale was pilot tested on a similar group of adults and
then computed using all 201 questionnaires (See Table 1).

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

628 Western Journal of Nursing Research

Phase 2
In Phase 2 of this research, two sets of questions were used. The Social
Network Map and Grid (SNMG) devised by Tracy and Whittaker (1990)
was administered first. The SNMG had respondents identify 15 people who
had been important to them during the past month. For this study, the
researcher changed the script to read “people or pets.” Respondents then
answered questions to establish sources of support, to determine whether
network members gave positive messages and to measure the frequency of
contact participants had with network members. Type of support was indi-
cated on a 3-point Likert-type scale from almost always available to almost
never available. Another question asked who in the network was critical “in
a way that makes you feel bad or inadequate.”
Also used was a researcher-developed set of questions, derived from her
14 years’ experience as a social worker at the AMC. The intent of the 12
questions was to further refine the notion of family and to compare the place
of pets with the place of humans within the family. The first questions con-
cerned membership and behavior within the family circle, for instance,
“What kinds of things do you do with your family members?” and “What do
you do with family that you would not do with nonfamily?” The next ques-
tions concerned comparisons between pets and human family members, for
example, “What [relationship] word best describes how you think about
your pet?” and “What word would you never use to describe your pet?” The
last questions were forced choice, such as “If your whole family were in a
boat, and the boat tipped over, who would you grab [rescue] first?” All par-
ticipants in Phase 2 chose to include their pets as “family” in answering the
questions.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data from the first instrument were entered into SPSS 6.1 for Windows
(SPSS Inc., 1999) for analysis. Dichotomous variables were examined with
independent t tests. Where data were qualitative and not easily condensed to
two variables, such as religious affiliation, analysis of variance identified
relationships. Significance at the .05 level was judged after the Bonferroni
test corrected for the number of comparisons made. When tests identified
significant demographic characteristics and other variables, these were
entered as a group into regression equations.
After basic analysis of variables had been completed, regression analysis
was performed for each of the scales, using pairwise deletion. Because they

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 629

were not demographic variables, two scales—loneliness and social fear—

were treated as independent variables. R squares for scales ranged from .19
to .32.
The answers from the SNMG were also entered into SPSS 6.1 for analy-
sis. Independent t tests were used to compare answers about pets with those
for other members of the household, the family, and friendships. Analysis of
variance identified relationships within groups. Significance at the .05 level
was judged after the Bonferroni test corrected for the number of compari-
sons made.
Answers from the semistructured interview were audiotaped and tran-
scribed. Then each person’s responses to both questionnaires and to the
interview were combined and analyzed for patterns and themes.

FINDINGS

Phase 1
For the pen-and-paper questionnaire of Phase 1, almost none of the
demographic variables significantly influenced scores either on psychologi-
cal kinship or intimacy with pets. Those variables included number of peo-
ple and pets in the household, age of respondent, and existence of a spouse/
partner or child. In particular, attachment to pets was not associated with a
lack of human relationships.
The most influential factors shaping scores for any scale were gender and
educational level. Women expressed more positive feelings about all of their
relationships than men. Based on scores for individual scales, women stated
that they felt significantly more IP (n = 188, α = .01), KH (n = 200, α = .05),
and KP (n = 193, α = .05) than did men.
Women reported fewer problems with pets than men did (n = 200, α =
.00). Women also reported less loneliness than did men (n = 200, α = .02).
On several scales, women’s responses fell largely toward one end of the
curve. For example, women’s scores on feelings of intimacy with a pet
peaked sharply toward the top score of 80, whereas men’s scores were
spread more evenly.
Being a college graduate was negatively related to feelings about rela-
tionships. College graduates scored significantly lower than nongraduates
on psychological kinship and intimacy with both people (KH, n = 197, α =
.01; IH, n = 195, α = .01) and pets (KP, n = 191, α = .00; IP, n = 186, α = .00).
Graduates also reported more problems with their children than nongraduates
did (n = 63, α = .03), but they did not report more problems with their pets.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

