Next Article in Journal
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Characteristics of Hereditary Polymyositis in the Dutch Kooiker Dog
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating the Effects of Novel Enrichment Strategies on Dog Behaviour Using Collar-Based Accelerometers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pets
Volume 2
Issue 2
10.3390/pets2020024
pets-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Commentary on Perspectives of the Pet Effect: Exploring Public Awareness, Community Impact, and Public Policy Implications

by
Aubrey H. Fine
1,*,
Zenithson Ng
2,
Matthew P. Knight
3,
Taylor Chastain Griffin
4,
Lindsey Braun
5 and
Steven Feldman
5
1
Department of Education, CA Poly State University, Pomona, CA 91768, USA
2
College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
3
Colleges of Veterinary Medicine and Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
4
Association of Animal Assisted Intervention Professionals/Pet Partners, Bellvue, WA 98005, USA
5
Human Animal Bond Research Institute—HABRI, Washington, DC 20005, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pets 2025, 2(2), 24; https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2020024
Submission received: 8 April 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 28 May 2025 / Published: 10 June 2025
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Today, the pet effect is a powerful symbol for advancing the understanding and acceptance of the human–animal bond in societal and policy arenas. The primary aim of this commentary is to clarify the concept of the “pet effect” and demonstrate how advocates for this bond can leverage its influence to promote meaningful change and inform public policy.

1. Introduction: What Is “The Pet Effect”?

Originally coined to describe pet ownership’s positive emotional, physical, and psychological impacts, “the pet effect” has become a unifying narrative in public discourse, illustrating how pets improve lives [1]. Today, the pet effect is a powerful symbol for advancing the understanding and acceptance of the human–animal bond in societal and policy arenas. By emphasizing the beneficial role of pets in reducing stress, promoting exercise, enhancing social connections, and supporting mental health, this concept underpins efforts to promote policies that ensure people and pets can thrive together. The pet effect traces its roots to decades of documented scientific research highlighting the profound benefits of pet ownership and HAI (human–animal interaction) on health and well-being. As its influence grows, the pet effect underscores the mutual benefits of these relationships and drives initiatives that integrate pet-friendly practices into healthcare, housing, and community programs, fostering healthier and happier lives for all.
The term “pet effect” was popularized by a public awareness campaign led by the Human Animal Bond Research Institute [2] to draw attention to the scientifically documented health benefits of the human–animal bond. While perhaps a more easily understood or accessible phrase for a public audience than “human–animal bond,” both concepts refer to the mutually beneficial relationship between people and animals that is influenced by behaviors essential to their mental, physical, and social health and well-being [3] In this article, the authors will address misconceptions about pets and underscore the responsibility of individuals who cherish their relationships with animals to advocate for improved opportunities within our communities and society. The primary aim of this commentary is to clarify the concept of the “pet effect” and demonstrate how advocates for this bond can leverage its influence to promote meaningful change and inform public policy.

2. Historical Overview of Human–Animal Interactions (HAIs) and Their Benefits to Human Health and Well-Being

Background

Recent archaeological evidence from subarctic Alaska suggests that the mutualistic relationship between humans and dogs dates back 12,000 years to the Late Pleistocene Ice Age, pushing the previously believed timeline in North America back 2000 years. According to [4], that estimate may be inaccurate. He believes dogs originated from wolves 35,000 years ago, mainly via selection for tameness. These specific wolves probably became partners and hunting allies of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers in Eurasia. This profound conclusion is based on the discovery of canid remains at human-associated sites, isotopic analysis indicating a diet rich in salmon provided by humans as treats, and genetic evidence distinguishing these canids from wild wolves, suggesting early domestication or taming [5,6] Today, this bond has not only endured but has become deeply embedded in human society.
Human–animal interactions (HAIs) encompass the myriad ways humans and animals engage, including pet ownership, animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) or animal-assisted services (AASs), working animals, and informal encounters with animals in various settings [7]. These interactions are increasingly recognized for their significant contributions to human well-being, supported by decades of multidisciplinary research.
Fine et al. (2025) [8] assert that the understanding of the human–animal bond was profoundly shaped by a pivotal meeting held in 1987 by the National Institutes of Health, which focused on the health benefits of pet ownership. This meeting undoubtedly ignited a surge of interest within the scientific community regarding animals’ positive impact on human health. Moreover, the groundbreaking research conducted by Friedman et al. (1980) [9] convincingly demonstrated how pets can significantly enhance the well-being of their owners.
Since then, numerous studies have highlighted the positive effects of having pets. For instance, research conducted by Phillips in 2002 indicated that pet ownership in the United Kingdom could save the national health program approximately GBP 600 million annually [10]. Over the past several decades, this finding and other studies have significantly influenced our understanding and appreciation of animals’ value in people’s lives.
In 1983, Leo Bustad described the human–animal bond as similar to many other relationships characterized by friendship and love [11]. Beck noted in 1999 that the term “human–animal bond” was initially derived from the concept of the infant-mother bond, which emphasized the profound connection between parents and their children. The term was formalized during a meeting in Dundee, Scotland, in March 1979 [12]. Fine et al. (2025) [8] suggest that the term “human–animal bond” is often used in its literal sense to reflect the significant roles that animals play in our lives.

