As some people say, pets are life companions. No matter what, they will be there for you even when you are sad, mad, or sick. Every time I’m sad I hug my dog and she definitely makes me feel better. My best friend has a cat and she does the same. Overall, every one I know has an special attachment to their pets no matter if these are fish, cats, turtles, or dogs. In general I believe that they make you feel better and happier since they give a sense of companionship and make us feel understood.
I did some research about the extent in which our pets can help us. I found a study published on the American Geriatrics Society Journal that determined whether pet company can cause us any physical or psychological effects.
My dog
Scientists decided to make a longitudinal study for a year, that included 995 participants who were 65 years or older. The study started with 1500 participants randomly taken from the Ontario Ministry of Health data base. Only 995 participants were followed up during the period of time of the study. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about the type of pet they had or if they didn’t had any, their sex, education, income, leaving arrangement, health status (physically and psychologically) and asked them about any major event that has occurred in their life on the past 12 months (since this may affect them emotionally). Researchers controlled the confounding variables that could affect the results in any way. The null hypothesis in this case would be that the ownership of pets does not affect physical and emotional health. The alternate hypothesis is that the ownership of pets prevents the physical and emotional health deterioration of an older person.
Since many of the participants could not be followed up due to death or other situations, scientists ruled out those who were no longer part of the study. Later they compared the data recorded in 1995 with the one recorded a year after. Reverse causation had to be ruled out because of the time factor, meaning that it is impossible to compare the data collected a year after the baseline data and get results. The study had to be either causal or affected by a third variable. Chance on the other hand, can never be ruled out.
Scientists wanted to see if the ADL’s (Activities of Daily Life) of the people with pets indicated different results than the ones who did not have pets. They found out that the physical condition of people who did not have pets had decayed more than those who did. The table below shows the results:
Scientists said it is likely that old people deteriorate at a lower rate when having pets due to the fact they need to be active in order to take care of them. After this, they compared the data for those who had cats and dogs with the data of those who had other animals as pets. The found out a correlation between cat and dog owners and high ADL score (physical).
Furthermore, scientists found out through statistical analysis that there was not a direct cause between the emotional well being of an individual with a pet or the absence of it. However, they did find that people had a tendency to give social support when having pets. Figure 1 below shows the results.
This results demonstrate how the psychological well being of the participants influence on their ability to react on crisis situations. Scientists found out that people who have pets will have a much better reaction towards bad situations than those who do not.
According to the National Center for Health Research there could be two possibilities, either people who are healthy will be prone to have pets or people who have pets are healthy. Also a German study indicates that having a pet can deteriorate health since they will not have enough time to take care of themselves because they are taking care of their pets.
Even though, many scientists and journalists do not find a clear correlation between health and pets, they believe there is one. To conclude, the study indicates that the alternate hypothesis that pets can make an impact on the physical and emotional health of a person is true. However, this can be due to chance and only relies in a group of people that belongs to the same region (Ontario). I think that there should be replication and meta-analyses in order to know if the results are accurate or can be due to a fluke.