630 Western Journal of Nursing Research

As gender and education level were unrelated in this study, the effects of the
two factors were cumulative; male college graduates scored several points
lower on several scales than did other groups, particularly women who were
not college graduates. For example, analysis of variance of the 8-point dif-
ference between male graduates and female nongraduates scores for pet kin-
ship was significant at the .0001 level.
The most significant single predictor of the score for any scale was the
number of hours spent with pet and the subsequent score on the Poresky
Companion Animal Bonding Scale (p = .0001). Few previous studies about
feelings for pets had considered the number of hours spent together. In this
investigation, participants were asked how many hours a day they spent with
their pet, including sleep time. Scores ranged from 1.5 to 24 hours a day,
with a mean of 13.34. Those in the top quarter of hours spent were then com-
pared to those in the bottom three quarters and evaluated by t tests. Those
who spent 16 or more hours a day with their cat or dog scored significantly
higher in bond (n = 199, α = .03), IP (n = 188, α = .00), and KP (n = 193, α =
.00). Spending most of the day with a pet was not related to loneliness
scores, but it was significantly correlated with higher social fear (n = 197,
α = .01).
By the measures used in Phase 1, family relationships did not affect feel-
ings about pets. Having a child or living with a spouse or partner signifi-
cantly influenced only one score: feelings of kinship with the closest person
in one’s family. Of 194 participants who provided their marital or relation-
ship status, 104 or 53.6% lived with a spouse or partner (KH, n = 193, α =
.00). Having a child, whether or not the child lived with the participant, also
had no statistical impact on any measure except feelings of kinship with a
person (KH, n = 71, α = .03).

Phase 2

SNMG

The 16 participants offered consistent responses to questions about pets

included in their social network. All participants stated that they felt “very
close” to their pets. All but one said their pets were “never critical” of them.
In contrast, 65% of the participants reported that the human beings in their
household were sometimes or often critical of them.
As expected, the 13 participants who had at least one dog reported that
they saw their pets as major sources of emotional support. In a surprise find-
ing, they often said they relied on their dogs for concrete help (e.g., guarding
the home) and for information (e.g., teaching patience) as dogs did not

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 631

always behave the way their families preferred. Those with dogs said their
pets helped them as much as they helped their pets. The 5 participants who
had at least one cat also reported they felt their pets gave as much help as
they received.
In contrast, only 65% of the participants said help went both ways with
their human household members. Eighty-two percent of Phase 2 participants
reported that they relied heavily on their human family circle for concrete,
informational, and emotional support. There were no significant differences
attributable to gender or educational level on questions about either persons
in the household or pets.

Researcher-Developed Questions

The subgroup of 16 participants answered questions about family status

of both people and pets to whom they felt close, as well as preferences in
forced-choice situations. In this phase, gender continued to influence some
views, but the effect of educational level was small. When asked to describe
differences between pets and human family, men tended to stress the “ani-
mal nature” of pets, whereas women focused on ways in which pets were
“better.” One group of 4 men and 1 woman explained, for example, that pets
walked on four legs, ate dog food or “too many vegetables,” and were “cov-
ered with fur.” In contrast, another group of 5 women and 1 man noted that
pets never sent mixed signals nor made the conflicting demands that make
human relationships a challenge, such as “They never ‘need their space,’”
“They never need adventure and security at the same time,” and “You can
have your privacy, and yet you don’t have to be alone.” More than one third
said their pets were sensitive to human feelings but, unlike people, did not
impose their own moods; for instance, pets were “always cheerful, pleas-
ant.” Several participants emphasized their pets’ ability to convey love and
to make the people feel safe.
In the final set of questions, respondents were asked to decide about three
forced-choice situations. The first was “Suppose your doctor told you that
living with your pet was causing you a significant health problem. What
would you do?” They were then asked the same question in reference to “a
particular person.” Most people said they would treat a pet allergy or try to
work around it, even if the treatment were expensive or unpleasant. Four of
the 16 participants stated that they would never give up a pet, no matter what
health problems resulted. Participants expressed less distress about deciding
what to do if a person were making them sick. This question led to a good
deal of humor. Four interviewees, three of whom lived with a partner, said

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

632 Western Journal of Nursing Research

without hesitation that either they or the other person would have to move
out. Participants generally stated that their decision was based on how much
they liked the other person.
The second question concerned which family member the respondent
would rescue first if a boat tipped over. Most participants seemed to have an
immediate reaction to this question. Seven people, including 4 who lived
with a partner or child, chose to rescue their pet first. Five others, all of
whom lived with a partner, chose their significant others. Three said it would
depend who was in the boat. One said he could never choose but would
allow himself to drown with the others. Ten of the 16 people explained that
they were picking the family member who was the most helpless.
The third forced-choice question involved choosing who would get a
drug that was in short supply. Participants were told that someone they
would never know would have to do without the drug. Participants were free
to interpret what kind of drug it was. Thirteen of the 16 participants said
there was at least one circumstance in which they would give a scarce drug to
their pet in preference to a person, but only 1 interviewee named her dog as a
first choice. Half of the 16 participants said that they would always give their
pet a scarce drug in preference to a stranger. Of these 8 people, 4 selected the
people in their family to receive the drug first, whereas the other 4 did not
distinguish human family from pets.
Four of the 16 people said that if life were at stake, any human should get
preference for a scarce drug. Three of the respondents, who were men, said
the decision was easy: “Regardless of how you feel about pets, human life is
more important.” The 4th, a woman, said it would “tear her heart out” to
deny her pet, but she couldn’t hurt another person.
The last 4 people, all women, gave conditional answers. They indicated
that they would not decide based on family status or species value alone.
They struggled and took long pauses to think. They considered the nature of
the illness, the age of the recipient, the likelihood of a cure, the recipient’s
quality of life, and, in the case of people, their character. In the end, all 4 said
they could not make a decision without more information.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to explore what people mean when they say,
“My pet is a member of the family.” The results of this study suggest that, at
least for some urban dwellers, pets are firmly inside the family circle. Like
human family members, pets provide comfort and companionship. Partici-

