This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval] On: 26 December 2014, At: 07:23 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/haaw20

Are Emotionally Attached Companion Animal Caregivers Conscientious and Neurotic? Factors That Affect the Human–Companion Animal Relationship a

Gretchen M. Reevy & Mikel M. Delgado a

b

Department of Psychology, California State University, East Bay

b

Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley Published online: 17 Dec 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Gretchen M. Reevy & Mikel M. Delgado (2014): Are Emotionally Attached Companion Animal Caregivers Conscientious and Neurotic? Factors That Affect the Human–Companion Animal Relationship, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2014.988333 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2014.988333

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 1–20, 2014 Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1088-8705 print/1532-7604 online DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2014.988333

Are Emotionally Attached Companion Animal Caregivers Conscientious and Neurotic? Factors That Affect the Human – Companion Animal Relationship Gretchen M. Reevy1 and Mikel M. Delgado2 Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

1

Department of Psychology, California State University, East Bay Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley

2

Few studies have examined how personality traits may be related to the amounts and types of attachments humans have toward companion animals (pets). In this study, 1,098 companion animal guardians (owners) completed a survey that included the Big Five Inventory, the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale, and the Pet Attachment Questionnaire. Each participant chose whether he or she identified as a Cat Person, Dog Person, Both, or Neither. Results indicated that neuroticism, conscientiousness, choosing a dog as a favorite pet, and identifying as a Cat Person, Dog Person, or Both predicted affection for a pet. Conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness decreased avoidant attachment to pets, and neuroticism increased anxious attachment to pets. Both dogs and cats could benefit from pet owners who are conscientious, and there may be some benefits of neuroticism in pet owners. The findings of this study will advance understanding of the human–animal bond. As this understanding increases, measurements of human attachment and personality may be useful for the development of tools that could assist shelter employees and veterinarians in counseling people about pet ownership. Keywords:

attachment, human– animal bond, companion animals, pets, personality

Many Americans share their households with at least one companion animal (pet), particularly with cats or dogs (American Veterinary Medical Association [AVMA], 2012). Despite their popularity, millions of cats and dogs are relinquished to shelters each year (National Council on Pet Population and Study and Policy, 1997), often because the cat or dog does not meet the person’s expectation or lifestyle (Casey, Vandenbussche, Bradshaw, & Roberts, 2009; Salman et al., 2000; Salman et al., 1998). A better understanding of individual characteristics such as personality traits, selfidentification as an animal person, attachment styles, and general affection for pets may be helpful in assisting shelter employees and veterinarians in counseling people about pet ownership. PERSONALITY AND SELF-IDENTIFICATION AS AN ANIMAL PERSON Our personality traits may be related to the amounts and types of attachments and other feelings we have toward our pets and to the types of pets to whom we are most attached or with whom we Correspondence should be sent to Mikel M. Delgado, Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley, Room 3210, Tolman Hall #1650, Berkeley, CA 94720. Email: [email protected]

1

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

2

REEVY AND DELGADO

most identify. Very little research has focused on these topics. Gosling, Sandy, and Potter (2010) examined the relationship between self-identification as a cat or dog person and personality. To measure personality, they utilized the Big Five model (e.g., John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 2008), a widely used, psychometrically sound personality trait model. The Big Five traits are extraversion (sociability, positive emotion), neuroticism (negative emotions such as depression, anxiety, and hostility), conscientiousness (task orientation), agreeableness (interpersonal warmth, trustworthiness), and openness to experience (creativity, intellectual interests, adventurousness, and openness to new experiences). Their general findings were that people who self-identified as a dog person scored higher on average on agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness, but they scored lower than self-identified cat people on openness and neuroticism. Gosling et al. (2010) did not utilize data provided by almost 50% of the participants, who indicated they identified as either “both a cat and dog person” or “neither.” Two studies have been used to investigate the relationship between attachment to/feelings toward pets and personality traits. In one study of Israeli pet guardians (owners) that utilized the Big Five traits, Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, and Shaver (2011) found that anxious attachment was positively correlated with neuroticism (r ¼ .15) and avoidant attachment was negatively correlated with extraversion (r ¼ 2 .14). No other relationships between personality and attachment were found. The participant pool (N ¼ 212) for that study was primarily dog owners. Another study examined the relationship between feelings toward pets and personality type utilizing the Kiersey Four Types Sorter, which categorizes personality types into four archetypes: idealists (identity-seeking), rationals (knowledge-seeking), guardians (securityseeking), and Artisans (sensation-seeking; Bagley & Gonsman, 2005). The Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS; Johnson, Garrity, & Stallones, 1992) was used to measure feelings toward pets. Idealists tended to have more affectionate feelings for their pets compared with rationals and artisans, further supporting that there may be personality differences in pet attachment/affection. That study utilized a relatively small sample size (N ¼ 163) that again consisted predominantly of participants who preferred dogs. Although research on the links between personality and attachment to/feelings for pets has been sparse, links between personality and attachment have been investigated frequently to elucidate attachment relationships between humans. Noftle and Shaver (2006) studied the relationships that Big Five traits have with anxious attachment and avoidant attachment in a sample of more than 8,000 people. In a regression predicting anxious attachment, the researchers found three significant predictors: neuroticism (the strongest predictor) as a positive predictor, and both conscientiousness and agreeableness as negative predictors. In the regression predicting avoidant attachment, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion all emerged as negative predictors. As Noftle and Shaver (2006) discussed, studying the relationships between attachment variables and the Big Five traits has led to a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of anxious and avoidant attachments between humans; this improved understanding has occurred because the Big Five traits have been extensively researched and are well-understood concepts. Likewise, correlating the Big Five traits with variables that measure humans’ attachments to pets, concepts that are not well understood at present, may lead to an improved understanding of the human –animal bond.

