Anthrozoös

A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals

ISSN: 0892-7936 (Print) 1753-0377 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20

Pet Attachment in the Context of Family Conflict

Jennifer W. Applebaum & Barbara A. Zsembik

To cite this article: Jennifer W. Applebaum & Barbara A. Zsembik (2020) Pet Attachment in the
Context of Family Conflict, Anthrozoös, 33:3, 361-370, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2020.1746524

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1746524

Published online: 12 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 361

ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 33, ISSUE 3 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2020

PP. 361–370 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY

Pet Attachment in the Context

of Family Conflict
Jennifer W. Applebaum and Barbara A. Zsembik
Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, College of Liberal
Arts & Sciences, University of Florida, USA
Address for correspondence: ABSTRACT Previous research shows that companion animals can have a
Jennifer W. Applebaum,
3219 Turlington Hall,
positive effect on their owner’s health and may also serve as a buffer to stress.
PO Box 117330, Despite this, few studies have investigated the role of the pet in adverse or
Department of Sociology and tumultuous family circumstances. In this study, we explored whether reported
Criminology & Law,
College of Liberal Arts family conflict is associated with strength of attachment to companion ani-
& Sciences, mals. We analyzed a large sample of pet-owning primary caregivers of children
University of Florida, (n = 1,421) to understand how family conflict and pet attachment may be
Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
E-mail: associated. Primary caregivers were asked to report the frequency of
[email protected] instances of intrafamily criticism and discussion styles, as well as types of
interactions with pets in the home to assess strength of attachment. Results
from bivariate tests of association and ordinary least squares regression mod-
els indicated that there was a significant association between family conflict
and strength of attachment to companion animals: as the amount of family
conflict increased, so did the strength of attachment to the family pet. Family
conflict remained a significant predictor of strength of pet attachment with the
inclusion of sociodemographic control variables, which indicated that the

Anthrozoös DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2020.1746524

association was not an indirect result of other correlations. These findings
suggest that companion animals play an important role in the lives of family
members who are experiencing adverse situations or chronic strain such as
family conflict, and they underscore a need for further investigation into the role
of the pet in the family. We draw implications for clinical practice and future
research involving pets, children, and childhood family trauma.

Keywords: companion animals, family conflict, human–animal interac-

tion, Panel Study of Income Dynamics, pet attachment

❖
A growing body of research has been devoted to the idea that
companion animals can have a unique and positive impact on
their guardian’s physical and mental health. Pets have been
shown to provide motivation for exercise (Cutt, Giles-Corti, Knuiman,
Timperio, & Bull, 2008), a sense of wellbeing (Bennett, Trigg, Godber, &
Brown, 2015), stress reduction (Wheeler & Faulkner, 2015), a buffer
against depression (Lem, Coe, Haley, Stone, & Ogrady, 2016), and can act
361