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 633

pants in this study report that pets give as much as they receive, even if the
support they provide cannot be neatly plugged into standard social network
categories. In contrast to others in the household, pets do not criticize. They
allow people to express their deepest feelings of intimate connection and
nurturing.
This is not to say that even the most bonded person believes his or her pet
is human. Pets seem to occupy an overlapping but different space from
humans in a family. Even people who think of their pets as children know
this is not literally true. In part, they are identifying their pets as family mem-
bers by the way in which pets function within the household.
As in other studies, gender influences feelings about relationships with
pets. Differences between men and women are greater in expressions of
those thoughts or feelings measured by the pen-and-paper instruments used
in Phase 1. Most previous studies have not directly compared feelings about
human family and pets. Although women score higher on kinship and inti-
macy scales for pets than men do, women also score higher on the same
questions about human relationships. Women seem to say, “If I love you,
then you get the top score on every item.” On paper, men seem less positive
about all relationships and more analytical about their answers. Men pick
and choose among statements, and their scores are more evenly distributed.
In one scale of Phase 1, men and women agree: Both feel stronger psy-
chological kinship with people than with pets, although women’s overall
scores are higher than men’s. Because the notion that pets could be family
members might seem to be a matter of psychological kinship, and because
most of the questions could apply equally to people and pets, lower pet
scores are unexpected. Either people actually feel less kinship with pets or
this scale does not tap what pet owners mean when they say, “My pet is a
member of the family.”
College graduates, whether male or female, also indicated lower levels of
kinship and intimacy with people and pets. This agrees with the few studies
of relationships with pets that have reported educational level. Although
advanced education may interfere with the ability to bond to others, this
finding may also reflect a greater familiarity with procedures in standardized
testing, which requires careful attention to each question.
Some demographic variables, such as living alone, having a spouse or
children, or being older are frequently cited as significant in other studies of
the human-animal bond. These variables do not influence scores for scales
that were used in Phase 1 of this study. This study found that attachment to a
cat or dog does not reflect a lack of close human relationships. By the mea-
sures used here, neither living with a partner nor having a child has any

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

634 Western Journal of Nursing Research

effect on feelings of intimacy or psychological kinship with cats and dogs. In

this study, participants’ ages are not significantly correlated with feelings of
kinship or intimacy with either pets or people.
The instruments and observations from interviews in the participants’
homes reveal a more complex picture than the one painted by the pen-and-
paper tests of Phase 1. Although the sample is small, some inferences can be
drawn about the behaviors of people with their pets. The research strategy of
Phase 2 allows participants to explain in some detail how they view the roles
and functions of human family members, friends, and pets.
Although differences in answers associated with having a college degree
tend to disappear in Phase 2, some gender differences remain. Women in this
group tend to describe the difference between cat or dog family and human
family by emphasizing positive attributes of pets: Pets will not “hurt” or
“abandon” people, as humans do. As anticipated by Gilligan (1993), four
women could not decide life or health for another, based on what they per-
ceived as arbitrary rules. Men also say that they feel close to pets but see
them as different from humans by virtue of appearance and intellect.
The two major limitations of this study are instruments and population.
This is a multipart instrument designed to explore whether people report
having the same kinds of feelings about human family members and pets.
For this study, existing questionnaires designed to look at human relation-
ships have been adapted to include pets. Although each adapted scale was
tested for reliability, any tool requires considerable testing, especially one
that amalgamates other tools.
A second limitation is the sample. These participants are largely female,
Caucasian, highly educated, and living in New York City. In addition, they
have few children of any age. They are all clients of a facility known for
state-of-the-art veterinary care. As a group, they may be more affluent and
less likely to give up a pet or to be unable to treat it for financial reasons.
There are two implications of this study for health care providers: (a) how
to provide care to people who are entering or living in hospitals and resi-
dences and (b) how to promote physical, social, and emotional well-being
through contact with companion animals. Nurses, doctors, social workers,
and administrators would be wise to inquire about and plan for pets in an
individual’s family. Some people who have a strong bond with their pets
will not volunteer the information. While taking client histories, health care
professionals can ask questions about pets, their significance to the client,
and provisions for pet care if the client is unable to do so. If there is no one to
provide pet care, social and health care agencies may need to find either tem-
porary or permanent placement for the pet.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 635