3. Economic Benefits Associated with the Pet Effect

The increased coverage of how animals positively impact people’s lives has significantly raised public awareness, primarily through popular media and social platforms. The extent of the human–animal relationship is evident in modern digital culture, where pet influencers consistently generate higher engagement on social media than their human counterparts [13] The global pet goods market has grown by 42% since 2010, reaching USD 138.24 million in 2020 [14]. Recent reports from the American Pet Products Association (2023) [15] indicate a notable rise in companion animals living in households throughout North America. Furthermore, Shahbandeh (2025) [16], notes that pet care has become one of the UK’s growing industries, with consistent yearly growth. According to the UK Office for National Statistics, expenditure on pets and related products reached an annual value of GBP 11.88 billion in 2024. These results represent an increase of 182 percent since the initiation of this survey in 2005.
This trend reflects a broader cultural shift where pets are increasingly seen as beloved family members. Contributing to this growth is a burgeoning pet support industry, encompassing a wide range of products and services, including pet food, grooming, healthcare, and accessories. The financial impact of this industry is substantial, with annual expenditures surpassing USD 136 billion, highlighting the significant role pets play in our lives and the economy.
While historical evidence and contemporary societal patterns highlight the significance of the human–animal bond, a growing body of scientific research is now quantifying its psychological and physiological benefits, directly challenging the notion that the “pet effect” is merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

4. Physical Benefits

Physical inactivity is a growing risk factor in the global public health crisis, contributing to increased rates of chronic disease and premature mortality. Recent estimates indicate that nearly a third of adults are inactive, and greater physical activity could prevent up to 5 million deaths annually [17] (World Health Organization, n.d.). In 2024, Merriam-Webster added the idiom touch grass to its dictionary, reflecting a societal shift toward disengaging from digital spaces and reconnecting with the physical world. This concept is particularly relevant to pet ownership as caring for companion animals—especially dogs—requires routine activities such as walking. A recent meta-analysis [18] supports this, showing that pet ownership positively influences physical activity, with pet owners engaging more frequently than non-owners. Moreover, this increased activity is vital to cardiovascular health. Pet ownership is linked to lower blood pressure, a reduced risk of hypertension, and improved survival rates after heart attacks and strokes [19]. Relatedly, companion animal ownership and interaction are associated with improved cardiovascular health, such as lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels [20], increased physical activity [21,22], and maintenance of physical functioning throughout the aging process [9].

5. Psychological Benefits

Pet companionship provides significant psychological benefits. According to the American Psychiatric Association’s (2024) Healthy Minds Monthly Poll [23], a nationally representative survey tracking mental health trends among adults, 84% of pet owners report that their animals positively impact their mental well-being by providing a calming presence, reducing stress and anxiety, and alleviating loneliness. Psychologically, interactions with animals reduce stress, anxiety, and depression by fostering emotional support and companionship [24]. For individuals facing trauma or chronic illness, AAI programs have been effective in enhancing coping skills and promoting resilience [25,26]. Pet ownership has been found to provide a routine, offering positive distractions from unwanted thoughts and instilling a powerful sense of purpose and meaning [27].
Notably, one in five pet owners reported that at least one of their pets is certified as an emotional support animal, further reinforcing the role of pets in mental health support. These benefits align with a stronger methodological understanding of human–animal interactions. A recent randomized controlled trial [28] provides a rigorous foundation for examining their immediate effects. Ten minutes of petting, playing, or speaking with a dog significantly reduced anxiety and increased positive affect. While not a cure-all for psychological distress, this quality time offers objective evidence that its benefits extend beyond a feel-good indulgence. Moreover, greater engagement and extended interactions predicted reduced negative affect, highlighting the need for further research into broader implications.
Pet ownership may also support cognitive health as individuals age. Longitudinal research suggests that dogs help slow cognitive decline by promoting engagement, routine, and social interaction [20]. One study found that dog owners and walkers experienced less deterioration in memory, executive function, and processing speed. Similarly, Li et al. (2023) [29] reported that pet ownership was linked to slower verbal memory and fluency declines, especially among individuals living alone [29]. These findings highlight the potential of pet companionship to maintain cognitive function and reduce the impact of social isolation.

6. Social Benefits

The human–animal bond can be an essential source of social and emotional support for people of all ages, helping to buffer against feelings of loneliness and social isolation. Research demonstrates that pets help connect us with others and forge meaningful relationships. Pets serve as natural icebreakers and easy conversation starters that can help people make new connections in their communities [30] and increase opportunities for interaction [31]. According to one study, 40% of pet owners reported receiving one or more types of social support from people they met through their pets [30].
By providing nonjudgmental support, pets also encourage social and emotional development in children. Engaging with animals can enhance empathy, responsibility, perspective-taking [32], and emotional regulation [33]. In special populations, such as children with autism, interactions with therapy animals may improve social communication and reduce behavioral challenges [34], providing more space for learning [35].