HUMAN– COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

3

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

ATTACHMENT AND AFFECTIONATE FEELINGS TOWARD PETS Several researchers have developed pet attachment scales, measuring the amount of affection we feel for our pets and other emotions or attitudes we have toward them, such as the degree to which we view them as similar to humans and our beliefs regarding nonhuman animal rights. These scales include the Pet Relationship Scale (Miller & Lago, 1990), the LAPS (Johnson et al., 1992), the Companion Animal Bonding Scale (Poresky, Hendrix, Hosier, & Samuelson, 1987), and the Pet Attachment Survey (Holcomb, Williams, & Richards, 1985). As researchers Beck and Madresh (2008) discussed, most researchers who have developed pet attachment scales have failed to operationalize human attachment theory in their scales. A vast quantity of theoretical writings and empirical studies supports the notion that human attachment theory provides an excellent framework for understanding a person’s emotional bond with his or her objects of attachment, called “attachment figures,” who are usually assumed to be people (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Recently, several researchers (e.g., Beck & Madresh, 2008; ZilchaMano, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2012) have argued that pets may also serve as attachment figures. Attachment theory was developed to describe relationships between parents and children. Bowlby (1969) argued that infant human beings have an innate tendency to bond with a caregiver. By age 1, this bonding tendency, called attachment, is demonstrated by a desire to remain in close proximity to the caregiver. The proximity need reveals itself when the caregiver moves away from the infant; the infant shows signs of distress, which may include dramatic crying. Most infants quickly recover from the distress when they are reunited with their caregivers; others show an avoidant response, where they do not seek out comfort or contact from their caregivers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). As many researchers argue, infant attachment relationships may form the basis for feelings of love and fear in later intimate relationships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) showed that many commonalities exist between infant – caregiver relationships and adult romantic relationships, such as gazing, touching, and affectionate talking, including “pet” nicknames. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) extended the work of Bowlby (1969), Hazan and Shaver (1987), and others by introducing a two-dimensional model of attachment. The avoidance dimension measures an individual’s view of trustworthiness, reliability, and supportiveness of others. The dependence (now called “anxiety”) dimension measures one’s view that the self is worthy of love and support. Individuals who score low on both dimensions, representing trust of others and a positive self-worth, form “secure” attachments with others. Individuals who score low on avoidance and high on anxiety form “preoccupied” attachments; individuals high on avoidance and low on anxiety are termed “dismissing”; and individuals high on both dimensions are termed “fearful.” A number of attachment scholars (e.g., Fraley & Davis, 1997; Zeifman & Hazan, 2008) propose that attachment theory is a valid model for understanding adolescent and adult relationships under the condition that four criteria are met in the relationships: (a) proximity maintenance, or desiring close proximity to the attachment figure, especially when distressed or when in need; (b) viewing and utilizing the attachment figure as a safe haven, someone who will provide emotional support, reassurance, solace, and encouragement; (c) viewing and using the attachment figure as a secure base who enhances one’s feelings of security and confidence, thereby allowing for exploration, potentially risky behavior, and self-growth; and (d) suffering separation distress when separated from the attachment figure, either physically or emotionally.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

4

REEVY AND DELGADO

Zilcha-Mano et al. (2012) examined each of these criteria in regard to the attachment that a human may have with his or her pet and concluded that pets may act as attachment figures for humans. As Zilcha-Mano et al. (2012) and Fraley and Shaver (2000) discussed, attachment theory can be usefully applied to relationships other than caregiver – child or romantic partner – romantic partner relationships. For most adults, parents recede in importance as attachment figures, and instead, romantic partners and other relationships become primary attachment relationships. Some relationships serve “attachment functions” even if they are not primary attachment relationships. Pets may serve attachment functions (i.e., secure base, etc.) for some or many individuals, even if, at the same time, the relationship between owner and pet shares some features with a parent – child relationship, with the owner as “parent” and the pet as “child.” To our knowledge, there are only two published scales that measure attachment to pets with attachment operationalized based upon human attachment theory. Beck and Madresh (2008) developed the Pet Avoidance and Anxiety Scales. Several years later, Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) developed the Pet Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ). Beck and Madresh (2008) and ZilchaMano et al. (2011) reported internal consistency reliability data and validity data on their scales. Additionally, Zilcha-Mano and colleagues (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2012) conducted factor analyses, test – retest reliabilities, and further validation studies on the PAQ and involved a larger sample of participants in their scale development than in the samples used by Beck and Madresh. For these reasons, we used Zilcha-Mano et al.’s (2011) PAQ in the current study. Additionally, we included a measure of other affective feelings toward pets. We chose the LAPS, one of the most widely used measures of affective feelings toward pets. A principal components analysis of the scale indicated that the LAPS measures general attachment (which we will call “affection”), people substituting, and animal rights/animal welfare (Johnson et al., 1992). The current study was designed to better understand attachment to/feelings for one’s pet and individual differences in identification with, attachment to, and feelings toward different types of pets. Specifically, the research goals of the current study involved investigating the following: (1) whether individuals who self-identify as a “cat person,” “dog person,” “both cat and dog person,” or “neither cat nor dog person” differ in (a) personality traits and (b) attachments to and other affective feelings toward their pets; (2) how personality is related to attachment to or feelings toward one’s pet; and (3) which variables best predict (a) affective feelings toward one’s pet as measured by the LAPS, (b) avoidant attachment to one’s pet as measured by the PAQ Avoidance Scale, and (c) anxious attachment to one’s pet as measured by the PAQ Anxiety Scale. It was assumed that “better” (i.e., more attentive and affectionate) pet owners would typically receive high scores on the LAPS and that a high score on the PAQ Avoidance Scale would signal distancing behaviors indicative of a poor pet owner. Thus, pets may benefit most from owners who produce high scores on the LAPS and low scores on the PAQ Avoidance Scale. The current study explored the meaning of anxious attachment to a pet as measured by the PAQ Anxiety Scale, and it was used to examine the potential relationship with affection for a pet. At present, it is unclear whether an anxious attachment to a pet would manifest in behavior that is primarily beneficial or primarily harmful to the pet. Previous studies examining pet attachment with the LAPS and PAQ have only asked participants what type of pets they owned, or participants were asked to answer questions in relation to current pets. In this study, we asked each participant to choose if he or she considered

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

HUMAN– COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

5

himself or herself a cat person, dog person, both, or neither and to choose a favorite pet about which to answer survey questions. While cats and dogs make up the largest percentages of owned pets, more than 20 million people own other pets, such as birds, horses, and pocket pets (AVMA, 2012). In addition, 15% of pet-owning households own both dogs and cats. Rather than ignore those who identified as both a cat and a dog person or neither a cat nor dog person, we felt that there could be interesting differences between these groups and those who considered themselves dog or cat people. We sought to identify characteristics of the most attached pet owners—those who were high in affection and low in avoidance. In past research, years that a pet had been owned had been positively correlated with affection for a pet, and women reported more affection for their pets than did men (Woodward & Bauer, 2007). Age in adulthood has been related to affection, but the relationship has been complex. Specifically, Bagley and Gonsman (2005) found a positive linear relationship between age and affection for a pet during early adulthood (before the age of 54 years) but not later in life. Albert and Bulcroft (1988) found that pet owners reported high levels of pet attachment during the newlywed and empty-nest life stages, but they experienced decreased affection for their pets when they had young children in the home. Some studies have shown that dog owners tend to be more attached than owners of cats or other types of pets (e.g., Johnson et al., 1992; Zasloff, 1996). The regressions in the current study included each of these demographic variables as well as the Big Five personality traits, identification as a cat person, dog person, both, or neither, and favorite pet as predictors. No previous studies have investigated this combination of variables as predictors of affection (as measured by the LAPS), anxious attachment, or avoidant attachment to pets. Our specific hypotheses, based on past research findings, are that (1) people who identified as “dog people” would score higher than self-identified “cat people” on extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness and lower than “cat people” on neuroticism and openness, as Gosling et al. (2010) found; and (2) neuroticism would correlate positively with anxious attachment and extraversion would correlate negatively with avoidant attachment, as Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) found. Additionally, (3a) in the regression predicting affection (LAPS), we expected gender, years the pet was owned, and “dog person” would be possible significant predictors. The Big Five factors that are associated with interpersonal warmth and/or responsibility (extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) would emerge as significant predictors. In the regression predicting avoidant attachment (3b), we expected that gender, years the pet was owned, “dog person,” extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness would emerge as negative predictors. Because the purpose of the three regressions was to find the best predictors, we entered all study variables into each of the three equations at one time rather than hierarchically. MATERIALS AND METHODS Procedure The procedures of this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of California State University, East Bay. We solicited participants for a pet-related survey from March 2013 through June 2013 and primarily utilized the Craigslist community web page under the “pets” category. We posted our solicitation in several areas of the United States, both major metropolitan areas and smaller