This research finds a correlation between scores on the CABS and the
number of hours spent with a pet. Although no single measure can provide
an assessment of so complex a relationship as the bond between people and
their pets, health care professionals might ask clients to estimate how much
time they spend with their animal companions. Clients who spend more than
16 hours a day with their pets may have a particularly strong attachment.
In addition to caring for individuals who are in medical facilities, health
care professionals can promote human well-being by encouraging interac-
tion between people and pets. Like human members of healthy families, pets
provide opportunities for intimacy and nurturing. As family structures
evolve, perhaps opportunities to establish long-lasting living arrangements
with other humans will change. At times, however, the need for affectionate
companionship can be met by pets. For many people, pets are already func-
tioning as family members.

NOTE

1. The author would like to thank three people for their assistance in this research: Dr. Mark
Mattaini, who was her dissertation adviser, particularly for his help with the design of the study;
Dr. Michael Botsko, who reviewed the statistical format; and Dr. Aaron Katcher, who suggested
the final question, which dealt with who should get a drug in short supply.

REFERENCES

Adams, C. L., Bonnett, B. N., & Meek, A. H. (2000). Predictors of owner response to companion
animal death in 177 clients from 14 practices in Ontario. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association, 217, 1303-1309.
Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1990). Pets, families, and the life course. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 50, 543-552.
American Veterinary Medical Association. (1997). The truth about cats and dogs. . . . AVMA
study uncovers the nation’s pet ownership trends. Retrieved August 15, 2001, from http://
www.avma.org/press/pidemosb.asp
American Veterinary Medical Association. (1998). Survey finds owners treating pets as VIPs.
Retrieved August 15, 2001, from http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar98/
s031598k.htm
American Veterinary Medical Association. (2000). Survey says: Owners taking good care of
their pets. Retrieved August 15, 2001, from http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/feb00/
s020100d.asp
Anderson, W. P., Reid, C. M., & Jennings, F. L. (1992). Pet ownership and risk factors for cardio-
vascular disease. The Medical Journal of Australia, 157, 298-301.
Bailey, K. G. (1988). Psychological kinship: Implications for the helping professions. Psycho-
therapy, 25, 132-141.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

636 Western Journal of Nursing Research

Bailey, K. G., & Nava, G. (1989). Psychological kinship, love, and liking: Preliminary validity
data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 587-594.
Barker, S. B., & Dawson, K. S. (1998). The effects of animal-assisted therapy on anxiety ratings
of hospitalized psychiatric patients. Psychiatric Services, 49, 797-801.
Brody, J. E. (2001, August 14). V.I.P medical treatment adds meaning to a dog’s (or cat’s) life.
The New York Times, p. F4.
Bulcroft, K., & Albert, A. (1987). Similarities and differences between the roles of pets and chil-
dren in the American family. Abstracts of Presentations from Delta Society 6th Annual Con-
ference, p. 12.
Cain, A. O. (1985). Pets as family members. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.), Pets and the family (pp. 5-
10). New York: Hayworth.
Churchill, M., Safaoui, J., McCabe, B. W., & Baun, M. M. (1999). Using a therapy dog to allevi-
ate the agitation and desocialization of people with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of
Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 37, 16-22.
Cohen, S. P. (1985). The role of social work in a veterinary hospital setting. In J. Quackenbush &
V. Voith (Eds.), Veterinary clinics of North America: Small animal practice (pp. 355-364).
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Coren, S. (1997, February 15). Allergic patients do not comply with doctors’advice to stop own-
ing pets. British Journal of Medicine, 314, 517.
Edmondson, B., & Galper, J. (1998, September). Pet places. American Demographics.
Retrieved September 29, 1999, from http://www.demographics.com/publications/ad/
98_ad/980911.htm
Fick, K. M. (1993). The influence of an animal on social interactions of nursing home residents
in a group setting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 529-534.
Friedmann, E., Locker, B. Z., & Lockwood, R. (1993). Perception of animals and cardiovascular
responses during verbalization with an animal present. Anthrozoös, 6, 115-134.
Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S. A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support, and one-year survival
after acute myocardial infarction in the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial (CAST). The
American Journal of Cardiology, 76, 1213-1217.
Friedmann, E. S., Katcher, A. H., Lynch, J. J., & Thomas, S. A. (1980). Animal companions and
one year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Report,
95, 307-312.
Fritz, C. L., Farver, T. B., Kass, P. H., & Hart, L. A. (1995). Association with companion animals
and the expression of noncognitive symptoms in Alzheimer’s patients. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 183, 459-463.
Gallup, A. (1996). Cats and dog reign as pampered family members (Gallup Poll Archives).
Available from http://198.175.140.8/POLL_ARCHIVES/961019.htm
Gerwalls, M. K., & Labott, S. M. (1994). Adjustment to the death of a companion animal.
Anthrozoös, 7, 172-187.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cam-
bridge MA: Harvard University Press
Hartman, A. (1990). Family ties. Social Work, 27, 195-196.
Holcomb, R., & Meacham, M. (1989). Effectiveness of an animal-assisted therapy program in an
inpatient psychiatric unit. Anthrozoös, 2, 259-264.
Horn, J. C., & Meer, J. (1984, August). The pleasure of their company: A report on Psychology
Today’s survey on pets and people. Psychology Today, 52-67.
Hudson, W. W. (1982). Index of parental attitudes (IPA). In J. Fisher & K. Corcoran (Eds.), Mea-
surements for clinical practice: A sourcebook (pp. 445-446). New York: Free Press.