7. The Pet Effect and Marginalized and Vulnerable Populations

Marginalized and vulnerable populations often encounter systemic barriers, and many find refuge in the nonjudgmental companionship of animals. Among military veterans, seeking mental health care is frequently stigmatized due to the stoic principles ingrained during basic training [36]. In recent years, the efficacy of psychiatric service dogs in mitigating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has gained significant recognition. The first National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trial on this intervention demonstrated that veterans partnered with a trained psychiatric service dog had 66% lower odds of meeting the diagnostic threshold for PTSD, based on blinded clinician evaluation [37]. While service dogs are trained to assist a specific handler, their role extends beyond individual support. Service dogs facilitate emotional connections within the household, benefiting military families by fostering greater engagement in daily activities, enhancing positive emotional experiences, and strengthening relational resilience through improved relationship functioning and social connectedness [38].
Similarly, the unique bond between LGBTQ+ individuals and companion animals serves as a critical source of emotional support in the face of discrimination and social exclusion. Research suggests that animals provide a sense of security, promote self-acceptance regarding gender and sexuality, and act as a buffer against the psychological distress associated with stigma and marginalization [39]. The nonjudgmental support offered by companion animals is especially pivotal for those lacking affirming allies or familial acceptance, providing a consistent and unconditional source of emotional stability.
Children represent another population that may experience heightened vulnerability, particularly in the face of family instability, medical challenges, or social adversity. In the United States, over 75% of children are more likely to grow up with a companion animal than with both parents, often spending more time with these animals than with any human [40]. The bond children form with companion animals is commonly theorized from an attachment perspective, including biophilia, self-theory, and social support. Children exhibit traditional attachment behaviors, such as seeking physical contact, resisting separation, and finding comfort in their presence. Notably, children tend to score higher on measures of attachment to dogs than adults, which may be attributed to the security of a nonjudgmental relationship during their formative years [41]. Beyond attachment, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have demonstrated physical and physiological benefits of child–dog interactions. These include reductions in pain perception, systolic blood pressure, and cortisol levels, particularly in interventions lasting more than 15 min [42,43,44,45]. These findings suggest that the presence of a dog may not only provide emotional security but also promote resilience, reduce stress, and support emotional regulation in children past clinical settings.

8. Limitations of the Pet Effect

The “pet effect” has long captured human curiosity, inspiring a desire for human–animal interactions and a surge of scholarly interest. Despite the progress made, it feels as though we have only begun to uncover the true scope of an animal’s influence on human lives. While the existing findings have been exciting—particularly for pet enthusiasts—it is essential to approach this topic with balance and a critical lens. By recognizing conflicting research, challenging the notion of pets as a universal solution to human challenges, and prioritizing animal welfare alongside their impact on humans, we can develop a more nuanced and accurate understanding of their role in our lives.
While numerous empirical studies support the notion of the “pet effect”, research results can be mixed, challenging the idea that pet ownership enhances human well-being in all circumstances. For instance, while Bolstad et al. (2021) [46] found a correlation between lower anxiety levels and pet ownership, they found no such correlation for depressive symptoms. Likewise, Albright et al. (2022) [47] found increases in physical activity among older dog owners but no correlation with symptoms of depression. The mixed and modest results from some studies and the potential for confounding variables implies the need for a more nuanced and complex understanding of pet ownership. Interaction with companion animals, while beneficial in many circumstances, should be viewed in context with and complementary to other evidence-based solutions.
Although positive findings about the benefits of human–animal interactions form the majority of studies in the field, some results can be inconclusive. For example, research shows that females often report more positive behaviors and attitudes toward animals than males [48].
National population surveys have also provided mixed results. For instance, a New Zealand survey analyzed in a 2020 publication by Fraser et al. compared pet owners and non-owners across variables such as self-esteem, life satisfaction, psychological distress, physical health diagnoses, and self-reported health. No significant differences were found in these categories. Interestingly, pet owners, who were also more likely to be younger, female, and parents, were more likely than non-owners to report diagnoses of depression and anxiety, with higher rates of anxiety most commonly associated with cat ownership [49].
These findings align with Mueller et al. (2021) [50], who analyzed cross-sectional data and concluded that pet ownership is complex and context-specific. Future research must carefully control for sociodemographic factors and employ measurement and analysis methods that account for the nuances of human–animal relationships.
While robust research into this complex topic is ongoing, these complexities do not eliminate our ability to measure the impact of the human–animal bond. Much like in medical, social, and population research, collecting self-report data is shared in HAI research and considered essential to the field [51].
Self-report measures are often utilized to determine the strength of the bond and the perceived emotional, social, and physical benefits of the relationship. Self-reported benefits resulting from pet ownership and/or interaction are valuable and should not be dismissed or considered invalid, as there is increasing evidence in psychological research that self-reported measures can be more accurate than implicit measures [52]. Instead, especially when such data are overwhelmingly definitive, it should be a default assumption that people are telling the truth about the human–animal relationships they value. It can also be inferred that there may be effects and nuances related to the human–animal bond that are unmeasurable by the instruments currently in use, but to assume that no measurements are possible is not supported by the evidence.
Considering the current state of the literature and anecdotal reports from pet lovers worldwide, pet ownership is as complex and multifaceted as human relationships. As we move toward a future of greater understanding and appreciation for the role of pets in our lives, we must continue to elevate the study of human–animal interaction with research that can more definitively address the complexities involved. The authors argue that terms like “pet effect” should not be misinterpreted as just scientific findings; instead, they underscore these interactions’ significance in many people’s lives. Later in this paper, we will explore how science enhances our understanding of this phenomenon while highlighting how individuals value their opportunities to engage with animals.

9. Ethics of the Pet Effect

As humans, we must also be cognizant of our tendency to impose unrealistic expectations on the animals we share our lives with. Whether during puppy training or hoping that a new pet will enhance our social interactions, we must remember that these animals are sentient beings with their own needs. It is essential to balance our hopes for what pets can bring to our lives by committing to providing for their care and welfare.
Randomized controlled trials in pet ownership research are often unfeasible due to ethical and animal welfare concerns as assigning animals to individuals involuntarily risks neglect and inadequate care [53]. Consequently, many human–animal interaction studies prioritize human outcomes, leaving the impact on animal well-being less understood. Attachment theory provides a framework for understanding parent–child relationships, but it also offers a valuable lens for examining bonds between humans and companion animals. Topál et al. (1998) [54] first demonstrated that dogs exhibit attachment behaviors resembling those of human infants. Building on this, Rehn and Keeling (2016) [55] proposed a dyadic model that considers both the dog’s attachment style and the owner’s caregiving strategy, while emphasizing the need to better assess animal welfare in human–animal interaction research. Physiological mechanisms, such as synchronized cortisol and oxytocin responses, suggest a bidirectional influence on well-being within the human–animal dyad [56,57]. However, research has yet to fully integrate long-term, non-invasive biomarkers to assess how human companionship affects animal welfare over time. For example, a longitudinal study [58] found that shelter dogs exhibit significantly higher hair cortisol concentrations (HCC) after six weeks in a shelter, with levels decreasing substantially post-adoption, suggesting a sustained reduction in stress. Future studies should aim to integrate similar physiological measures to assess the long-term effects of pet ownership on animal welfare.