as a means to social capital by providing opportunities for social and

AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 362

Pet Attachment in the Context of Family Conflict

community engagement (Wood, Giles-Corti, & Bulsara, 2005). The ubiquity and prevalence of
therapy animals in cancer wards, hospice care, prison rehabilitation programs, and other ther-
apeutic settings further illustrates a cultural acceptance that pets provide a type of comfort to
people (Fine, 2011).
Family conflict is a known chronic stressor that carries negative health effects. Felitti
et. al.’s (1998) landmark study on adverse childhood experiences established the experi-
ence of family conflict (synonymous here with emotional abuse or household dysfunction)
as a factor contributing to poor health outcomes in adults. Additional research revealed
associations between family conflict and slow growth in young children (Montgomery,
Bartley, & Wilkinson, 1997), increased depression and suicidal ideation in adolescents
(Adams, Overholser, & Spirito, 1994), increased alcohol use (Baer, Garmezy, McLaughlin,
Pokorny, & Wernick, 1987), and decreases in mental wellbeing and physical health in
adolescents (Mechanic & Hansell, 1989). Other research has pointed to the possible
buffering effect of pets in families experiencing conflict. For example, Cox (1993) found that
pet attachment was significantly correlated with family adaptability as well as family
cohesion in a sample of families in therapeutic settings. There is evidence that children
growing up in single-parent homes versus two-parent homes (Bodsworth & Coleman,
2001), as well as those with no siblings versus those with other children in the household
(Westgarth et al., 2013), demonstrate higher attachment to family pets. Barlow et al.’s
(2012) study of 457 undergraduate students in the midwestern United States found that
women who had suffered childhood neglect tended to be more attached to companion
animals than non-neglected women.
Further research has explored the concept of pet attachment in relation to both human and
pet outcomes. A study designed to evaluate attachment between caregivers and their pet
dogs, modeled after the Ainsworth Strange Situation experiment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters,
& Wall, 1978), found that patterns of attachment behaviors between dogs and owners were
similar to those of infants and parents (Prato-Previde, Custance, Spiezio, & Sabatini, 2003).
Prato-Previde, Fallani, & Valsecchi (2006) later found no gender differences in reported levels
of pet attachment for owners. In a sample of 132 Canadian dog and cat owners living alone,
individuals who felt lonely and depressed and reported lower levels of social support also had
higher levels of pet attachment (Antonacopoulos & Pychyl, 2010). It has also been shown that
dog owners who house their pets indoors tend to be more attached to their pets, but level of
care and maintenance for the animal does not differ with housing situation (Shore, Riley, &
Douglas, 2006). Additionally, lower levels of pet attachment were demonstrated to be associ-
ated with instances of dog relinquishment compared with owners who had no intention of
relinquishing their dogs (Kwan & Bain, 2013).
As of 2018, 61% of Americans owned pets (Applebaum, Peek, & Zsembik, 2020).
Despite the prevalence of family pets and the extensive investigation into the health
benefits of owning one, relatively little research has been conducted with the goal of
understanding what role the animal plays in the family unit. In the current study, we aimed
Anthrozoös

to extend the scientific literature on the role of the pet in the family facing conflict.
Specifically, we investigated the association between strength of pet attachment and
reported family conflict amongst a sample of 1,421 primary caregivers (PCGs) in family
units with both children and pets. We hypothesized that PCGs reporting high levels of
family conflict will also report high levels of pet attachment because PCGs will turn to
362

them for comfort and support.

AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 363

Applebaum and Zsembik

Methods
Sample
We utilized the 2014 wave of the Child Development Supplement (CDS) to University of
Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) (https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/). The
PSID is a nationally representative, longitudinal household survey that began in 1968,
collecting economic and sociodemographic information from individuals and their families
annually until 1997 and semi-annually thereafter. The PSID added a supplement to the main
survey concerning the development of children (the CDS) under the age of 18 in the house-
hold which ran in three waves: 1997, 2002, and 2007. The CDS collected data on children’s
physical and mental health, development, and wellbeing within the context of their family
and community.
In 2014 the CDS began sampling a new group of PSID households with children aged
0–17 years and expanded the data collected to include relationships with family pets. All PSID fam-
ilies with completed Core Surveys and at least one child less than age 18 in 2013 were selected
for the CDS. The respondent for the household identified the Head of Household, defined as the
male in a married or cohabiting couple and a single adult of either gender, and the spouse/part-
ner as the female in a married or cohabiting couple. The respondent also named the adult who
had primary caregiving responsibility for the dependent child(ren), typically the mother, and who
was interviewed as the primary caregiver (PCG) for the CDS. The 2013 PSID categorized same-
sex partners as “other nonrelatives,” therefore we were unable to fully account for same-sex part-
ners. This study focused on the subset of pet owners from the 2014 CDS PCG sample, which
accounts for 61% of the total sample. Ethical approval was not required for this study.
Pets and Pet Attachment
The study sample is restricted to pet-owning PCGs. The outcome variable in this study is a
measure of the PCG’s pet attachment. The CDS asked three questions taken from the
27-question CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale (Holcomb, Williams & Richards, 1985) to
measure level of attachment to the family pet: “Thinking about your pet/your favorite pet:” 1)
“How often do you spend time each day playing with or exercising your pet?” 2) “When you
feel bad, how often do you seek your pet for comfort?” 3) “How often do you consider your
pet to be a member of your family?” Response options for each question were “never” (coded
1), “sometimes” (coded 2), “often” (coded 3), or “almost always” (coded 4). The responses
were then summed to give a score for pet attachment, from 3 (weak) to 12 (strong), which was
included as a variable in the CDS ( = 0.73).
Family Conflict
To measure levels of family conflict, the PCG was asked two questions. The questions were pref-
aced with “The following are statements about how families get along and settle arguments.” The
statements were 1) “Family members always calmly discuss problems,” and 2) “Family members
often criticize each other.” There were five response options, which ranged from “completely dis-
agree” (coded 1) to “completely agree” (coded 5), with a central neutral response. Question 1
Anthrozoös