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

October 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6 637

Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1992). Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington
Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS). Anthrozoös, 5, 160-175.
Kay, W. J., Cohen, S. P., Fudin, C. E., Kutscher, A. H., Nieburg, A. H., Gray, R. E., et al. (Eds.).
(1988). Euthanasia of the companion animal: The impact on pet owners, veterinarians, and
society. Philadelphia: Charles Press.
Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1989). Factors in adults’ attitudes toward pets. Psychological
Reports, 65, 903-910.
Lago, D., Kafer, R., Delaney, M., & Connell, C. (1987). Assessment of favorable attitudes
toward pets: Development and preliminary validation of self-report pet relationships scales.
Anthrozoös, 1, 240-254.
Lagoni, L., Butler, C., & Hetts, S. (1994). The human-animal bond and grief. Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders.
Laxen, N., & Laxen, H. (2001). Nadine and Henry family album. Retrieved August 13, 2001,
from http://www.maztravel.com/maz/album.html
Mahalski, P. A., Jones, R., & Maxwell, G. M. (1988). The value of cat ownership to elderly
women living alone. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 27, 249-260.
Mallon, G. (1993). A study of the interactions between men, women, and dogs at the ASPCA in
New York City. Anthrozoös, 6, 43-47.
McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2000). Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: Robustness of
the effect. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 61-70.
Mediamark Research Inc. (1999). Pets, ownership of. Retrieved January 13, 2000, from http://
www.mediamark.com/MRI/ps/psPET001.cfm
Nava, G. R., & Bailey, K. G. (1991). Measuring psychological kinship: Scale refinement and val-
idation. Psychological Reports, 68, 215-227.
Pattison, E. M., Defrancisco, D., Wood, P., & Crowder, J. (1975). A psychosocial kinship model
for family therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 1246-1251.
Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Mosier, J. E., & Samuelson, M. L. (1987). The companion animal
bonding scale: Internal reliability and construct validity. Psychological Reports, 60, 743-
746.
Quackenbush, J., & Graveline, D. (1985). When your pet dies: How to cope with your feelings.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Raulin, M. L., & Wee, J. L. (1984). Social Fear Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 780-
784.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Con-
current and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39, 472-480.
Siegel, J. M. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The
moderating role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1081-
1086.
Simon, L. J. (1984). The pet trap: Negative effects of pet ownership on families and individuals.
In R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart, & L. A. Hart (Eds.), The pet connection (pp. 226-240). Minne-
apolis, MN: Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and Environments.
SPSS Inc. (1999). SPSS 10.0 for Windows [Computer software]. Chicago: Author.
Stammbach, K. B., & Turner, D. C. (1999). Understanding the human-cat relationship: Human
social support or attachment. Anthrozoös, 12, 162-168.
Tracy, E. M., & Whittaker, J. K. (1990). The social network map: Assessing social support in
clinical practice. Families in Society, 71, 461-470.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Current population survey (CPS)—Definitions and explanations.
Retrieved August 13, 2001, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014

638 Western Journal of Nursing Research

Walker, A. J., & Thompson, L. (1983). Intimacy Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45,
841-849.
Weston, K. (1997). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press. (Original work published 1991)

Downloaded from wjn.sagepub.com at TEMPLE UNIV on October 31, 2014