10. How the Pet Effect Has Influenced Policy

Human–animal bond research has underscored problems or the need for a solution related to pet care and highlighted the benefits of pets for populations in need of support. For instance, studies demonstrating that pet-related challenges, such as a lack of affordable pet-friendly housing or a lack of access to pet care and resources, have identified a gap in services that lead to pet relinquishment, delays in help-seeking behavior, or poorer health outcomes for both the humans and the animals involved. For example, research by Meals on Wheels America found that nearly 30 percent of older adults living independently alone reported foregoing personal care to provide for their pets and that more than one in five reported going without food themselves to feed their pets [59]. Through a partnership with PetSmart Charities, the Meals on Wheels Love Pets Initiative has distributed almost USD 3.5 million through over 500 grants across 50 states, delivering over 13 million pet meals to older adults and their animal companions.
Positive human–animal bond research highlights the benefits of pet ownership for reducing stress [1], alleviating symptoms of anxiety and depression [60], aiding in the recovery of victims of trauma [61], and fostering a sense of purpose [25], which all have the potential to strengthen the rationale for programs and policies. These include initiatives related to increasing access to veterinary care; psychiatric service dogs; and the availability of pet-friendly transitional, emergency, and rental housing. These findings validate pet owners’ experiences and provide policymakers with the information needed to prioritize resources and funding for these programs.
Several impactful programs and policy examples use research and data to provide justification and support, making a compelling case for initiatives that remove barriers and integrate pets into various public health and social services.
The Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act (H.R. 909/S.322), passed as part of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, established a grant program for domestic violence shelters to carry out programs to provide emergency and transitional shelter and housing assistance for short-term shelter and housing assistance for domestic violence survivors with pets, service animals, emotional support animals, or horses. Grants may also be used for programs that provide support services designated to enable someone fleeing domestic violence to locate and secure safe housing with their pet, safe accommodations for their pet, or related services such as transportation and other assistance. Advocates for this legislation cited data demonstrating that a lack of pet-friendly solutions for these survivors posed significant barriers to help-seeking behavior and care. For example, Ascione et al. (2007) [62] found that women in domestic violence shelters were nearly 11 times more likely to report that their partner had hurt or killed pets than a comparison group of women who had not experienced interpersonal violence and that the vast majority of women in shelters described being emotionally close to their pets. The study also found that a significant group of women reported that their concern for their pets’ welfare prevented them from seeking shelter sooner. Educating veterinarians to recognize and support victims of domestic violence could be crucial as they are often in a unique position to identify abuse and guide individuals toward help. Other studies indicate that up to 65% of domestic violence survivors remain in abusive situations out of fear for the pets’ safety [63] and that up to 89% of women residing in domestic violence shelters reported their abuser harmed a pet [64]. The ability to point to these data and supporting science to demonstrate the impact of the human–animal bond for victims of trauma provided critical support for this legislation.
The Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers (PAWS) for Veterans Therapy Act (H.R. 1448), signed into law in August of 2021, directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to implement a five-year pilot program to provide canine training to eligible veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as an element of a complementary and integrative health program and authorizes the VA to provide service dogs to veterans with mental illnesses. The results of a groundbreaking research study on the efficacy of service dogs for military veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) provided the basis for the need for this legislation. The findings indicated that veterans with a service dog exhibited significantly lower overall PTSD symptom severity, including increased overall psychological well-being, lower overall depression, higher quality of life and levels of companionship and social reintegration, and lower levels of social isolation [65].
Another impactful policy is the proposed People and Animals Well-Being (PAW) Act, H.R. 1842, which seeks to expand the use of tax-advantaged healthcare spending accounts to include veterinary care expenses. The Federal legislation aims to amend Internal Revenue Code Section 213(d) and increase animal health eligibility in Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). Advocates for this legislation cite the science showing how interacting with pets can improve mental health, heart health, and longevity and emphasize the need to provide people with more affordable means to keep and care for pets and service animals for better public health.
Based on research and data, the pet effect is the foundation for designing, advocating for, and evaluating policies that support positive societal outcomes. By demonstrating the mutual health benefits for people and pets and identifying areas for improvement, research ensures that programs and policies are compassionate but also strategic and impactful. This evidence-based approach enables society to fully realize the value of programs that protect and strengthen the human–animal bond. If using the term “pet effect” translates to a more widespread understanding of the scientifically documented health benefits of the human–animal bond, it will help bolster support of the programs and policies that enable more people and pets to live healthy lives together.