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

6

REEVY AND DELGADO

cities. We also used the authors’ personal Facebook pages and the pet-related pages on Reddit. The solicitation was entitled “Participate in a Study About You and Your Pet.” The first page described the possible risks, benefits, and duration of the survey. We asked participants to verify that they were older than 18 years of age and to give informed consent by checking a box online. The survey was conducted using Qualtrics. We first asked each participant to specify whether his or her favorite pet was a cat, dog, or other type of pet. We asked if the pet lived indoors, outdoors, or both; if the participant still lived with the pet or if the favorite pet was deceased; how many years he or she had the pet; and if they were the primary caretaker for the animal. Participants were next given all questions from the 23-item LAPS (Anderson, 2007; Johnson et al., 1992), the 26-item PAQ (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011), and the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Finally, we asked demographic questions about gender, year born, ethnicity, country of residence, education, and relationship and parental statuses. We also asked how many pets and children were currently living in the participant’s home and whether the participant considered himself or herself a cat person, a dog person, both, or neither. We will use the terms “Cat Person,” “Dog Person,” “Both,” or “Neither” (or clear variants, such as “Cat People” each capitalized) to refer to these different categories of people. We ended the survey by allowing participants to leave any comments they had about the survey.

Participants Of 1,160 people who started the survey, we obtained 1,098 valid questionnaires. We detected 5 surveys that were duplicates based on IP address and demographic variables and removed them. We removed 57 additional surveys for the following reasons: not completing the survey, not specifying a favorite pet, naming nonanimals instead of pets as their favorite pets, naming multiple types of animals instead of specifying one favorite pet, and being younger than age 18 years. Refer to Table 1 for gender, racial/ethnic background, country of residence, education level, and relationship status of participants. Ages of participants ranged from 19 years to 86 years with a mean age of 44.9 years (SD ¼ 13.9 years). Two hundred and nine participants (19%) identified themselves as Cat People, 419 (38.4%) as Dog People, 424 (38.6%) as Both, and 39 as Neither (3.5%). Seven people did not choose an answer to this question. Three hundred and sixty-one participants (32.8%) chose a cat as their favorite pet, 667 (60.8%) chose a dog, and 70 (6.8%) chose “other.” These other pets included rodents (rats, mice, and guinea pigs), lizards (chameleons, geckos, and bearded dragons), rabbits, sugar gliders, hedgehogs, horses, a mini-pig, fish, and various bird species (cockatiel, cockatoo, parrots, and parakeet). One thousand and fourteen participants (92.5%) said that they lived with the favorite pet, 19 (1.7%) said the pet lived with someone else, and 63 (5.7%) said that the pet was deceased. Two participants did not answer the question. One thousand and forty-three participants (95.2%) said they were the primary caretakers for the pet. Fifty-three participants (4.8%) said they were not the primary caretakers, and two participants did not answer the question. Participants had owned their favorite pets for an average of 7.68 years (SD ¼ 5.78 years). Five hundred and sixty (51.1%) favorite pets were indoors only, 524 (47.9%) were indoors-outdoors, and 11 (1%) lived outdoors only. Three participants did not answer this question.

HUMAN– COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

7

TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Demographic Characteristics

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

Gender Female Male Other or Missing Racial/Ethnic Backgrounda White/Caucasian Hispanic/Latino Black/African American Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Multiethnic Other or Missing Country of Residence United States United Kingdom Canada Other or Missing Education High School Diploma, GED, or Less Some College or 2-Year Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s, Doctoral, or Professional Missing Relationship Status Single or Dating Casually Serious Relationship Live With Partner (Married or Not) Widowed, Divorced, or Separated Missing

Total Number and Percentage of Sample

872 (79.6%) 219 (20%) 7 (0.4%) 988 (90%) 49 (4.5%) 15 (1.4%) 33 (3%) 41 (3.7%) 58 (5.3%) 45 (4.1%) 962 (88.4%) 50 (4.6%) 23 (2%) 63 (5%) 100 (9%) 384 (35%) 357 (33%) 253 (23%) 4 (0%) 238 (22%) 103 (9%) 636 (58%) 112 (11%) 9 (0%)

a

Percentages do not add up to 100 because participants were allowed to choose more than one racial/ethnic category.

Measures The BFI (John et al., 1991; John et al., 2008) was used to measure personality. The BFI consists of 44 statements beginning with the stem, “I see myself as someone who . . . ” Examples of the items are: “is talkative” and “prefers work that is routine.” Respondents rated each item on a 5point scale, ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Items were scored on five scales: Extraversion (8 items), Neuroticism (8 items), Agreeableness (9 items), Conscientiousness (9 items), and Openness to Experience (10 items). John and Srivastava (1999) reported reliabilities of BFI scales greater than .80, and 3-month test – retest reliabilities averaged .85. Evidence of validity included high correlations with other Big Five measures and with peer ratings. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure scale reliabilities of each of the BFI subscales, which were: Extraversion, .86; Agreeableness, .83; Conscientiousness, .80; Neuroticism, .85; and Openness, .78.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