(“calmly discuss”) was reverse-scored. A scale of family conflict was constructed adding the two
variables together, resulting in scores from low conflict (2) to high conflict (10).
Sociodemographic Characteristics
The characteristics we were interested in were gender, income, education, marital status,
363

number of children, race, and ethnicity. Gender was determined using the variable “sex of
AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 364

Pet Attachment in the Context of Family Conflict

individual” from the 2014 PSID CDS and was coded “1” for woman and “0” for man. Income
was determined using “total family income from year 2012” from the main PSID survey 2013
wave and recoded as a categorical variable by quartiles: Q1 = $0–33,499, Q2 = $33,500–
63,809, Q3 = $63,810–104,001, Q4 = $104,002–6,301,000. Income was grouped by quar-
tiles to address skewness. Education indicated the number of years completed and ranged
from 3–17 years. Marital status was categorized as currently married or permanently
cohabitating (coded “1”), or never married, widowed, divorced/annulled, or separated (coded
“0”). Number of children reflected the number of children in the family unit and ranged from
1–9. Race of the PCG was categorized into white, black, and other, which includes
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, and other. Latinx ethnicity (coded “1”) includes
Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Cuban. There was an additional
category that did not identify national origins: “Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.” “Hispanic”
and “Latino” are clearly of Latin American origin, but “Other Spanish” may include individ-
uals not of Latin American origin (i.e., Brazilians, Spaniards). The results of multivariate
analyses that excluded this category were comparable to results when these individuals
were coded as of Latin American origin; therefore, we kept them in the Latinx ethnic group.
Non-Latinxs were coded “0.”
Analytic Procedure
We first examined descriptive statistics for pet-owning PCGs. In order to determine differences
between PCGs with weak pet attachment (scores 3–6) and strong pet attachment (scores
7–12), we then compared the sociodemographic characteristics and family conflict charac-
teristics. To examine these group differences, we used t-tests for continuous variables and
chi-square tests for categorical variables. We estimated two Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)
regression models to determine the effects of family conflict on the strength of PCG’s attach-
ment to their pet(s), first as a bivariate model (Model 1), then with the addition of sociodemo-
graphic characteristics as controls (Model 2). We restricted analyses to respondents who had
given complete information on all variables in Model 2. All statistical procedures were
conducted with Stata 15.1.

Results
Descriptive Statistics
A mean of 2.5 pets (SD = 2.6; Mdn = 2; min = 1, max = 20) was reported by the PCGs. The
large majority had dogs (79%), 34% had cats, and 28% had other types of pets, which
included small mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, farm animals, crustaceans, chick-
ens, and “other.” The mean score on the pet attachment scale was 6.6 (SD = 2.3; Mdn = 6;
min = 3, max = 12). Figure 1 shows that most PCGs played with their pet at least sometimes,
more than two-thirds sought comfort from a pet, and nearly three-quarters considered their
pet to be a family member. The distribution of pet attachment scores is shown in Figure 2.
Sociodemographic characteristics for the sample are shown in Table 1. The mean score
Anthrozoös

on the family conflict scale was 5.3 (SD = 1.8). The sample was 83.7% women and had a
mean age of 36.5 years (SD = 8.9). The median household income was $63,810, and the
mean education in years was 13.9 (SD = 2.2). The sample was 65.5% married or permanently
cohabitating and 34.5% unmarried, which includes divorced, separated, widowed, and single.
There was a mean of two children in the family unit (SD = 1.1). The sample was 69.1% white,
364

25.6% black, 5.3% other races, and 10.8% reported Latinx ethnicity.
AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 365

Applebaum and Zsembik

Figure 1. Relative frequencies of pet attachment scale components.

Figure 2. Relative frequencies of pet attachment scale scores.

Differences in Primary Caregivers with Weak Versus Strong Attachment to Pet(s)

In order to compare PCGs with weak (scores 3–6) versus strong (scores 7–12) pet attachment,
the scale was dichotomized using a median split. The comparisons are presented in Table 2.
PCGs reporting strong pet attachment had a significantly higher level of family conflict
(t(1,419) = –2.11, p < 0.05) than those reporting weak pet attachment. Differences in frequen-
cies of weak versus strong pet attachment varied significantly by gender (2(1) = 12.52,
p < 0.001): a larger proportion of PCGs who were men (57.1%) reported strong pet attach-
ment than did PCGs who were women (44.5%). There were no significant differences in
strength of pet attachment by age, income, years of education, or marital status. PCGs
reporting strong pet attachment had significantly more children (t(1,419) = –3.03, p < 0.01). Both
Anthrozoös

racial and ethnic differences in strength of pet attachment were appreciable: proportionally
fewer whites (41.1%) reported strong pet attachment compared with black PCGs (58.0%)
and other races (61.3%) (2(2) = 37.21, p < 0.001). Latinxs (57.5%) reported significantly
stronger pet attachment than non-Latinxs (45.2%) (2(1) = 8.34, p < 0.01). Finally, PCGs
reporting strong pet attachment had significantly fewer pets than those reporting weak pet
365

attachment (t(1,419) = 4.28, p < 0.001).

AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 366

Pet Attachment in the Context of Family Conflict

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for pet-owning parental caregivers (n = 1,421).

Variable Mean/% SD Min Max
Family Conflict Scale 5.3 1.8 2 10
Women (coded 1) 83.7%
Age (years) 36.5 8.9 17 87
Income
Quartile 1 25.0% $0 $33,499
Quartile 2 25.0% $33,500 $63,809
Quartile 3 25.0% $63,810 $104,001
Quartile 4 25.0% $104,002 $6,301,000
Education (years) 13.9 2.2 3 17
Married/Cohabitating (coded 1) 65.5%
No. of Children 2.0 1.1 1 9
Race
White 69.1%
Black 25.6%
Other 5.3%
Ethnicity
Latinx 10.8%
Non-Latinx 89.2%
Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2014.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics by strength of pet attachment.

Weak Pet Attachment Strong Pet Attachment
(scores 3–6) (scores 7–12)
Variable Mean (SD)/% Mean (SD)/%
Family Conflict Scale* 5.24 (1.71) 5.44 (1.83)
Gender***
Women 55.6% 44.5%
Men 42.9% 57.1%
Age (years) 36.8 (8.82) 36.1 (8.91)
Income
Quartile 1 55.8% 44.2%
Quartile 2 49.3% 50.1%
Quartile 3 52.1% 47.9%
Quartile 4 56.7% 43.3%
Education (years) 13.84 13.95
Marital Status
Married/Cohabitating 53.8% 46.2%
Unmarried 53.0% 47.1%
No. of Children** 1.95 (1.00) 2.13 (1.15)
Race***
White 58.9% 41.1%
Black 42.0% 58.0%
Anthrozoös

Other 38.7% 61.3%

Ethnicity**
Latinx 42.5% 57.5%
Non-Latinx 54.8% 45.2%
No. of Pets*** 2.78 (2.88) 2.19 (2.15)
366

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001: denoting significant differences between groups.
Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2014.
AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 367

Applebaum and Zsembik

Table 3. Ordinary least squares regression models for the effect of variables on strength of
attachment to pet(s).
Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2
Family Conflict Scale (2–10) 0.120** (0.035) 0.095** (0.034)
Age (years) –0.015* (0.007)
Education (years) 0.102** (0.031)
Income (Q1= ref)
Quartile 2 0.503** (0.177)
Quartile 3 0.294 (0.195)
Quartile 4 0.212 (0.219)
Married/Cohabitating (unmarried = ref) 0.029 (0.150)
No. of Children 0.172** (0.056)
Woman (man = ref) –0.599*** (0.162)
Race (white = ref)
Black 0.958*** (0.150)
Other Race 0.680* (0.289)
Ethnicity: Latinx (Non-Latinx = ref) 0.679** (0.214)
Constant 5.93*** (0.194) 4.73*** (0.555)
F 12.14*** 9.77***
Adj. R2 0.008 0.07
n 1,421 1,421
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Values shown in each cell are unstandardized coefficients (SE).
Source: Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2014.