11. The Pet Effect and Public Policy

The value of the human–animal bond extends beyond individual benefits, influencing community and public health and society at large. Initiatives that remove barriers to access to a pet in one’s life, such as those promoting pet-inclusive housing, having more animal-friendly communities and parks, accessible veterinary care, and integrating AAIs (animal-assisted interventions) in healthcare and education systems, are critical for maximizing the potential of the human–animal bond. Efforts focusing specifically on underserved communities ensure equitable access to the benefits of a healthy relationship with a pet.
The evidence supporting the value of the human–animal bond for human health and well-being underscores its importance in fostering a healthier, more connected society. Continued research and advocacy are essential to integrating pets and AAIs into public health and policy frameworks, ensuring that the benefits of human–animal relationships are accessible to all.
The uncovering of pets’ influence on our lives has not only driven appreciation for the role of pets but also informed the development of crucial public policies that enable more people to benefit from the power of pets. Significant strides have been made to promote access to pet ownership for more substantial portions of the population. For example, improving pet-friendly housing options and the proliferation of emotional support animal (ESA) letters allow individuals to experience the benefits of pet ownership in their homes under the guidance of a licensed mental health provider [66]. Public transportation policies have also been reconsidered, emphasizing equitable access for pet owners who rely on these systems to travel with their animals [67].
Recognizing the interconnectedness between pets and their owners, there is a critical need for public policy improvements that address other essential intersections. Pet owners who face challenges such as domestic violence, homelessness, or substance abuse often require pet care options while seeking safety, temporary housing, or recovery support [68,69]. In recent years, we have seen an increase in provisions aimed at protecting the human–animal bond in these circumstances, and we hope that further opportunities will arise through public policy to safeguard this vital connection. It is imperative to engage influencers to educate them on the importance of these options. By embracing the principles of the pet effect, we can effectively highlight the tangible benefits of human–animal interactions while maintaining a realistic perspective.
Fine et al. (2019) [70] have identified that while we have made significant progress in raising public awareness about the importance of coexisting with animals, considerable work remains in developing more user-friendly laws and guidelines that promote positive interactions between humans and animals.

12. Recommendations for the Future

12.1. For Pet Owners

It is essential to recognize that pet ownership may not be feasible for everyone, and its implications can vary significantly across different communities and cultures. Various challenges, such as financial constraints, lifestyle considerations, and health issues like allergies, can arise. We encourage leaders from diverse professional human–animal interaction organizations to collaborate and advocate beyond their immediate circles, effectively emphasizing the value of pets to policymakers and key stakeholders. These efforts may further change. It is crucial to support and educate these decision-makers in developing policies that enhance the positive impact of pets within communities. Such policies could facilitate the integration of pets into neighborhoods and work toward the reduction in pet-unfriendly regulations in certain areas. Moreover, leaders have a valuable opportunity to share insights on the diverse effects of different types of pets on their owners’ psychological and physiological well-being. Emphasis should also be placed on providing recommended guidelines for best practices in cohabiting with pets and fostering stronger relationships and bonds between pets and their owners. Ultimately, these initiatives could foster a deeper understanding of the importance of the “pet effect” and promote policies and funding to increase pet ownership opportunities, improve pet welfare, and strengthen the human–animal bond. By advocating for these changes, we can ensure that more individuals and their pets thrive together.

12.2. For Researchers

Existing human–animal interaction research holds significant potential to create a better world for pets and their owners. As the research community continues to address the challenges of measuring the multiple dimensions of the pet effect, it is essential to consider the benefits and potential drawbacks for specific individuals and populations. While quantitative science sometimes struggles to explain all the dynamic elements contributing to the pet effect, further investigation will enhance our understanding of these phenomena. William Bruce Cameron once stated, “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” The quote emphasizes the limitations of relying only on quantifiable metrics to assess value or significance. Many meaningful aspects of life and society cannot be easily measured or counted, highlighting the importance of qualitative insights into human–animal interaction research. As with assessments of quality of life in both humans and animals, qualitative findings can provide a foundation upon which quantitative measures are later developed.
While research examining the biopsychosocial impact of the “pet effect” on human health has grown substantially, methodological limitations; diverse measurement approaches; and a lack of large, representative samples [51] show much more work to be done. For example, many studies center outcomes within an attachment framework; however, inconsistent definitions and measurement approaches for pet attachment complicate comparisons across studies. Some studies conceptualize attachment as an attachment bond, emphasizing emotional closeness and companionship, as measured by the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS). In contrast, others adopt an attachment orientation perspective, examining attachment-related anxiety and avoidance as measured by the Pet Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ) [71]. Moreover, annual government surveys such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) often exclude pet ownership, limiting the ability to examine its potential impact on public health [72]. Including a pet ownership module would allow for a more comprehensive analysis of how companion animals influence physical activity, mental health, chronic disease management, and social well-being.
We should also encourage researchers to employ more longitudinal studies investigating the long-term effects of pet ownership on individual well-being. This approach will allow us to address questions about the impact of pet ownership and explore the length of time needed for individuals to begin experiencing the associated benefits for their emotional well-being. In an article by MacLean et al. (2021) [73], the authors highlight that scientific research has historically been instrumental in enhancing our understanding of theories and, in some cases, preconceived notions. This research supports policies that foster a stronger and more evidence-based relationship between humans and animals and propels policy changes when research and practical applications align. Advocates for a deeper understanding of human–animal relationships can more effectively influence these developments.

12.3. For Policymakers

Hughes et al. (2021) [74] strongly advocate for policy changes supporting animal companionship, benefiting the general community and vulnerable populations. There is a significant need for collaboration among healthcare leaders, policymakers, animal service organizations, and individuals to drive proactive change grounded in a better understanding of the value pets bring to our lives, including the recognized importance of animals and the pet effect. Influencers can be crucial in shaping policy development to integrate pet involvement within our communities, homes, and specialized settings. Such efforts aim to enhance the presence and role of companion animals in various aspects of our lives, including community spaces, housing, and healthcare environments.

