Why science can't really tell us whether pets are good for health

Dec 31, 2013 by Pauleen Bennett, The Conversation
Pets can also provide their owners with social support, acting as a friend and confidante. Credit: Crashing Waves/flickr

Links between human health and pet ownership are of widespread community interest but there's little clarity about the issue in scientific circles.

It is relatively safe to say that pets can be good for people in a number of ways. When people go walking with a dog, they'remore likely to have conversations with strangers. And thisincreased social contact is beneficial.

Pets can also provide their owners with social support, acting as a friend and confidante. This may be particularly important for people who are socially isolated or vulnerable, such as older people and those with mental or physical disabilities or serious illnesses.

We know positive interactions with pets can increase feel-good hormones including oxytocin, which is associated with bonding and stress relief.

Pet owners are also reportedly healthier and live longer following a heart attack, take less medication, and visit doctors lessoften than non-.

And children who live with cats and dogs as infants are less likely to develop reactions to common allergens.

But despite these studies, most scientists agree that the jury is still out when it comes to establishing the health benefits of .

While some research reports describe , many others find no relationship, or even that pet ownership is associated with poorer outcomes.

Indeed, results can be complex even within a single study.

A recent study of over 40,000 Swedish participants, for example, found pet owners had better physical health than non-pet owners, but rated more poorly on psychological health indicators.

Children who live with pets as infants are less likely to develop common allergies. Credit: Ranken Jordan/flickr

So what's going on? One issue is that it's extremely difficult to design conclusive studies in this area of research.

When studying the effects of a new drug, scientists typically assign participants to two groups. Neither the participants nor those responsible for data collection know which participants are receiving the real drug or an identical-looking fake.

Any difference in outcomes between the two groups can then be safely attributed to the effects of the drug. But living animals can clearly not be randomly assigned to people who may not want them or know how to care for them correctly.

Nor can the participants or the researchers be unaware of whether someone is assigned to a pet or placebo; it's just too difficult to hide a big furry dog inside a brightly coloured capsule!

This means most people in human-animal studies own pets because they want to, which is likely to bias the results.

So even in studies where there's a clear link between pet ownership and health outcomes, we can rarely say that the are caused by the pet rather than some other factor.

People who own pets may have better health, but this may be because healthier people are more likely to own pets in the first place…because they can care for them. And so on.

Most people in human-animal studies own pets because they want to, which is likely to bias the results. Credit: Theron Trowbridge

A second issue that makes research in this area difficult is that each human-animal relationship is unique.

In some ways it's like researching the effects of marriage – a perfect partnership has many positive benefits, but the wrong partnership can be truly awful.

Very few studies take into account the type of pet, how well it matches the owner's needs, or the quality of the relationship between the owner and the pet.

Yet these details about the animal-owner relationship are probably critical factors in determining whether pets are beneficial or not. And, again, they're impossible to control in experimental situations.

Researchers are working hard to solve these problems but the most we can say for certain is that pets almost certainly benefit the health of some people, some of the time.

Other people probably don't benefit from owning a pet and, for some, it's likely to be a costly exercise that may increase stress levels and result in health problems.

People who own pets that fit their lifestyle and meet their particular needs are most likely to benefit from ownership. But they don't need science to tell them they're happy with their animal companion anyway.

Explore further: Pets may help reduce your risk of heart disease

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

To make new friends, walk the dog

Jul 30, 2013

Dog-walking is one of the top five ways to meet new people, according to research at The University of Western Australia.

Are pet owners healthier and happier? Maybe not...

Aug 03, 2011

For many people, Fido and Fluffy are more than just pets, they're true and equal members of the family. And it's not hard to see why. Our pets greet us at the door after a long day of work, settle in our laps while we're ...

Study shows how children relate to their pets

Jun 14, 2013

In a study of more than 1,000 school children, scientists at the University of Liverpool have shown that the bond between a child and their pet is a significant part of growing up in families from a variety ...

Recommended for you

Orchid named after UC Riverside researcher

8 hours ago

One day about eight years ago, Katia Silvera, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Riverside, and her father were on a field trip in a mountainous area in central Panama when they stumbled ...

In sex-reversed cave insects, females have the penises

10 hours ago

Researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on April 17 have discovered little-known cave insects with rather novel sex lives. The Brazilian insects, which represent four distinct but re ...

Fear of the cuckoo mafia

10 hours ago

If a restaurant owner fails to pay the protection money demanded of him, he can expect his premises to be trashed. Warnings like these are seldom required, however, as fear of the consequences is enough to ...

User comments : 0

More news stories

Deadly human pathogen Cryptococcus fully sequenced

Within each strand of DNA lies the blueprint for building an organism, along with the keys to its evolution and survival. These genetic instructions can give valuable insight into why pathogens like Cryptococcus ne ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers

(Phys.org) —Four freshmen at the University of Pennsylvania have taken Apple's personal assistant Siri to behave as a graduate-level executive assistant which, when asked, is capable of adjusting the temperature ...