Strength of Pet Attachment and Family Conflict

The results of the bivariate OLS regression model are presented in Table 3, Model 1. For
every 1-unit increase in the family conflict scale, strength of pet attachment increases by
0.120 points (p < 0.01); 0.8% of the variance in strength of pet attachment in the PCG is
explained by level of family conflict alone (F(1, 1419) = 12.14, p < 0.001). The multivariate
analysis of the effects of family conflict when controlling for age, education, income, mar-
ital status, number of children, gender, race, and ethnicity is presented in Table 3, Model
2. Model 2 explains 7% of the variance in strength of pet attachment in the PCG
(F(12, 1408) = 9.77, p < 0.001). Income quartiles 3 and 4 and marital status were not signif-
icant predictors of strength of pet attachment in this model, while all other variables in the
model were. Family conflict remains significant in this model, though the effect size is
slightly smaller (b = 0.095, p < 0.01). This indicates that family conflict is associated with
strength of pet attachment and is not an indirect result of correlations with the sociode-
mographic characteristics of PCGs. Significant control variables include age (b = –0.015,
p < 0.05), years of education (b = 0.102, p < 0.01), income quartile 2 versus 1 (b = 0.503,
p < 0.01), number of children (b = 0.172, p < 0.01), gender of woman versus man
Anthrozoös

(b = –0.599, p < 0.001), race of black versus white (b = 0.958, p < 0.001), other race ver-
sus white (b = 0.680, p < 0.05), and Latinx versus non-Latinx ethnicity (b = 0.679,
p < 0.01). Multicollinearity was evaluated using the variance inflation factor (VIF). All vari-
ables had VIF values below 3, with a mean VIF of 1.42, indicating that multicollinearity is
not affecting the estimates in the models.
367
AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 368

Pet Attachment in the Context of Family Conflict

Sensitivity Analyses
We conducted sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings of strong pet attach-
ment amongst PCGs who experience family conflict. To assess the effect of pet ownership on
family conflict experience, we conducted bivariate tests of significance of the elements of the
family conflict scale with pet ownership from the entire CDS sample (n = 2,516). Pet owners
(n = 1,537) and non-pet owners (n = 979) were equally likely to report that family members
always calmly discuss problems (Pets M = 2.73, SD = 1.07, No Pets M = 2.75, SD = 1.09).
In contrast, pet owners reported significantly less family criticism than non-pet owners (Pets
M = 2.6, SD = 1.15, No Pets M = 2.7, SD = 1.18; p < 0.05). These analyses indicate that the
findings are robust relative to pet ownership and perhaps bias our estimates toward finding no
effect between family conflict and pet attachment.

Discussion
Using a large national sample of PCGs of children and who also have family pets, we exam-
ined the roles of pets in the family unit. We observed that most PCGs see pets as family
members often or almost always. This indicates that pets play prominent and positive roles
in families with children. Indeed, more than half of PCGs play often or almost always with
their pets, along with their other caregiving responsibilities. We were particularly interested in
exploring the role of pets in providing social support and comfort when PCGs experienced
adverse family circumstances, namely families in conflict. Consistent with the current body of
research on the human–animal bond, our findings suggest that pets offer an element of relief
or serve as a kind of buffer when their owners are facing adversity. The association remained
significant when controlling for sociodemographic correlates of both pet attachment and
family conflict.
Previous research has demonstrated the role of animals in providing social support and
comfort to humans who are coping with managing chronic and acute physical and mental
health conditions or who are struggling to achieve new skills or develop prosocial behaviors.
We successfully extended this body of research to include the need to cope with adverse
family circumstances, which are unfortunately prevalent in the US. We consider the implications
of this finding next.
Adverse family circumstances affect all family members, though our data have focused
only on PCGs, typically mothers. To the extent that family conflict yields a higher risk of gender-
based violence, it is puzzling that PCGs in our sample who are men are more attached to their
pets than PCGs who are women. Further research is warranted to locate pets in the gendered
division of household labor and power relationships. For example, the presence of a pet in the
home does not necessarily indicate that the PCG is the family member who is reaping the
largest benefit from the pet. PCGs who are women may have more caregiving responsibilities
than PCGs who are men; thus, perhaps a child or another adult in the household is more
emotionally bonded with the pet.
Literature on pet attachment suggests that young children often reap the greatest emo-
Anthrozoös

tional benefit from the household pet (Turner, 2005). Therefore, examining pet attachment in
children experiencing instances of family conflict could broaden our understanding of
resilience and responses to trauma. Future research should explore how children relate to pets
and whether pets assume a different role for children than for adults in the household, espe-
cially in times of conflict or trauma. We conclude that pets provide a source of comfort in
368

families experiencing conflict and instability and contend that the proposed future research
AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 369

Applebaum and Zsembik

will make critical contributions to better understanding human–animals bonds, especially with
companion animals.
Implications for this research extend to social workers, clinical health practitioners, veteri-
narians, animal shelter workers, and others in public-facing positions serving people and their
pets. Consistent with previous research, these findings suggest that the human–animal bond
is linked to both human and companion animal wellbeing. Health and social services should
take a holistic approach that includes the family pet or pets in order to support and nurture the
human–animal bond for the benefit of all parties.

Conflicts of Interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Adams, D. M., Overholser, J. C., & Spirito, A. (1994). Stressful life events associated with adolescent suicide
attempts. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39(1), 43–48.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study
of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Antonacopoulos, N. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2010). An examination of the potential role of pet ownership, human
social support and pet attachment in the psychological health of individuals living alone. Anthrozoös, 23(1),
37–54.
Applebaum, J. W., Peek, C. W., & Zsembik, B. A. (2020). Examining U.S. pet ownership using the General
Social Survey. The Social Science Journal, 1–10.
Baer, P. E., Garmezy, L. B., McLaughlin, R. J., Pokorny, A. D., & Wernick, M. J. (1987). Stress, coping, family
conflict, and adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10(5), 449–466.
Barlow, M. R., Hutchinson, C. A., Newton, K., Grover, T., & Ward, L. (2012). Childhood neglect, attachment to
companion animals, and stuffed animals as attachment objects in women and men. Anthrozoös, 25(1), 111–119.
Bennett, P. C., Trigg, J. L., Godber, T., & Brown, C. (2015). An experience sampling approach to investigating
associations between pet presence and indicators of psychological wellbeing and mood in older
Australians. Anthrozoös, 28(3), 403–420.
Bodsworth, W., & Coleman, G. J. (2001). Child–companion animal attachment bonds in single and two-parent
families. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 216–223.
Cox, R. P. (1993). The human/animal bond as a correlate of family functioning. Clinical Nursing Research, 2(2),
224–231.
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B. Knuiman, M., Timperio, A., & Bull, F. (2008). Understanding dog owners’ increased
levels of physical activity: Results from RESIDE. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 66–69.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., . . . Marks, J. S. (1998).
Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in
adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.
Fine, A. H. (Ed.) (2011). Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for
practice. Burlington: Elsevier Science.
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.
Kwan, J. Y., & Bain, M. J. (2013). Owner attachment and problem behaviors related to relinquishment and
training techniques of dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16(2), 168–183.
Lem, M., Coe, J. B., Haley, D. B., Stone, E., & Ogrady, W. (2016). The protective association between pet ownership
Anthrozoös

and depression among street-involved youth: A cross-sectional study. Anthrozoös, 29(1), 123–136.
Mechanic, D., & Hansell, S. (1989). Divorce, family conflict, and adolescents’ well-being. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 30(1), 105–116.
Montgomery, S. M., Bartley, M. J., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1997). Family conflict and slow growth. Archives of
Disease in Childhood, 77(4), 326–330.
Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D. M., Spiezio, C., & Sabatini, F. (2003). Is the dog–human relationship an
369

attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth’s Strange Situation. Behaviour, 140(2), 225–254.
AZ 33(3).qxp_Layout 1 4/30/20 10:59 AM Page 370

Pet Attachment in the Context of Family Conflict

Prato-Previde, E., Fallani, G., & Valsecchi, P. (2006). Gender differences in owners interacting with pet dogs: An
observational study. Ethology, 112(1), 64–73.
Shore, E. R., Riley, M. L., & Douglas, D. K. (2006). Pet owner behaviors and attachment to yard versus house
dogs. Anthrozoös, 19(4), 325–334.
Turner, W. G. (2005). The role of companion animals throughout the family life cycle. Journal of Family Social
Work, 9(4), 11–21.
Westgarth, C., Boddy, L. M., Stratton, G., German, A. J., Gaskell, R. M., Coyne, K. P., & Dawson, S. (2013).
Pet ownership, dog types and attachment to pets in 9–10 year old children in Liverpool, UK. BMC Veterinary
Research, 9(1), 102. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-102
Wheeler, E. A., & Faulkner, M. E. (2015). The “pet effect”: Physiological calming in the presence of
canines. Society & Animals, 23(5), 425–438.
Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., & Bulsara, M. (2005). The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Social
Science & Medicine, 61(6), 1159–1173.
Anthrozoös
370