13. Concluding Remarks

Regardless of terminology—human–animal bond or pet effect—the rationale is to serve as a vehicle for sharing the science documenting the benefits of pet ownership and HAI. Even while the research community continues to explore and refine our knowledge, we can raise the profile of the individuals and organizations helping people and pets in need and support best practices and policies that keep people and pets healthy, happy, and safe together.
The pet effect concept has influenced societal perceptions of the importance of animals in our lives. We want to highlight that the scientific evidence currently being reviewed has not definitively established certain specific benefits of pet ownership for all populations. Additionally, the scientific metrics used to evaluate the human–animal bond may not adequately capture the deep and lasting impact that animals have on our daily lives. These metrics might miss the subtle yet significant ways our relationships with animals enhance our emotional well-being, strengthen our social connections, and contribute to our overall quality of life over time.
We must persist in clarifying the terminology and scientific evidence that support our beliefs about the pet effect to prevent any misinterpretation or misrepresentation. By refining our metrics and deepening our understanding of the efficacy of the pet effect, we aim to highlight the profound impact of this unique relationship on the daily lives of billions who share similar experiences. This evidence should serve as a catalyst for a shift in societal appreciation for the significance of pet companionship, as well as drive policy changes that enhance opportunities for individuals and their beloved animals.

Author Contributions

All authors have contributed to the conceptualization of the various sections within the article and the writing and editing of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