8

REEVY AND DELGADO

The PAQ (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011) was used to measure attachment to pets. The PAQ consists of 26 items and is scored on two scales: Anxiety (13 items) and Avoidance (13 items). Items are written in the first person and describe feelings toward and thoughts about one’s pet. An example of an item on the Anxiety Scale is “I need a lot of reassurance from my pet that it loves me.” An example from the Avoidance Scale is “Often my pet is a nuisance to me.” Items were scored on a 7-point scale ranging from not at all to very much. Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) reported internal consistency reliabilities for both scales ranging from .86 to .89 and 6-month test – retest reliabilities of .75 for the Anxiety Scale and .80 for the Avoidance Scale. ZilchaMano et al.’s (2011) validity data included correlations with other questionnaires that measured the strength of the relationship with one’s pet and correlations with the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), which measures attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance in close relationships between humans. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .80 for all questions in the PAQ, .75 for the Avoidance Scale, and .82 for the Anxiety Scale. The LAPS (Johnson et al., 1992) was used to measure affection toward a pet. The LAPS consists of 23 items that are rated on a 4-point scale: agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, and disagree strongly (coded as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively). We also gave participants the option to answer “don’t know.” Total scores on the LAPS can range from 0 to 69. Johnson et al. (1992) reported an alpha reliability of .928 for the 23 items, and a principal components analysis of the LAPS resulted in three factors, which the authors labeled “general attachment” (11 items; alpha ¼ .90), “people substituting” (7 items; alpha ¼ .85), and “animal rights/animal welfare” (5 items; alpha ¼ .80). Examples of items for each of the factors, respectively, are: “My pet and I have a very close relationship,” “My pet means more to me than any of my friends,” and “Pets deserve as much respect as humans do.” Johnson et al. (1992) reported validity evidence for the LAPS, including correlations between LAPS scores and (a) interviewers’ assessments of participants’ attachments to their pets, and (b) respondent characteristics that have been found to correlate with pet attachment in other research (e.g., respondent gender, marital status, education, and income). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the 23-item survey was .90. Because the LAPS is based on a total score rather than an average, we removed all participants who either skipped any questions or answered “don’t know” to any LAPS questions for any analysis that included the LAPS score. We removed 294 participants, with 804 participants included for any analyses involving the LAPS score. RESULTS Analysis All data were analyzed using JMP 10.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Alpha levels were set at .05. Descriptive Statistics Means and standard deviations for BFI traits and attachment and affection measures are presented in Table 2. The correlation matrix for gender, age, years owned, the BFI traits, and

9

HUMAN– COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations for BFI, PAQ, and LAPS Variables Variable

Mean

SD

Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism PAQ Anxiety PAQ Avoidance LAPS

3.91 3.81 3.27 3.90 2.85 2.20 1.40 54.89

0.59 0.67 0.86 0.67 0.85 0.80 0.48 9.93

Note. BFI ¼ Big Five Inventory; PAQ ¼ Pet Attachment Questionnaire; LAPS ¼ Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale.

attachment and affection measures are presented in Table 3. As indicated in Table 3, many correlations between BFI traits and attachment and affection measures were statistically significant. Specifically, LAPS scores correlated positively with conscientiousness (r ¼ .13, p , .01) and neuroticism (r ¼ .09, p , .01). Avoidant attachment correlated negatively with extraversion (r ¼ 2 .10, p , .001), agreeableness (r ¼ 2 .12, p , .001), conscientiousness (r ¼ 2 .17, p , .001), and openness (r ¼ 2 .10, p , .01). Anxious attachment correlated positively with neuroticism (r ¼ .32, p , .001) and negatively with extraversion (r ¼ 2 .15, p , .001), agreeableness (r ¼ 2 .19, p , .001), conscientiousness (r ¼ 2 .16, p , .001), and openness (r ¼ 2 .07, p , .05). Hypothesis 2, which stated that neuroticism would correlate TABLE 3 Pearson’s Correlations Between Gender, Age, Years Owned, BFI, PAQ, and LAPS Variables Gen Gen – Age .08** Own .01 E .08** A .15*** C .10*** N .01 O 2.06 Av 2.19*** Anx 2.05 LAPS .16***

Age

– .08** .07* .22*** .21*** 2.20*** .09** 2.06* 2.21*** 2.02

Own

E

A

C

N

O

Av

Anx

– .06 – 2.01 .22*** – 2.02 .18*** .33*** – 2.01 2.34*** 2.40*** 2.39*** – 2.03 .25*** .19*** .16*** 2.16*** – 2.08** 2.10*** 2.12*** 2.17*** .03 2.10** – .00 2.15*** 2.19*** 2.16*** .32*** 2.07* .07* – .01 .07 .07 .13** .09** .06 2.45*** .32***

LAPS

–

Note. BFI ¼ Big Five Inventory; PAQ ¼ Pet Attachment Questionnaire; LAPS ¼ Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale; Gen ¼ gender; Own ¼ years owned; E ¼ extraversion; A ¼ agreeableness; C ¼ conscientiousness; N ¼ neuroticism; O ¼ openness; Av ¼ avoidant attachment; Anx ¼ anxious attachment. Male gender was coded as “0” and female gender as “1.” *p , .05. ** p , .01. *** p , .001.

10

REEVY AND DELGADO

positively with anxious attachment and extraversion would correlate negatively with avoidant attachment, as Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) found, was supported.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

Personality Traits Based on Pet-Person Type We conducted one-way analyses of variance to examine if people varied in the Big Five personality traits by whether they identified as Cat People, Dog People, Both, or Neither. Where the omnibus test was statistically significant, we ran pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test to find out which groups were different from each other. Although no personality differences were found between people who identified as Neither and other pet-person categories, this lack of a finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of people (n ¼ 39) who identified as Neither. Due to this finding and sample size, we focused on the personality differences for participants who identified as Cat Person, Dog Person, and Both. There were significant differences between groups on the personality trait openness, F(3, 1,087) ¼ 4.75, p ¼ .003, with those who identified as a Both scoring highest on openness and being significantly different from those who identified as Dog People. Cat People tended to score higher on openness than did dog people ( p ¼ .075). Conscientiousness was not dependent on the participant’s pet-person type, F(3, 1,087) ¼ 1.93, p ¼ .12. For extraversion, there were significant differences between the pet-person types, F(3, 1,087) ¼ 9.71, p , .001, with those who identified as Dog People or Both scoring significantly higher than those who identified as Cat People. Significant differences were found between groups on the trait agreeableness, F(3, 1,087) ¼ 7.05, p , .001, with those identifying as Dog People or Both scoring significantly higher on agreeableness than those who identified as Cat People. There were significant differences between groups for neuroticism, F(3, 1,087) ¼ 4.51, p ¼ .004, with those identifying as Cat People scoring higher on neuroticism than those identifying Dog People. Hypothesis 1, which stated that Dog People would score higher than Cat People on extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness and lower than Cat People on neuroticism and openness, as Gosling et al. (2010) found, was partially supported. Means and standard deviations for the BFI trait scores by pet-person type are summarized in Table 4. TABLE 4 Means and Standard Deviations for Big Five Inventory Trait Scores by Pet-Person Type and Favorite Pet

Cat Person (n ¼ 209) Dog Person (n ¼ 419) Both (n ¼ 424) Neither (n ¼ 39) Favorite Pet Cat (n ¼ 361) Favorite Pet Dog (n ¼ 667) Favorite Pet Other (n ¼ 70)

O

C

E

A

N

3.94 (0.62) 3.82 (0.59) 3.97 (0.57) 4.00 (0.54) 3.96 (0.60) 3.87 (0.59) 3.97 (0.58)

3.72 (0.68) 3.84 (0.66) 3.83 (0.68) 3.72 (0.63) 3.73 (0.69) 3.96 (0.65) 3.80 (0.69)

2.99 (0.80) 3.36 (0.85) 3.32 (0.87) 3.31 (0.91) 3.13 (0.85) 3.35 (0.85) 3.31 (0.96)

3.71 (0.69) 3.92 (0.65) 3.97 (0.66) 3.85 (0.63) 3.81 (0.66) 3.94 (0.67) 3.96 (0.62)

3.02 (0.83) 2.77 (0.83) 2.87 (0.87) 2.76 (0.84) 2.95 (0.84) 2.79 (0.84) 2.87 (0.99)

Note. O ¼ openness; C ¼ conscientiousness; E ¼ extraversion; A ¼ agreeableness; N ¼ neuroticism.

HUMAN–COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

11

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

Personality Traits Based on Favorite Pet The majority of people in the survey who identified as Cat People or Dog People chose those pets as their favorites: Among Cat People, 198 (95%) chose a cat, 3 (1%) chose a dog, 8 (4%) chose other; among Dog People, 397 (95%) chose a dog, 3 (, 1%) chose a cat, and 19 (4.5%) chose other). Of those who identified as Both, 147 (35%) chose a cat as their favorite pet, 254 (60%) chose a dog, and 23 (5%) chose other. Of those who identified as Neither, 12 (31%) chose a cat, 7 (18%) chose a dog, and 20 (51%) chose other. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for the BFI trait scores by favorite pet type. Participants who chose a cat as their favorite pet scored lower on extraversion, F(2, 1,095) ¼ 7.86, p , .001, agreeableness, F(2, 1,095) ¼ 4.57, p ¼ .01, and conscientiousness, F(2, 1,095) ¼ 4.42, p ¼ .01, and higher on neuroticism, F(2, 1,095) ¼ 4.52, p ¼ .01, compared with those who chose a dog as their favorite pet. There was a trend for participants who chose a cat as their favorite pet to score higher on openness, F(2, 1,094) ¼ 2.88, p ¼ .06. Of those who identified as Both, no statistical effect of type of favorite pet was found for any personality traits. (That is, participants identifying as Both who chose a cat as their favorite pet were not statistically different from those who chose a dog [all p . .05].) Predicting Affection/Attachment Measures To examine the influence of person type, pet type, personality variables, and demographic variables on the pet affection/attachment measures, we utilized linear least squares regression models with effect coding for nominal variables. We included age, gender, years the pet had been owned, pet-person type (Cat/Dog/Both/Neither), favorite pet type (cat/dog/other), and the five personality measures (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). Seven participants who chose intersex or transgender or who did not specify a gender identity were omitted from regression models. Because we used categorical factors for gender, pet-person type, and favorite pet type, the categories of male, neither, and other were respectively chosen as baseline categories for regression analyses. Regression coefficients (b) for nominal variables represent the differences between the given category and the grand mean, while controlling for other variables (Fox, 2008). Where there was a main effect of a nominal variable (pet-person type, pet type), Tukey’s HSD pairwise comparisons were used to find out which groups were different from each other. Because the LAPS and PAQ Avoidance Scale data were skewed, a Box-Cox transformation was applied before analysis. Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale. The regression model indicated several variables were related to the level of affection for one’s pet, F(13, 774) ¼ 6.39, p , .001, R 2 ¼ .10, adjusted R 2 ¼ .08. Higher levels of conscientiousness and neuroticism significantly correlated with an increased LAPS score, as did gender (being female). Pet-person type had a significant effect on the LAPS score, with those who identified as Both or Dog People having higher LAPS scores than did people who identified as Neither. There was no effect of favorite pet chosen on the LAPS score. Hypothesis 3a was stated as follows: In the regression predicting affection (LAPS), we expect gender, years the pet was owned, and Dog Person as possible significant predictors. The Big Five factors that are associated with interpersonal warmth and/or

12

REEVY AND DELGADO

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

responsibility (extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) may emerge as significant predictors. Hypothesis 3a was partially supported. See Table 5 for results. Anxious attachment. For the PAQ Anxiety Scale, pet type, age, and neuroticism were related to anxious attachment, F(13, 1,066) ¼ 13.45, p , .001, R 2 ¼ .14, adjusted R 2 ¼ .13. Age reduced anxious attachment, and choosing a dog as a favorite pet reduced anxious attachment when compared with those who chose “other” for their favorite pet. Choosing dogs also tended to correlate with reduced anxious attachment ( p ¼ .05) compared with those who chose cats as their favorite pets. Higher scores for neuroticism were correlated with significantly increased anxious attachment, thus supporting Hypothesis 2, which stated that neuroticism would correlate positively with anxious attachment, as Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) found. Petperson type showed a trend to affect anxious attachment ( p ¼ .08), with Dog People and those who identified as Both having a tendency toward more anxious attachment compared with those who identified as Neither. See Table 6 for results. Avoidant attachment. For the PAQ Avoidance Scale, the model was significant, F(13, 1,066) ¼ 8.86, p , .001, R 2 ¼ .10, adjusted R 2 ¼ .09. A longer length of time owning a pet and being female were associated with significantly decreased avoidant attachment. Participants who identified as Neither for pet-person type had significantly higher avoidant attachment compared with all other pet-person types. Higher scores on conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness all were associated with decreased avoidant attachment, and higher scores on neuroticism tended to be associated with decreased avoidant attachment ( p ¼ .06). There were no differences in avoidant attachment based on favorite pet chosen. Hypothesis 3b, in which we predicted that gender, years the pet was owned, Dog Person, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness may emerge as negative predictors, was partially supported. See Table 7 for details.

TABLE 5 Regression Coefficients for Demographics, Person Type, Pet Type, and Big Five Inventory Trait Scores on Transformed Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale Scores Factor Gender–Female Age Years Owned Person Type–Cat Person Type–Dog Person Type–Both Pet Type–Cat Pet Type–Dog Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

b

95% CI

Std B

1.10* 20.03 0.04 1.01 1.56† 1.96* 20.43 1.29† 0.92 2.28*** 0.63 0.76 2.23***

[0.24, 1.96] [20.08, 0.01] [20.07, 0.15] [20.93, 2.97] [20.06, 3.19] [0.53, 3.38] [21.94, 1.08] [20.04, 2.63] [20.24, 2.08] [1.21, 3.34] [20.17, 1.45] [20.31, 1.83] [1.34, 3.12]

.09 2.05 .02 .05 .09 .11 2.03 .08 .06 .16 .06 .05 .20

Note. Std B ¼ standardized beta coefficient. †p , .10. *p , .05. ***p , .001.

HUMAN–COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

13

TABLE 6 Regression Coefficients for Demographics, Pet Type, Person Type, and Big Five Inventory Trait Scores on Anxious Attachment Scores

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

Factor Gender–Female Age Years Owned Person Type–Cat Person Type–Dog Person Type–Both Pet Type –Cat Pet Type –Dog Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

b

95% CI

2.03 [20.09, 0.03] 2.01*** [20.01, 0.00] .00 [20.01, 0.01] .03 [20.09, 0.14] .10† [0.00, 0.21] .10† [0.01, 0.19] .03 [20.07, 0.12] 2.14** [20.23, 20.05] .00 [20.08, 0.07] .00 [20.08, 0.07] 2.03 [20.09, 0.02] 2.07 [20.12, 0.03] .23*** [0.17, 0.29]

Std B 2.03 2.14 .01 .02 .07 .07 .02 2.11 .00 .00 2.04 2.05 .25

Note. Std B ¼ standardized beta coefficient. † p , .10. ** p , .01. *** p , .001.

DISCUSSION The results of the current study support and expand previous findings that self-identification as a pet person is related to personality traits and different types of attachment to one’s favorite pet. Our findings support some of Gosling et al.’s (2010) findings that Cat People and Dog People differ in the Big Five. Dog People in our study tended to be more extraverted and agreeable TABLE 7 Regression Coefficients for Demographics, Pet Type, Person Type, and Big Five Inventory Trait Scores on Transformed Avoidant Attachment Scores Factor Gender–Female Age Years Owned Person Type–Cat Person Type–Dog Person Type–Both Pet Type –Cat Pet Type –Dog Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

b

95% CI

2.06*** [20.08, 0.03] .00 [0.00, 0.00] 2.005** [20.01, 0.00] 2.05* [20.11, 0.00] 2.06** [20.11, 20.02] 2.04† [20.07, 0.00] 2.03 [20.07, 0.01] 2.02 [20.05, 0.02] 2.04* [20.07, 20.01] 2.07*** [20.10, 20.04] 2.02* [20.05, 0.00] 2.02 [20.05, 0.01] 2.02† [20.05, 0.00]

Note. Std B ¼ standardized beta coefficient. †p , .10. * p , .05. ** p , .01. *** p , .001.

Std B 2.14 2.02 2.09 2.08 2.11 2.06 2.05 2.03 2.07 2.15 2.07 2.05 2.06

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

14

REEVY AND DELGADO

than Cat People, who scored higher on neuroticism than did Dog People. However, unlike Gosling et al.’s findings, we did not find evidence that Dog People scored higher on conscientiousness when compared with Cat People. This may be because our survey solicited people with pets, while theirs was part of a broader study not related to pets. Pet owners in general may be more conscientious than those who do not own pets, as our mean conscientiousness scores were slightly higher than those reported in other large-scale studies of personality traits (Gosling et al., 2010; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003). Gosling et al. (2010) did not report on personality traits of those who identified as either Both Cat and Dog People or Neither Cat nor Dog people, but they only performed planned comparisons between Dog People and Cat People. Our findings suggest that the majority of pet owners consider themselves Both Dog and Cat People and that their personality profile is unique. Those who identify as Both are more similar to Dog People in the traits of extraversion and agreeableness, but they are more similar to Cat People in openness. Pet-person type also influenced all attachment and affection measures we explored in this study. People who identified as Both scored higher on the LAPS and anxious attachment, and people who identified as Dog People had a tendency to score higher on LAPS and the Anxious Attachment Scale in comparison to those who identified as Neither. Those who identified as Neither scored higher than all other pet-person types on avoidant attachment. Personality traits also significantly impacted attachment and affection measurements, with both conscientiousness and neuroticism being associated with increases in the LAPS scores and neuroticism being associated with increased anxious attachment. Conscientiousness, openness, and extraversion were all associated with decreased avoidant attachment, and neuroticism also tended to be associated with decreased avoidant attachment to one’s favorite pet. Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) also found that neuroticism was associated with increased anxious attachment, but only extraversion (and not conscientiousness or openness) was associated with reduced avoidant attachment in their study. Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011) also collected data on both the Big Five traits and the LAPS, but they did not examine the relationship between the two. To our knowledge, the current study is the only study that has investigated and reported relationships between LAPS and the Big Five. In general, in the present study, we found a much higher effect of personality traits on anxious attachment and a much larger effect of conscientiousness on the reduction in avoidant attachment than did Zilcha-Mano et al. In two studies, Zilcha-Mano et al. (2012) reported mean values of Avoidant Attachment Scale scores of 1.99 and 1.90 for pet owners; their previous research article (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011) showed mean Avoidant Attachment Scale scores of 2.6 for cat owners and 2.27 for dog owners. In our study, the mean Avoidant Attachment Scale score was 1.4. This could indicate that there are consequential regional or cultural differences between the Israeli pet owners studied in Zilcha-Mano and colleagues’ (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2012) reports and a primarily American pet-owning participant pool, or that pet owners recruited via the Internet are inherently different from those recruited from pet shops, dog parks, and malls—the latter of which were the data sources for Zilcha-Mano and colleagues’ (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2012) studies. How Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Anxious Attachment May Benefit Pets Given that conscientious people score high on affection toward their pets and low on avoidant attachment, it appears that pets could benefit from living with conscientious pet owners. This

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

HUMAN–COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

15

finding, if replicated, supports a large volume of research suggesting that conscientiousness is a desirable trait to possess. People high in conscientiousness have superior physical and psychological health, superior work performance, and better relationships with peers, family, and romantic partners (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006); and they earn higher college grades (Poropat, 2009) than do people lower in conscientiousness. Additionally, spouses of conscientious people report better physical health than do people who are not married to a conscientious individual, even when their own conscientiousness is statistically controlled for in analyses (Roberts, Smith, Jackson, & Edmonds, 2009), suggesting that conscientious individuals behave in ways that benefit not only themselves but also others. Although conscientiousness is clearly an advantageous trait, neuroticism has more often been associated with disadvantages than with advantages. Neuroticism has been correlated with undesirable life outcomes for both the individual high in neuroticism and those who interact with him or her. High levels of parental neuroticism are considered detrimental to the parent –child relationship for several reasons including low emotional stability, less warmth, and less structured parenting (Prinzie, Stams, Dekovic´, Reijntjes, & Belsky, 2009). High neuroticism has also been associated with both permissive (high nurturance, low restrictiveness, and low parental knowledge) and authoritarian (low nurturance, high restrictiveness, and low knowledge) parenting (Metsa¨pelto & Pulkkinen, 2003). Both of these parenting styles are correlated with conduct problems (Thompson, Hollis, & Richards, 2003) and lower self-regulation in children (Patock-Peckham, Cheong, Balhorn, & Nagoshi, 2001) when compared with authoritative parenting. Recently, however, research and theory have pointed toward benefits of neuroticism in some contexts and outcomes. For instance, the combination of conscientiousness and neuroticism is linked with good health, above and beyond the health benefit of either trait, and women who are married to men who are high in both conscientiousness and neuroticism reported better health than did other women (Roberts et al., 2009). Another study showed no detrimental effect of neuroticism on the ability to experience positive emotions under pleasant circumstances (Ng, 2009). Additionally, some evolutionary psychologists (e.g., Nettle, 2006) argue that moderately high and high levels of neuroticism evolved and remain in the human gene pool because neuroticism functions to protect individuals from threats through its association with risk aversion. In our study, high levels of neuroticism were associated with a high level of affection toward a pet and with high anxious attachment. These findings suggest that an owner’s neuroticism may be beneficial for the pet’s welfare. In our study, neuroticism contributed to affection independently of the contribution of conscientiousness. In human relationships, anxious attachment may manifest in “clingy” behavior or overprotective parenting and a lack of support for a child’s autonomy (Prinzie et al., 2009). In a pet– human relationship, because the pet does not develop autonomy over his or her lifetime but instead remains dependent on the owner for care, anxious attachment may lead to the owner being more attentive and more sensitive to changes in his or her pet’s behavior, or it may lead to more concern about his or her pet’s physical and emotional states without any harm to the pet’s emotional well-being. Further research could utilize a more extensive BFI than the one used in the current study, such as the NEO Personality Inventory, which assesses the various facets of neuroticism (e.g., anxiety, depression, and hostility) to determine which of these components is associated with affection for a pet and which is associated with anxious attachment. Additionally, research at the

16

REEVY AND DELGADO

behavioral level, investigating actual behaviors of the owner toward the pet and quality of pet care (such as yearly veterinarian visits, grooming, play, and training), correlating these behaviors with levels of neuroticism and conscientiousness, may help to determine if pets benefit from an owner who is high in either or both of these traits.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

The Need for New Measures of the Human –Animal Relationship Pet ownership is at a record high and increasing (American Pet Products Association, 2014). However, not all pet – owner relationships are successful, and the failure of the human –animal bond is not fully understood. Attachment theory as applied to pets has overall failed to consider the reciprocality of the attachment relationship. Behaviors that may suggest attachment of pets to their owners using the strange situation procedure have only recently been explored in dogs (e.g., Prato-Previde, Custance, Spiezio, & Sabatini, 2003; Topa´l, Miklo´si, Csa´nyi, & Do´ka, 1998). Studying owner attachment to pets may help us to understand the human half of the pet –owner relationship until good measures of pet attachment to owners can be developed. In our opinion, there is a need for more conceptually developed and clear measures of human –animal bonding and attachment. The existing human– animal bond literature is inconsistent in applying the term “attachment.” A few studies use the term consistently with the existing psychological literature of attachment theory (e.g., Beck & Madresh, 2008; ZilchaMano et al., 2011; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2012), whereas others use the term to mean related concepts, such as affection (e.g., Holcomb et al., 1985; Johnson et al., 1992; Melson, Peet, & Sparks, 1991). There may be some problems with terminology used in the subscales of the LAPS survey; for example, while one subscale has been identified as “people substituting,” there are no comparative questions about individuals’ relationships with humans. Thus, it is a misnomer to imply that this LAPS subscale measures the substitution of one type of relationship for another (Zaparanick, 2008). Another issue is whether one scale should be applied to all species of pets or if researchers should instead develop species-specific attachment scales. Humans may interact differently with cats than they do with dogs based on species differences or on societal expectations. For example, pet owners are more likely to take dogs out of the home with them, but they may be more likely to let cats sleep on their beds. Many tools used to measure the human –animal bond (Anderson, 2007) feature several questions that may be dog-centric (“Your pet pays attention and obeys you quickly” [Center for the Study of Human – Animal Relationships and Environments (CENSHARE) Pet Attachment Survey]; “How often did you travel with your companion animal?” [Companion Animal Bonding Scale]; “My pet helps me to be more physically active” [Pet Relationship Scale]; “I get more exercise because of my pet” [Comfort From Companion Animal Scale]), indicating that these measures may not be sufficient to assess relations between pet owners and cats or other pets. CONCLUSION To summarize, we found statistically significant differences in how personality and selfidentification as a pet-person type influence attachment to and affection for one’s pet. Because this was an Internet survey, some of our findings may be related to the fact that pet owners who elect to answer a pet-related survey may be different from pet owners in general.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

HUMAN–COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

17

Although Internet surveys allow for large sample sizes, they are also subject to sampling bias based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and age (Schonlau, van Soest, Kapteyn, & Couper, 2009). Our survey participants were largely Caucasian, female, and American, which means it may be inappropriate to generalize our findings across other populations without further studies. Market research suggests that in the United States, 46% of Caucasian households, 24% of African American households, and 53% of Hispanic households have dogs, and 36% of Caucasian households, 14% of African American households, and 34% of Hispanic households have cats (Mintel Reports Academic, 2013). One study showed no differences in owner reports of receiving companionship from pets, considering pets as part of the family, or receiving emotional support or unconditional love from their pets based on owner race/ethnicity, but that study involved 78% Caucasian participants (Risley-Curtiss, Holley, & Wolf, 2006). Other results examining race and attachment to pets have been inconsistent (see Bagley & Gonsman, 2005). Another limitation of our study is that although our results were statistically significant, in some cases, the effect sizes were relatively small, suggesting that there are still many unidentified factors that may contribute to pet attachment and affection for one’s pet. Despite these shortcomings, our study demonstrates that personality traits (particularly neuroticism and conscientiousness) and identification as a Cat Person, Dog Person, or Both are potentially important to the pet – human relationship. It also suggests that identifying as Neither a cat person nor a dog person or having a pet who is not a cat or dog may be associated with a more avoidant, less affectionate relationship. This finding indicates that further study is needed to explore why some pet owners consistently have more affectionate relationships with particular types of pets. For example, dogs receive more medical care than cats (AVMA, 2012), owners spend more money on their pet dogs than on cats (American Pet Products Association, 2014), and fewer cats than dogs are adopted from animal shelters (Lepper, Kass, & Hart, 2002). Cats are also less likely to be reclaimed by their owners when they are turned into animal shelters (Zawistowski, Morris, Salman, & Ruch-Gallie, 1998). All of these findings suggest that dogs may have benefits over cats, but it is not clear if this is due to characteristics of the pets, the owners, or both. In conclusion, a better understanding of people’s characteristics such as personality traits, their attachment styles, self-identification as animal people, and general affection for pets may be helpful in increasing our understanding of the human –animal bond. On a more applied level, although obviously it is at a very early stage of understanding, in the future, this information may be useful for the development of tools that could assist shelter employees and veterinarians. Currently most adoption tools and questionnaires (such as Meet Your Match; American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2008) focus on the qualities that the adopter is seeking in a new pet. Understanding more about which human qualities may aid in the human –animal bond may help shelter workers, pet behavior consultants, and veterinarians provide more counseling or ongoing support to help promote a good relationship between owners and their pets. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which greatly improved this manuscript.

18

REEVY AND DELGADO

FUNDING This work was supported by the University of California at Berkeley Chancellor’s Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to M.M.D.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

REFERENCES Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum. Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1988). Pets, families, and the life course. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 543–552. doi:10.2307/352019 American Pet Products Association. (2014). 2013–2014 National Pet Owners Survey. Retrieved from http://www. americanpetproducts.org/pubs_survey.asp American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (2008). Meet your match. Retrieved from http://www.aspca. org/adopt/meet-your-match American Veterinary Medical Association. (2012). U.S. pet ownership & demographics sourcebook. Schaumburg, IL: Author. Anderson, D. C. (2007). Assessing the human– animal bond: A compendium of actual measures. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Bagley, D. K., & Gonsman, V. L. (2005). Pet attachment and personality type. Anthrozoos, 18, 28– 42. doi:10.2752/ 089279305785594333 Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 Beck, L., & Madresh, E. A. (2008). Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoos, 21, 43–56. doi:10.2752/089279308X274056 Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment: Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). London, England: Hogarth. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford. Casey, R. A., Vandenbussche, S., Bradshaw, J. W., & Roberts, M. A. (2009). Reasons for relinquishment and return of domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) to rescue shelters in the UK. Anthrozoos, 22, 347–358. doi:10.2752/ 089279309X12538695316185 Fox, J. (2008). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131 –144. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132– 154. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132 Gosling, S. D., Sandy, C. J., & Potter, J. (2010). Personalities of self-identified ‘dog people’ and ‘cat people.’ Anthrozoos, 23, 213–222. doi:10.2752/175303710x12750451258850 Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511 –524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 Holcomb, R., Williams, R. C., & Richards, P. S. (1985). The elements of attachment: Relationship maintenance and intimacy. Journal of the Delta Society, 2(1), 28–34. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley. John, O., Naumann, L., & Soto, C. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114– 158). New York, NY: Guilford. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102 –138). New York, NY: Guilford. Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1992). Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS). Anthrozoos, 5, 160 –175. doi:10.2752/089279392787011395

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

HUMAN–COMPANION ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP

19

Lepper, M., Kass, P. H., & Hart, L. A. (2002). Prediction of adoption versus euthanasia among dogs and cats in a California animal shelter. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5, 29–42. doi:10.1207/S15327604JAWS0501_3 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). A five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 139–153). New York, NY: Guilford. Melson, G. F., Peet, S., & Sparks, C. (1991). Children’s attachment to their pets: Links to socio-emotional development. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 8(2), 55–65. doi:10.2307/41514782 Metsa¨pelto, R.-L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Personality traits and parenting: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience as discriminative factors. European Journal of Personality, 17, 59–78. doi:10.1002/per.468 Miller, M., & Lago, D. (1990). Observed pet–owner in-home interactions: Species differences and association with the Pet Relationship Scale. Anthrozoos, 4, 49–54. doi:10.2752/089279391787057350 Mintel Reports Academic. (2013). America’s pet owners. Available from http://reports.mintel.com/display/637613/ National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy. (1997). The Shelter Statistics Survey, 1994–97. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.622 Ng, W. (2009). Clarifying the relation between neuroticism and positive emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 69–72. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.049 Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208. doi:10.1016/j.jrp. 2004.11.003 Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127 Patock-Peckham, J. A., Cheong, J., Balhorn, M. E., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2001). A social learning perspective: A model of parenting styles, self-regulation, perceived drinking control, and alcohol use and problems. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 25, 1284–1292. Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Hosier, J. E., & Samuelson, M. L. (1987). The Companion Animal Bonding Scale: Internal reliability and construct validity. Psychological Reports, 60, 743–746. doi:10.2466/pr0.1987.60.3.743 Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322 –338. doi:10.1037/a0014996 Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D. M., Spiezio, C., & Sabatini, F. (2003). Is the dog–human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth’s strange situation. Behaviour, 140, 225–254. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/4536022 Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J., Dekovic´, M., Reijntjes, A. H., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351–362. doi:10.1037/a0015823 Risley-Curtiss, C., Holley, L. C., & Wolf, S. (2006). The animal–human bond and ethnic diversity. Social Work, 51, 257–268. doi:10.1093/sw/51.3.257 Roberts, B. W., Smith, J., Jackson, J. J., & Edmonds, G. (2009). Compensatory conscientiousness and health in older couples. Psychological Science, 20, 553 –559. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02339.x Salman, M. D., Hutchison, J., Ruch-Gallie, R., Kogan, L., New, J. C., Kass, P. H., & Scarlett, J. M. (2000). Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3, 93–106. doi:10.1207/S15327604JAWS0302_2 Salman, M. D., New, J. J. G., Scarlett, J. M., Kass, P. H., Ruch-Gallie, R., & Hetts, S. (1998). Human and animal factors related to relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 207–226. doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0103_2 Schonlau, M., van Soest, A., Kapteyn, A., & Couper, M. (2009). Selection bias in web surveys and the use of propensity scores. Sociological Methods & Research, 37, 291 –318. doi:10.1177/0049124108327128 Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.84.5.1041 Thompson, A., Hollis, C., & Richards, D. (2003). Authoritarian parenting attitudes as a risk for conduct problems. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 84–91. doi:10.1007/s00787-003-0324-4

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:23 26 December 2014

20

REEVY AND DELGADO

´ ., Csa´nyi, V., & Do´ka, A. (1998). Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application Topa´l, J., Miklo´si, A of Ainsworth’s (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112, 219–229. doi:10.1037/07357036.112.3.219 Woodward, L., & Bauer, A. (2007). People and their pets: A relational perspective on interpersonal complementarity and attachment in companion animal owners. Society & Animals, 15, 169– 189. doi:10.1163/156853007x187117 Zaparanick, T. L. (2008). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Zasloff, R. L. (1996). Measuring attachment to companion animals: A dog is not a cat is not a bird. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47, 43 –48. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(95)01009-2 Zawistowski, S., Morris, J., Salman, M., & Ruch-Gallie, R. (1998). Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion animals: New insights on old and new data. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 193 –206. doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0103_1 Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (2008). Pair bonds as attachments: Reevaluating the evidence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 436–455). New York, NY: Guilford. Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). An attachment perspective on human– pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 345–357. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001 Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Pets as safe havens and secure bases: The moderating role of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 571–580. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.005