At this point, no data have been shared.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Alexis Brown for contributing her preliminary initial background research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allen, K. Are Pets a Healthy Pleasure? The Influence of Pets on Blood Pressure. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. J. Am. Psychol. Soc. 2003, 12, 236–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Human Animal Bond Research Institute. HABRI Benchmark Survey of U.S. Pet Owners. 2016. Available online: https://habri.org/pet-owners-survey/#2016-survey (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  3. American Veterinary Medical Association. Statement from the Committee on the Human-Animal Bond. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1998, 212, 1675. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kotrschal, K. How Wolves Turned into Dogs and How Dogs Are Valuable in Meeting Human Social Needs. People Anim. Int. J. Res. Pract. 2018, 1, 6. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arbuckle, B. Animal Domestication ain West Eurasia. In The Routledge International Handbook of Human-Animal Interactions and Anthrozooology; Fine, A., Mueller, M., Ng, Z., Beck, A., Peralta, J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 183–199. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lanoë, F.; Reuther, J.; Fields, S.; Potter, B.; Smith, G.; McKinney, H.; Halffman, C.; Holmes, C.; Mills, R.; Crass, B.; et al. Late Pleistocene onset of mutualistic human/canid (Canis spp.) relationships in subarctic Alaska. Sci. Adv. 2024, 10, eads1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Binder, A.J.; Parish-Plass, N.; Kirby, M.; Winkle, M.; Skwerer, D.P.; Ackerman, L.; Brosig, C.; Coombe, W.; Delisle, E.; Enders-Slegers, M.J.; et al. Recommendations for uniform terminology in animal-assisted services (AAS). Hum.-Anim. Interact. 2024, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fine, A.; Beck, A.; Arkow, P. Understanding Our Kinship with Animals. In Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice, 6th ed.; Fine, A., Mueller, M., Ng, Z., Chastain-Griffin, T., Tedeschi, P., Eds.; Elsevier/Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2025; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  9. Friedmann, E.; Katcher, A.H.; Lynch, J.J.; Thomas, S.A. Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Rep. 1980, 95, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  10. Phillips, K.A.; Morrison, K.R.; Andersen, R.; Aday, L.A. Understanding the context of healthcare utilization: Assessing environmental and provider-related variables in the behavioral model of utilization. Health Serv. Res. 1998, 33 Pt 1, 571. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Bustad, L.K. Symposium Summary; International Symposium on Human–Pet Relationship: Vienna, Austria, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fogle, B. Pets and Their People; Collins Harvill: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  13. Di Cioccio, M.; Pozharliev, R.; De Angelis, M. Pawsitively powerful: Why and when pet influencers boost social media effectiveness. Psychol. Mark. 2024, 41, 1614–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gromek, N.; Perek-Białas, J. Why is pet goods consumption imperceptible for economists? A scoping review. SN Bus. Econ. 2022, 2, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. American Pet Products Association. Pet Industry Market Size, Trends, and Pet Industry Statistics. 2023. Available online: https://americanpetproducts.org/industry-trends-and-stats (accessed on 25 January 2025).
  16. Shahbandeh, M. Expenditure on pets in the United Kingdom (UK) 2005–2024. Statista 23 April 2025. 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/308266/consumer-spending-on-pets-and-related-products-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/ (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  17. Strain, T.; Fitzsimons, C.; Kelly, P.; Gresswell, S.; Bull, F. National, regional, and global trends in insufficient physical activity among adults from 2000 to 2022: A pooled analysis of 507 population-based surveys. Lancet Glob. Health 2024, 12, e898–e910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Martins, C.F.; Soares, J.P.; Cortinhas, A.; Silva, L.; Cardoso, L.; Pires, M.A.; Mota, M.P. Pet’s influence on humans’ daily physical activity and mental health: A meta-analysis. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1196199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Surma, S.; Oparil, S.; Narkiewicz, K. Pet Ownership and the Risk of Arterial Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 2022, 24, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Friedmann, E.; Gee, N.R.; Simonsick, E.M.; Kitner-Triolo, M.H.; Resnick, B.; Adesanya, I.; Koodaly, L.; Gurlu, M. Pet ownership and maintenance of cognitive function in community-residing older adults: Evidence from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA). Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 14738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cutt, H.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M. Encouraging physical activity through dog walking: Why don’t some owners walk with their dog? Prev. Med. 2008, 46, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Reeves, M.M.; Winkler EA, H.; Eakin, E.G.; Owen, N. Fatigue in the general population: Associations with physical activity, mental health, and body mass index. Public Health Nutr. 2011, 14, 290–296. [Google Scholar]
  23. American Psychiatric Association. Healthy Minds Monthly Poll. 2024. Available online: https://www.psychiatry.org (accessed on 25 January 2025).
  24. Beetz, A.; Uvnäs-Moberg, K.; Julius, H.; Kotrschal, K. Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Front. Psychol. 2012, 3, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Brooks, H.L.; Rushton, K.; Lovell, K.; Bee, P.; Walker, L.; Grant, L.; Rogers, A. The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry 2018, 18, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lundqvist, M.; Carlsson, P.; Sjödahl, R.; Theodorsson, E.; Levin, L.Å. Patient benefit of dog-assisted interventions in health care: A systematic review. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brooks, H.; Rushton, K.; Walker, L.; Lovell, K.; Rogers, A. Ontological security and connectivity provided by pets: A study in the self-management of the everyday lives of people diagnosed with a long-term mental health condition. BMC Psychiatry 2012, 16, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Matijczak, A.; Yates, M.S.; Ruiz, M.C.; Santos, L.R.; Kazdin, A.E.; Raila, H. The influence of interactions with pet dogs on psychological distress. Emotion 2024, 24, 384–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Y.; Wang, W.; Zhu, L.; Yang, L.; Wu, H.; Zhang, X.; Guo, L.; Lu, C. Pet Ownership, Living Alone, and Cognitive Decline Among Adults 50 Years and Older. JAMA Netw. Open 2023, 6, e2349241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wood, L.; Giles-Corti, B.; Bulsara, M. The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Soc. Sci. Med. (1982) 2005, 61, 1159–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. McNicholas, J.; Collis, G.M. Animals as social supports: Insights for understanding animal-assisted therapy. Handb. Anim.-Assist. Ther. Theor. Found. Guidel. Pract. 2006, 2, 49–72. [Google Scholar]
  32. Purewal, R.; Christley, R.; Kordas, K.; Joinson, C.; Meints, K.; Gee, N.; Westgarth, C. Companion Animals and Child/Adolescent Development: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Flynn, E.; Motiff, M.; Taeckens, A.; Mueller, M.K.; McWilliams, S.; Shenefield, S.J.; Morris, K.N. Promoting youth social-emotional development through animal-assisted interventions: A qualitative analysis of special education students’ perspectives. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2023, 28, 473–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. O’Haire, M.E.; McKenzie, S.J.; McCune, S.; Slaughter, V. Effects of Animal-Assisted Activities with Guinea Pigs in the Primary School Classroom. Anthrozoos 2013, 26, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brelsford, V.L.; Meints, K.; Gee, N.R.; Pfeffer, K. Animal-Assisted Interventions in the Classroom—A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Nash, W.P.; Silva, C.; Litz, B. The historic origins of military and veteran mental health stigma and the stress injury model as a means to reduce it. Psychiatr. Ann. 2009, 39, 789–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leighton, S.C.; Rodriguez, K.E.; Jensen, C.L.; MacLean, E.L.; Davis, L.W.; Ashbeck, E.L.; Bedrick, E.J.; O’Haire, M.E. Service Dogs for Veterans and Military Members With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. JAMA Netw. Open 2024, 7, e2414686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nieforth, L.O.; Leighton, S.C. Animal-assisted interventions for military families: A systematic review. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1372189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Díaz Videla, M.; Delgado Rodríguez, R.; Martos-Montes, R.; Ordóñez Pérez, D.; Calvo, P. The LGBTQ+ People-Animal Bond: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Companion Animals on LGBTQ+ People. J. Homosex. 2024, 71, 934–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Melson, L.G. Why the Wild Things Are: Animals in the Lives of Children; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jalongo, M.R. An Attachment Perspective on the Child–Dog Bond: Interdisciplinary and International Research Findings. Early Child. Educ. J. 2015, 43, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Charry-Sánchez, J.D.; Pradilla, I.; Talero-Gutiérrez, C. Effectiveness of Animal-Assisted Therapy in the Pediatric Population: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Studies. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2018, 39, 580–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Correale, C.; Borgi, M.; Collacchi, B.; Falamesca, C.; Gentile, S.; Vigevano, F.; Cappelletti, S.; Cirulli, F. Improving the Emotional Distress and the Experience of Hospitalization in Children and Adolescent Patients Through Animal Assisted Interventions: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 840107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peña-Jorquera, H.; Hernández-Jaña, S.; Sanchez-Martinez, J.; Espinoza-Puelles, J.P.; Martínez-Flores, R.; Barreto-Schuch, F.; Yáñez-Sepúlveda, R.; Delgado-Floody, P.; Ferrari, G.; Sadarangani, K.P.; et al. Dog companionship and cortisol levels in youth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. (1982) 2025, 369, 117815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, Y.; Yan, F.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y. Effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy on pain in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2021, 8, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bolstad, C.J.; Porter, B.; Brown, C.J.; Kennedy, R.E.; Nadorff, M.R. The relation between pet ownership, anxiety, and depressive symptoms in late life: Propensity score matched analyses. Anthrozoös 2021, 34, 671–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Albright, A.E.; Cui, R.; Allen, R.S. Pet ownership and mental and physical health in older White and Black males and females. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Crossman, M.K.; Kazdin, A.E. Perceptions of animal-assisted interventions: The influence of attitudes toward companion animals. J. Clin. Psychol. 2018, 74, 566–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fraser, G.; Huang, Y.; Robinson, K.; Wilson, M.S.; Bulbulia, J.; Sibley, C.G. New Zealand pet owners’ demographic characteristics, personality, and health and wellbeing: More than just a fluff piece. Anthrozoös 2020, 33, 561–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mueller, M.K.; King, E.K.; Callina, K.; Dowling-Guyer, S.; McCobb, E. Demographic and contextual factors as moderators of the relationship between pet ownership and health. Health Psychol. Behav. Med. 2021, 9, 701–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rodriguez, K.E.; Herzog, H.; Gee, N.R. Variability in Human-Animal Interaction Research. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 7, 619600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Corneille, O.; Gawronski, B. Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2024, 3, 835–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Serpell, J. Beneficial Effects of Pet Ownership on Some Aspects of Human Health and Behaviour. J. R. Soc. Med. 1991, 84, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Topál, J.; Miklósi, Á.; Csányi, V.; Dóka, A. Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth’s (1969) Strange Situation Test. J. Comp. Psychol. 1998, 112, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rehn, T.; Keeling, L.J. Measuring dog-owner relationships: Crossing boundaries between animal behaviour and human psychology. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 183, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nagasawa, M.; Mitsui, S.; En, S.; Ohtani, N.; Ohta, M.; Sakuma, Y.; Onaka, T.; Mogi, K.; Kikusui, T. Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds. Science 2015, 348, 333–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sundman, A.-S.; Van Poucke, E.; Svensson Holm, A.-C.; Faresjö, Å.; Theodorsson, E.; Jensen, P.; Roth, L.S.V. Long-term stress levels are synchronized in dogs and their owners. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Van Der Laan, J.E.; Vinke, C.M.; Arndt, S.S. Evaluation of hair cortisol as an indicator of long-term stress responses in dogs in an animal shelter and after subsequent adoption. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Meals on Wheels America. Meals on Wheels Pet Programming and Client Needs Assessment. 2021. Available online: https://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/docs/default-source/research/pet-programming-and-client-needs-assessment_final-report.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  60. Le Roux, M.C.; Kemp, R. Effect of a companion dog on depression and anxiety levels of elderly residents in a long-term care facility. Psychogeriatrics 2009, 9, 23–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mims, D.; Waddell, R. Animal assisted therapy and trauma survivors. J. Evid.-Inf. Soc. Work. 2016, 13, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ascione, F.R.; Weber, C.V.; Thompson, T.M.; Heath, J.; Maruyama, M.; Hayashi, K. Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women 2007, 13, 354–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Carlisle-Frank, P.; Frank, J.M.; Nielsen, L. Selective battering of the family pet. Anthrozoös 2004, 17, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cleary, M.; Thapa, D.K.; West, S.; Westman, M.; Kornhaber, R. Animal abuse in the context of adult intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2021, 61, 101676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. O’Haire, M.E.; Rodriguez, K.E. Preliminary efficacy of service dogs as a complementary treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder in military members and veterans. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2018, 86, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Butwin, J. Emotional support animals are more than just pets: It is time for the Department of Justice to align its emotional support animal policies with other Anti-Discrimination laws. Fordham Urban LJ 2019, 47, 195. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kent, J.L.; Mulley, C.; Stevens, N. Challenging policies that prohibit public transport use: Travelling with pets as a case study. Transp. Policy 2020, 99, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kerman, N.; Gran-Ruaz, S.; Lem, M. Pet ownership and homelessness: A scoping review. J. Soc. Distress Homeless 2019, 28, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schwab, R.L. Success and Failure of Drug Rehabilitation: Pets Accompanying Clients to Treatment. Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  70. Fine, A.H.; Beck, A.M.; Ng, Z. The state of animal-assisted interventions: Addressing the contemporary issues that will shape the future. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ellis, A.; Hawkins, R.D.; Stanton SC, E.; Loughnan, S. The Association Between Companion Animal Attachment and Depression: A Systematic Review. Anthrozoös 2024, 37, 1067–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Scoresby, K.J.; Strand, E.B.; Ng, Z.; Brown, K.C.; Stilz, C.R.; Strobel, K.; Barroso, C.S.; Souza, M. Pet Ownership and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. MacLean, E.L.; Fine, A.; Herzog, H.; Strauss, E.; Cobb, M.L. The new era of canine science: Reshaping our relationships with dogs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 675782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hughes, A.M.; Braun, L.; Putnam, A.; Martinez, D.; Fine, A. Advancing human–animal interaction to counter social isolation and loneliness in the time of COVID-19: A model for an interdisciplinary public health consortium. Animals 2021, 11, 2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fine, A.H.; Ng, Z.; Knight, M.P.; Griffin, T.C.; Braun, L.; Feldman, S. A Commentary on Perspectives of the Pet Effect: Exploring Public Awareness, Community Impact, and Public Policy Implications. Pets 2025, 2, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2020024

AMA Style

Fine AH, Ng Z, Knight MP, Griffin TC, Braun L, Feldman S. A Commentary on Perspectives of the Pet Effect: Exploring Public Awareness, Community Impact, and Public Policy Implications. Pets. 2025; 2(2):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2020024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fine, Aubrey H., Zenithson Ng, Matthew P. Knight, Taylor Chastain Griffin, Lindsey Braun, and Steven Feldman. 2025. "A Commentary on Perspectives of the Pet Effect: Exploring Public Awareness, Community Impact, and Public Policy Implications" Pets 2, no. 2: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2020024

APA Style

Fine, A. H., Ng, Z., Knight, M. P., Griffin, T. C., Braun, L., & Feldman, S. (2025). A Commentary on Perspectives of the Pet Effect: Exploring Public Awareness, Community Impact, and Public Policy Implications. Pets, 2(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/pets2020024

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop