Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J LGBT Youth. 2022 Jun 24;20(3):658–679. doi: 10.1080/19361653.2022.2091078

Relations Between Interpersonal Microaggressions, Depressive Symptoms, and Pet Attachment in an LGBTQ+ Emerging Adult Sample

Angela Matijczak a,*, Camie Tomlinson a, An Pham b, Rosalie Corona c, Shelby McDonald c
PMCID: PMC10406454  NIHMSID: NIHMS1840298  PMID: 37554400

Abstract

Exposure to microaggressions can have detrimental impacts on the mental health of LGBTQ+ emerging adults. Positive social relationships are a well-documented protective factor that help to buffer the impact of adversity on mental health in this population. However, the role of social relationships with pets has received minimal attention in research on LGBTQ+ mental health, despite the high prevalence of pets in U.S. households. This cross-sectional study examined whether the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms among LGBTQ+ emerging adults varied as a function of attachment to pets across three domains: love, emotion regulation, and personal growth. We recruited 163 LGBTQ+ emerging adults (18–21 years) who lived with a cat and/or dog within the past year (98.8% sexual minority, 47.2% gender minority, 37.4% racial/ethnic minority). We found that love and emotion regulation significantly moderated the positive association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. Specifically, this association was only significant when love and emotion regulation were at moderate or high levels. These findings have important implications for practice with LGBTQ+ pet owners, as it suggests that high levels of pet attachment may amplify the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms.

Keywords: microaggressions, pets, depression, mental health, LGBTQ+

Introduction

It is estimated that there are more than 13 million LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority identities) individuals over the age of 13 living in the United States (Conron & Goldberg, 2020). The Minority Stress Model, a conceptual framework which has frequently been applied to understand health disparities among LGBTQ+ populations, posits that LGBTQ+ individuals experience unique stressors due to stigma, prejudice, and discrimination that manifest from living in a cisheteronormative society (i.e., a society that normalizes and privileges cisgender and heterosexual individuals and cultures; LeMaster et al., 2019; Meyer & Frost, 2013; Testa et al., 2015). For LGBTQ+ emerging adults (typically 18 to 25 years; Arnett et al., 2014), navigating new cisheteronormative contexts may increase the risk of exposure to LGBTQ-related minority stressors and related negative health outcomes (Layland et al., 2020; Pittman et al., 2020; Salvatore & Daftary-Kapur, 2020; Wagaman et al., 2016). Indeed, there is evidence that 57% of LGBTQ+ emerging adults experienced some form of discrimination within the past year (Gruberg et al., 2020).

One of the most commonly experienced LGBTQ-related minority stressors is microaggressions (Munro et al., 2019; Woodford et al., 2014). Interpersonal microaggressions occur when individuals make statements or engage in behaviors that are hostile or discriminatory in nature and are directed at members of specific marginalized groups (Nadal, 2018; Sue, 2010). For example, this might include using discriminatory language in jokes about LGBTQ+ identities (Nadal et al., 2011; Platt & Lenzen, 2013). Exposure to interpersonal microaggressions is associated with higher rates of depression, anxiety, suicidality, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (Fattoracci et al., 2021; Gattis & Larson, 2017; Matijczak et al., 2020; Seelman et al, 2016; Woodford et al., 2018). Additionally, a study conducted with LGBQ college students found that exposure to microaggressions, but not other forms of minority stress (i.e., discrimination, victimization), was associated with psychological distress and low self-acceptance (Woodford et al., 2014). This suggests that exposure to microaggressions may be a particularly salient minority stressor experienced by LGBTQ+ emerging adults.

Thus, it is important to investigate factors that may act as protective or risk factors influencing the relationship between microaggressions and mental health outcomes. Researchers have identified social support as a key factor that influences the relation between exposure to minority stressors and mental health symptoms (Matijczak et al., 2020; Snapp et al., 2015). Although many studies in this area have investigated social support received from various human relationships, few studies have considered the influence of relationships with animal companions, or pets. Evidence suggests that the attachment bond between a human and their pet is a significant relationship that can provide LGBTQ+ people with companionship, emotional comfort, and unconditional love (McDonald et al., 2021; Schmitz, Carlisle et al., 2021; Schmitz, Tabler et al., 2021). This study sought to investigate the role of attachment to pets as a factor that moderates the association between exposure to LGBTQ-related microaggressions and mental health symptoms.

LGBTQ+ Emerging Adults and Social Support

There is extensive evidence demonstrating the benefits of social support on the mental health and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ individuals (McDonald, 2018; Snapp et al., 2015). For example, greater social support has been associated with lower levels of depression, anxiety, hopelessness, suicidality, and general psychological distress (Hill et al., 2017; McConnell et al., 2015; McDonald, 2018). There is also emerging evidence that social support may act as a protective factor in the relationship between exposure to interpersonal LGBTQ+ microaggressions and depressive symptoms among emerging adults (Matijczak et al., 2020).

Despite evidence that more than 65% of LGBTQ+ adults are pet owners (Community Marketing & Insights, 2019; Harris Interactive, 2010), few studies have investigated the role of companion animals as a beneficial social relationship that assists LGBTQ+ emerging adults in coping with LGBTQ-related minority stressors. Companion animals, or pets, are domesticated animals (e.g., dogs, cats, guinea pigs, birds) whose needs can be met within a home (ASPCA, n.d.). In recent qualitative studies, LGBTQ+ participants described receiving a unique form of support and unconditional love from their companion animal following exposure to homophobia and/or transphobia (McDonald et al., 2021; Schmitz et al., 2021). Participants also discussed mental health benefits associated with pet ownership, such as increased positive mood and assistance with maintaining a routine (McDonald et al., 2021; Schmitz et al., 2021). Another qualitative study conducted with LGBTQ+ emerging adults experiencing homelessness mirrored these findings, as participants reported that their pet served as a source of emotional support and stability and improved their self-image (Schmitz, Carlisle et al., 2021). Evidence from recent quantitative studies suggests that pet ownership and positive relationships with pets can attenuate the relationship between victimization and psychological distress among LGBTQ+ adults who were experiencing family violence (Riggs et al., 2018; Rosenberg et al., 2020). Among a sample of transgender adults, living with companion animals was also linked to maintaining a positive outlook on future intimate relationships following challenges in past relationships (Fuller & Riggs, 2019). Another study conducted with LGBTQ+ emerging adults found that the relationship between victimization and self-esteem was moderated by emotional comfort derived from companion animals, in that receiving high levels of comfort from pets acted as a buffer to the deleterious impacts of victimization (McDonald et al., 2021).

In investigating the potential benefits of pet ownership, the quality of the relationship between an individual and their pet may be an important factor to consider. This is often measured by examining the quality of an individual’s attachment to the animal or the emotional comfort they derive from the relationship. The bond between humans and their pets mirrors the human attachment bond between mother and child and meets the prerequisites for an attachment relationship: love, a source of comfort (or emotion regulation), separation distress (often demonstrated following the death of the pet), and a secure base that allows an individual to grow and explore (Cromer & Barlow, 2013; Sable, 2013; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011). Evidence suggests that pet owners who report having a stronger, more secure attachment bond with their pet may receive more psychosocial benefits from interactions with their pets (Teo & Thomas, 2019). Investigating the attachment bond between pet owners and their companion animals may be particularly important to explore during the emerging adulthood period, as there is evidence to suggest that relationships with companion animals may provide stability and facilitate the development of skills (e.g., coping skills, responsibility) that are important during the transition to adulthood (Graham et al., 2019; Staats et al., 2008).

However, it is also important to note that researchers have not found consistent evidence of the association between relationships with pets and mental health across studies (Brooks et al., 2018; Purewal et al., 2017; Tomlinson et al., 2021). Some studies have found that attachment to pets and/or pet ownership are linked to poorer mental health (e.g., Antonacopoulos & Pychyl, 2010; Miltiades & Shearer, 2011; Muldoon et al., 2017; Siegel et al., 1999; Wright et al., 2019). Additionally, there is emerging evidence that receiving emotional comfort from pets may exacerbate the positive association between exposure to microaggressions and depressive symptoms among LGBTQ+ emerging adults living with pets (Matijczak et al., 2020). Although emotional comfort is correlated with pet attachment (Tomlinson et al., 2021), attachment is a distinct construct characterized by multiple domains (e.g., emotion regulation; Sable, 2013). It is important for future studies to explore the role of these domains of the attachment bond between humans and their companion animals in influencing the ways that LGBTQ+ emerging adults may cope with minority stressors.

Current Study

Although evidence suggests that rates of pet ownership are high among LGBTQ+ populations and relationships with pets may be associated with mental health outcomes, few studies have investigated how the association between exposure to microaggressions and mental health is influenced by emerging adults’ attachment to pets. The current cross-sectional study builds on the findings reported in Matijczak et al. (2020) to investigate whether, and to what extent, the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms varies as a function of attachment to pets (see Figure 1). We hypothesized that attachment to pets would moderate the association between exposure to interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. However, because of contradictory findings regarding the benefits of relationships with pets in relation to mental health across prior studies, we had competing hypotheses regarding the type of moderating effect. We hypothesized that the three domains of attachment to pets (i.e., love, emotion regulation, personal growth) could buffer the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. In contrast, it is also possible that the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms may be strongest among those with higher attachment to their pet.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Model

Methods

Participants

Participants in the current study were recruited as part of a larger study on associations between stressors, supports, and psychosocial adjustment among LGBTQ+ adolescents and emerging adults. Inclusion criteria for the larger study included: being 15 to 21 years of age, self-identifying as LGBTQ+, and understanding spoken English. Although the overarching study used a mixed-methods design to collect quantitative and qualitative data, this paper only reports on results from the quantitative survey (see McDonald et al., 2021 for information on the qualitative findings from the overarching study). As only five participants were adolescents and our focus is on the emerging adult period, we restricted our analysis to participants who were ages 18 to 21 years (M = 19.31 years, SD = 1.11 years) and who had lived with at least one dog and/or cat in the past 12 months (n = 163). The sample was restricted to those who lived with a dog and/or cat due to evidence that pet owners often report higher attachment bonds with dogs and cats compared to other species (Zasloff, 1996); furthermore, because of the limited number of participants who lived with a species other than a cat or dog (n = 6), we were not able to make meaningful comparisons and were limited to excluding non-cat or dog owners. Our sample included a majority of individuals (98.8%) who identified as a sexual minority, 47.2% of our sample identified as a gender minority, and 37.4% of our sample identified as a racial and/or ethnic minority. The majority of participants were students (92.6%). Table 1 provides additional demographic characteristics of our sample.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Sample (N = 163)

Variable Name Variable Categories Frequency (%)
Racial/Ethnic Identity Arab/Arab American 1 (0.6)
Asian/Asian American 2 (1.2)
Black/African American 23 (14.1)
Latina/Latino/Latinx 9 (5.5)
Multiracial/Mixed Race 24 (14.7)
South Asian/Pacific Islander 1 (0.6)
White 102 (62.6)
Prefer to self-describe 1 (0.6)
Gender Identity Agender 4 (2.5)
Cisgender man 14 (8.6)
Cisgender woman 69 (42.3)
Genderfluid 3 (1.8)
Genderqueer 5 (3.1)
Nonbinary 15 (9.2)
Transgender man 19 (11.7)
Transgender woman 3 (1.8)
Multiple Identifications 23 (14.1)
Not sure/questioning/prefer to self-describe 8 (4.9)
Sexual Orientation Asexual/Demisexual 3 (1.8)
Bisexual 39 (23.9)
Gay 13 (8.0)
Lesbian 20 (12.3)
Pansexual 15 (9.2)
Queer 19 (11.7)
Straight/heterosexual 2 (1.2)
Multiple Identifications 51 (31.3)
Not sure/questioning 1 (0.6)
Current Student Yes 151 (92.6)
No 12 (7.4)
Pet Type Lived with 1 Primary Caretaker 2 Pet as Family 2
Bird 2 (1.2) 2 (100.0) 2 (100.0)
Cat 93 (57.1) 46 (49.5) 87 (93.5)
Dog 113 (69.3) 36 (31.8) 110 (97.3)
Lagomorph 9 (5.5) 4 (44.4) 8 (88.9)
Reptile 7 (4.3) 5 (71.4) 5 (71.4)
Rodent 8 (4.9) 7 (87.5) 8 (100.0)
Other (e.g. fish, tarantula) 13 (8.0) 10 (76.9) 8 (61.5)
Open in a new tab
1

Participants were able to report information on a maximum of three pets. These categories are not mutually exclusive.

2

Percentages are based on total number of participants that lived with the specific pet type.

Procedure

All study procedures were approved by the Virginia Commonwealth University IRB (HM20014415). Participant recruitment occurred between April 2019 and May 2021 within Southeastern city in the US. Recruitment efforts included posting and distributing flyers within the community surrounding the university, at events focused on the LGBTQ+ community, and online via social media and listservs. We also partnered with five local agencies that provide LGBTQ-inclusive services to assist with recruitment. Once recruited, eligible participants completed the informed consent process and a RedCap survey. The majority (67%) of interviews were conducted in-person at a private space at the university. However, to abide by local public health recommendations after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions, all interviews were conducted via Zoom (Version 5; n = 13, 26.4%). Participants received monetary compensation after completion of their participation.

Measures

Interpersonal Microaggressions

Interpersonal microaggressions were assessed using a subscale of the LGBQ Microaggressions on Campus Scale (Woodford et al, 2015). The interpersonal microaggressions subscale contains 15 items, such as: “I was told I should act ‘less lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer’” and “Other people said, ‘That’s just the way it is’ when I voiced frustration about homophobia, biphobia, or queerphobia.” Participants ranked each item on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (very frequently). Scores for the interpersonal microaggressions subscale were averaged. Internal consistency in our sample was excellent (ω = .90).

Depressive Symptoms

The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Savitz, 2000) was utilized to assess participants’ psychological stress symptoms. The BSI includes 53 items that can be categorized into 10 subscales. The current study assessed depressive symptoms via the BSI’s depressive symptoms subscale, which contains six items ranked on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants ranked how frequently they experienced each item (e.g., “Feeling lonely,” “Feeling hopeless about the future”) in the past week ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Responses were averaged to compute a subscale score and internal consistency in our sample was good (ω = .87).

Attachment to Pets

Attachment to pets was measured using the Pet Attachment and Life Impact Scale (PALS), a 35-item scale that assesses the impact pets have on the lives of their owners and the level of attachment pet owners report having with their pet (Cromer & Barlow, 2013). This study utilized three subscales of the PALS measuring positive aspects of pet attachment.. The love subscale contains 17 items (e.g., “My pet is part of my family”), the personal growth subscale consists of five items (e.g., “My pet teaches me responsibility”), and the regulation subscale includes nine items (e.g., “My pet calms me down”). Internal consistency in our sample was appropriate for each subscale: love (ω = .91), emotion regulation (ω = .88), and personal growth (ω = .82).

Covariates

Age (continuous), race/ethnicity, gender minority status, whether participation occurred prior to or after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic public health restrictions, whether participants were the primary caretaker of the pet, extent to which current needs (e.g., clothing, shelter) are met (continuous), and perceived social support (continuous) were included as covariates in our analysis. Dichotomous variables were created for race/ethnicity, gender minority, participation prior to or after the onset of COVID-19, and primary caretaker of the pet(s). The extent to which participants’ current needs are met was used as a proxy for economic status of the participants. Perceived social support was assessed utilizing the total score of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988; ω = .80).

Analysis Plan

All analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 27) and the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017). Separate moderation analyses (see Figure 1) were conducted to examine whether and to what extent the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms changed as a function of attachment to pets (i.e., love, personal growth, emotion regulation). Each model adjusted for the effects of the covariates. All continuous variables were standardized (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We tested the multivariate assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, singularity, and homoscedasticity, which were all met. We also examined whether our sample included any outliers using Mahallanobis distance scores, which indicated that there were two outliers present; however, because the analyses were not affected by the removal of the two outliers, both outliers were retained in the final analyses. A post-hoc power analysis using G*Power software (Faul et al., 2009) was conducted to determine whether our sample size (n = 163) was sufficient to detect a small (f2 = .02), medium (f2 = .15), or large (f2 = .35) incremental effect size (Cohen, 1977). The power analysis results suggest that our sample size provided adequate statistical power (i.e., .80) to detect medium and large effect sizes (power ≥ .998), but did not have adequate power to detect a small effect size (power = .42), at an alpha level of .05 and a critical F value of 3.91.

Results

Table 2 displays the bivariate correlations between key variables in our models. Although exposure to interpersonal microaggressions was positively associated with all domains of attachment to pets, tolerance and VIF were within acceptable limits (Hair et al., 2010). In our moderation models, social support was the only covariate that was significantly related to depressive symptoms. Across all three moderation models, social support was negatively related to depressive symptoms. Despite the nonsignificant relations between the other covariates and the dependent variable, we opted to retain all covariates, as we believed they were theoretically important and their inclusion did not impact our statistical power.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations, Means, Frequencies, Standard Deviations, and Percentages of Constructs of Interest (N = 163)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. COVID1 --
2. Primary Caretaker2 −0.05 --
3. Needs Met .21* −0.23* --
4. Age .06 −0.05 .03 --
5. Race/Ethnicity3 −0.03 −0.03 −0.07 .01 --
6. Gender Minority4 −0.06 .01 −0.11 .09 −0.01 --
7. Social Support .02 −0.22* .20* −0.04 −0.01 −0.06 --
8. Interpersonal Microaggressions −0.04 .30* −0.21* −0.01 .02 .01 −0.27* --
9. Love −0.08 .27* −0.09 .01 .05 −0.10 .10 .29* --
10. Emotion Regulation −0.13 .37* −0.11 −0.004 .03 −0.09 −0.02 .38* .75* --
11. Personal Growth −0.03 .24* −0.02 −0.08 .11 −0.14 .07 .39* .72* .74* --
12. Depressive Symptoms −0.04 .10 −0.23* −0.001 −0.04 .11 −0.38* .28* .11 .09 .01 --
Mean / Frequency5 43 90 3.78 19.31 102 77 5.32 2.52 4.27 3.59 3.83 1.85
Standard Deviation / %5 26.4 55.2 .43 1.11 62.6 47.2 .94 1.01 .63 .91 .96 .89
Open in a new tab
1

0 = participated prior to and 1 = participated after the onset of COVID-19 restrictions.

2

0 = not a primary caretaker of pet and 1 = primary caretaker of pet.

3

0 = racial/ethnic minority and 1 = White, non-Latinx.

4

0 = cisgender and 1 = gender minority.

5

Frequencies and percentages of dichotomous variables reflect those who have a value of ‘1’.

*

p < .01.

Moderation Results

The first model testing love derived from attachment to pets as a moderator of the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms significantly explained approximately 25% of the variance in depressive symptoms, F(10, 152) = 4.97, p < .0001. Exposure to interpersonal microaggressions was significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms, β = .17, t(152) = 2.11, p = .04. Similarly, love was significantly and positively related to depressive symptoms, β = .18, t(152) = 2.21, p = .03. Further, we found that love was a significant moderator of the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms, ΔR2 = .02, F(1, 152) = 4.78, t(152) = 2.19, p = .03. As seen in Figure 2A, our results indicate that the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms was significant and positive when participants reported moderate, β = .22, t(118) = 2.56, p = .01, or high, β = .30, t(19) = 2.88, p = .004, feelings of love. There was not a significant relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms when love from pets was at low levels, β = .004, t(26) = 0.04, p = .97.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Conditional Effects of Interpersonal Microaggressions on Depressive Symptoms as a Function of Attachment to Pets (N = 163)

In the model examining whether the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms varies by emotion regulation from pet attachment, exposure to interpersonal microaggressions was significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms, β = .20, t(152) = 2.46, p = .01. Emotion regulation was not significantly related to depressive symptoms, β = .13, t(152) = 1.50, p = .14. We found a significant moderating effect of emotion regulation on the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms, ΔR2 = .06, F(1, 152) = 12.67, t(152) = 3.56, p = .001. Results of the conditional effects demonstrated that the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms was significant at moderate, β = .22, t(107) = 2.71, p = .01, and high, β = .46, t(28) = 4.09, p = .0001, levels of emotion regulation. The association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms was not significant when participants reported low levels of emotion regulation, β = −0.08, t(28) = −0.76, p = .45. Figure 2B displays the visual plot of the moderating effect of emotion regulation on the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. This overall model accounted for a significant amount of the variance in depressive symptoms, R2 = .27, F(10, 152) = 5.63, p < .0001.

In our third moderation model testing personal growth from pet attachment as a moderator of the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms, exposure to interpersonal microaggressions was significantly and positively related to depressive symptoms, β = .19, t(152) = 2.29, p = .02. Personal growth was not significantly related to depressive symptoms, β = .03, t(152) = 0.36, p = .72. Further, we did not find evidence that personal growth significantly moderated the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms, ΔR2 = .01, F(1, 152) = 2.77, t(152) = 1.67, p = .10. The overall model explained 22% of the variance in depressive symptoms, F(10, 152) = 4.37, p < .0001.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to test whether, and to what extent, pet attachment moderates the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms would vary as a function of attachment to pets, but we had competing hypotheses for how attachment to pets would moderate this relation. Consistent with prior literature, we found that interpersonal microaggressions were positively associated with depressive symptoms in all of the moderation models. These results add to growing evidence that LGBTQ+ individuals who are exposed to interpersonal microaggressions, a frequently occurring form of minority stress (Munro et al., 2019; Woodford et al., 2014), experience high levels of depressive symptoms. Our findings provide further support for using the Minority Stress Model as a theoretical framework in this population (Meyer & Frost, 2013).

We found that love and emotion regulation derived from one’s attachment to their pet was also positively associated with depressive symptoms. Amid the inconsistent findings regarding the association between attachment to pets and mental health, our results suggest that higher love and emotion regulation derived from pet attachment is associated with poorer mental health, specifically higher levels of depressive symptoms. This is important to note as the prevailing narrative among media outlets is that pet ownership and stronger bonds with one’s pet are linked to better mental health and wellbeing (e.g., Robinson, 2020; Sutton, 2021). Although this perspective has been supported by evidence from some research studies (e.g., Teo & Thomas, 2019; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011), our study highlights the importance of considering when, and for whom, relationships with pets may be associated with better versus poorer mental health.

Regarding our competing hypotheses, results of this study support the second hypothesis that high levels of pet attachment may amplify the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. The results of the conditional effects suggest that the positive relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms was only significant when love and emotion regulation are at moderate or high levels. This coincides with the findings from Matijczak et al. (2020), which found that receiving emotional comfort from companion animals, a correlate of attachment, may also amplify the association between microaggressions and depressive symptoms. Because this study utilized a cross-sectional design, these results may be interpreted in two different ways. It is possible that individuals who are exposed to interpersonal microaggressions and concurrently experience depressive symptoms may be more likely to seek out interactions with their pet and rely on their pet for emotional support derived from the attachment bond, such as feelings of love and assistance with emotion regulation. Indeed, prior research finds that pet owners frequently see their pet as a source of comfort and support during times of stress and adversity (McDonald et al. 2021; Muraco et al., 2018).

However, it is also possible that being highly attached to one’s pet may discourage individuals from seeking out other forms of support, such as peer support or community support. It is important to note that microaggressions are an interpersonal form of discrimination and that experiencing these types of adverse social interactions has been linked to lower social support among LGBTQ+ populations (Ehlke et al., 2020; Utley et al., 2021). Companion animals may be viewed as safe sources of social support and, thus, individuals may be more reluctant to seek out other forms of human support following exposure to microaggressions. Although we adjusted for the effect of overall social support (i.e., from family, friends, significant others) and we did not find any significant associations between attachment to pets and social support, we did not consider the influences of other sources of support (i.e., community support) or whether these relationships were affirming of participants’ LGBTQ+ identity. This is an important limitation to consider as forms of human or community social support, particularly LGBTQ-affirming relationships, are important protective factors that are associated with resilience in the LGBTQ+ community and may mitigate the harmful association between exposure to minority stressors and mental health symptoms among LGBTQ+ individuals (Matijczak et al. 2020; Parra et al., 2018). In contrast, reporting low levels of human social support has been associated with greater depressive symptoms among LGBTQ+ youth (see McDonald, 2018 for a review). Thus, it is possible that being highly attached to one’s pet, and thus seeking comfort primarily from the pet, may be a risk factor that influences the association between exposure to microaggressions and depressive symptoms in this population. Our findings warrant consideration and future research investigation into how relationships with pets may fit into the larger Minority Stress Framework, particularly when considering risk and protective factors (Meyer & Frost, 2013).

It is important to note that we did not find a significant relationship between the domain of personal growth and depressive symptoms, nor did we find that personal growth moderated the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. Personal growth relates to a different characteristic of attachment relationships than the domains of love and emotion regulation. It is theorized that those who are securely attached should feel more confident being independent and pursuing goals because their attachment relationship provides them with a secure base (Cromer & Barlow, 2013). Our nonsignificant findings highlight the need to consider multiple domains of the pet attachment bond, as our results suggest that some characteristics of the attachment relationship between humans and their pets may be more influential on the relationship between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms than other characteristics of the attachment relationship. Thus, it is important for researchers to continue to investigate what different domains of pet attachment may be most important in moderating the relation between minority stressors and mental health outcomes.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. First, this cross-sectional study relied on a community-based convenience sample and our sample size was not adequate to detect small effect sizes. Further, our sample size required us to dichotomize some covariates, such as race/ethnicity and gender minority status. This is important to consider, as individuals who identify with multiple marginalized identities may experience co-occurring minority stressors based on their intersecting marginalized identities (Gattis & Larson, 2017; Grollman, 2014). Due to our cross-sectional design, we are unable to interpret the directionality of the relations between exposure to interpersonal microaggressions, pet attachment, and depressive symptoms. Our convenience sampling approach limited the representativeness of our sample and generalizability of our results. Additionally, the majority of our sample were college students and may not have been currently living with their pets. Although we accounted for whether the participant was the primary caretaker of their pet, we did not collect information on whether the companion animal was registered as a service animal or emotional support animal. Both of these factors may have impacted the level of attachment a participant felt towards the animal they reported on. The interpersonal microaggressions subscale used in our study was limited specifically assessed microaggressions related to one’s sexual minority identity and failed to capture exposure to microaggressions related to other intersectional identities, such as gender minority identities or racial/ethnic identities.

Future Directions

Given the findings in this study, it is vital that future research utilize longitudinal designs to be able to explore the directionality of the relations between minority stressors, pet attachment, and mental health outcomes. It is imperative to clarify how these relations change over time to better understand ways to support the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ emerging adult pet owners. Additionally, this study only investigated the relation between one type of minority stressor, interpersonal microaggressions, and one mental health outcome, depressive symptoms. Future research should continue to use the Minority Stress Model framework to investigate the relations between other domains of minority stressors (including proximal stressors, such as internalized homophobia/transphobia) and mental health outcomes (Meyer & Frost, 2013). Researchers should also investigate how these relations may differ across LGBTQ+ identities. Finally, there are many aspects of the human-pet relationship that have been underexplored in research investigating risk and protective factors for communities experiencing minority stressors, such as the LGBTQ+ community. In order to fully understand the role that pets may play among those experiencing adversity, it is important to continue exploring and identifying what aspects of the human-pet relationship may be most influential in protecting against, or exacerbating, the association between stressors and mental health.

Implications and Conclusion

This study has important implications for practitioners working with LGBTQ+ emerging adult clients who live with pets. Based on the results of our study, it is important for practitioners to consider how the presence of pets may influence the way that LGBTQ+ emerging adults cope with exposure to minority stressors. This may include recognizing the pet as a source of emotion regulation and love, while also encouraging clients to engage with additional forms of human and community social support. Given the finding that pet attachment was positively associated with depressive symptoms, it is also important for practitioners to consider any harmful effect that clients’ relationships with pets may have on mental health and whether a client’s strong attachment to a pet may signify underlying psychological stress. If clients are struggling with psychological stress and have personal attachments to pets, clinicians can consider animal-assisted therapy as studies have shown a moderate effect size in improved outcomes when looking at emotional well-being (Nimer & Lundahl, 2007). Additionally, clinicians should be ready to provide support and access to pet-related resources for their emerging adult clients when needed (e.g., pet pantries, veterinary care, behavioral training services). This may be particularly important for clinicians to explore given the social isolation and stress caused to both humans and animals by public health protocols following the COVID-19 pandemic, which have created additional challenges for LGBTQ+ emerging adults (Fish et al., 2020; Scroggs et al., 2020).

Our study was novel in that it investigated attachment to pets as a moderator of the relation between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. Our results suggested that pet attachment may act as a risk factor that exacerbates the association between interpersonal microaggressions and depressive symptoms. It is imperative that future research in this area continue, so that relations between minority stressors, pet attachment, and mental health outcomes can be better understood across time and among systemically marginalized communities that are typically underrepresented in studies investigating human-pet relationships.

Author Biographies:

Angela Matijczak is a second-year PhD student at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Social Work. Angela earned her Bachelor of Arts in psychology, with a double minor in sociology and Latin American studies, from the University of New Haven in 2017. They then worked as a lab manager for two years at the Innovative Interactions Lab at Yale University. At VCU, Angela served as a project coordinator for a collaborative study with Richmond SCAN (Stop Child Abuse Now) on childhood exposure to animal cruelty and the LGBTQ+ Youth Supports Study that investigated stressors and supports experienced by LGBTQ+ youth and young adults. Angela’s research focuses on risk and protective factors for LGBTQ+ youth. She is particularly interested in the relationships between LGBTQ+ youth and their family members. Additionally, they are also interested in the role of pets in the lives of LGBTQ+ youth and how pets may be used to facilitate more identity-affirming relationships between LGBTQ+ youth and their caregivers.

Camie Tomlinson is a doctoral candidate at VCU School of Social Work. She received her Bachelor of Social Work and Master of Social Work degrees from North Carolina State University. Camie worked as a graduate research assistant at the North Carolina State University Center for Family and Community Engagement during her master’s program. Prior to beginning doctoral studies, Camie worked as an adoption social worker within a North Carolina county department of social services. Informed by her practice experience, Camie’s research interests include promoting the psychosocial development of youth who are or have been in foster care. Her current research focuses on identifying risk and protective factors (e.g., marginalized identity, social support, human-animal interaction) that impact the relation between childhood adversity and psychosocial outcomes, and the mechanisms through which adversity shapes development throughout childhood and into adulthood.

Dr. An Pham is an Assistant Professor at Virginia Commonwealth within the Adolescent Medicine Division. She completed her pediatric residency at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles and her Adolescent Medicine fellowship at Seattle Children’s Hospital. While in Seattle, she also completed a Masters in Public Health at the University of Washington. Her clinical expertise is holistic gender-affirming medical care for transgender and gender non-conforming adolescents. Her research focuses on risk and protective factors of transgender and gender non-conforming adolescents with a specific interest in disordered eating among this population.

Dr. Rosalie Corona is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Corona’s research focuses on health promotion and risk reduction in Latinx and African American families. Her research progressed from an initial focus on identifying local health disparities and the risk and protective factors associated with health disparities, to the development, implementation, and evaluation of family-based prevention programs to address health disparities. Dr. Corona’s work bridges multiple disciplines and incorporates observational methods, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and surveys.

Dr. Shelby McDonald is Director of Research in the Department of Strategy and Research at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA®). They are also an affiliate faculty member with the VCU Department of Psychology and School of Social Work, where they were previously employed as a tenured associate professor. Dr. McDonald’s research centers on the role of human-animal interaction in human health and wellbeing. They also conduct research on access to veterinary care and supportive services in underserved and systemically marginalized populations and communities. Their research has been funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Human-Animal Bond Research Initiative. Dr. McDonald’s research findings have been translated into recommendations for domestic violence policies and services, mental health professionals, veterinary professionals, and animal welfare organizations.

References

  1. Antonacopoulos NMD, & Pychyl TA (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. 10.2752/175303710X12627079939143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett JJ, Žukauskienė R, & Sugimura K (2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18–29 years: Implications for mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(7), 569–576. 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00080-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. ASPCA. (n.d.). Definition of Companion Animal. https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/definition-companion-animal
  4. Baron RM, & Kenny DA (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brooks HL, Rushton K, Lovell K, Bee P, Walker L, Grant L, & Rogers A (2018). 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, 18(1), 1–12. 10.1186/s12888-018-1613-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen J (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  7. Community Marketing & Insights. (2019). 13th Annual LGBTQ community survey. https://www.communitymarketinginc.com/documents/temp/CMI-13th_LGBTQ_Community_Survey_US_Profile.pdf
  8. Conron KJ & Goldberg SK (April 2020). LGBT people in the US not protected by state non-discrimination statues. The Williams Institute, UCLA. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-ND-Protections-Update-Apr-2020.pdf [Google Scholar]
  9. Cromer LD, & Barlow MR (2013). Factors and convergent validity of the pet attachment and life impact scale (PALS). Human-animal interaction bulletin. [Google Scholar]
  10. Derogatis LR, & Savitz KL (2000). The SCL–90–R and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in primary care. In Maruish ME (Ed.), Handbook of psychological assessment in primary care settings (pp. 297–334). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fattoracci ESM, Revels-Macalinao M, & Huynh Q-L (2021). Greater than the sum of racism and heterosexism: Intersectional microaggressions toward racial/ethnic and sexual minority group members. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(2), 176–188. 10.1037/cdp0000329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, & Lang AG (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fish JN, McInroy LB, Paceley MS, Williams ND, Henderson S, Levine DS, & Edsall RN (2020). “I’m kinda stuck at home with unsupportive parents right now”: LGBTQ youths’ experiences with COVID-19 and the importance of online support. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(3), 450–452. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.06.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fuller KA, & Riggs DW (2019). Intimate relationship strengths and challenges amongst a sample of transgender people living in the United States. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 36(4), 399–412. 10.1080/14681994.2019.1679765 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gattis MN, & Larson A (2017). Perceived microaggressions and mental health in a sample of black youths experiencing homelessness. Social Work Research, 41(1), 7–17. 10.1093/swr/svw030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Graham TM, & Glover TD (2014). On the fence: Dog parks in the (un)leashing of community and social capital. Leisure Sciences, 36(3), 217–234. 10.1080/01490400.2014.888020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grollman EA (2014). Multiple disadvantaged statuses and health: the role of multiple forms of discrimination. Journal of health and social behavior, 55(1), 3–19. 10.1177/0022146514521215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gruberg S, Mahowald L, Halpin J (October 2020). The state of the LGBTQ community in 2020. Center for American Progress. Accessed online: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-lgbtq-community-2020/ [Google Scholar]
  19. Harris Interactive. (2010). The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) population at-a-glance. http://www.witeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/HI_LGBT_SHEET_WCC_AtAGlance.pdf
  20. Hayes AF (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hair J, Black WC, Babin BJ, & Anderson RE (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education International. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hill RM, Rooney EE, Mooney MA, & Kaplow JB (2017). Links between social support, thwarted belongingness, and suicide ideation among lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students. Journal of Family Strengths, 17(2), 6. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol17/iss2/6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Layland EK, Exten C, Mallory AB, Williams ND, & Fish JN (2020). Suicide attempt rates and associations with discrimination are greatest in early adulthood for sexual minority adults across diverse racial and ethnic groups. LGBT health, 7(8), 439–447. 10.1089/lgbt.2020.0142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. LeMaster B, Shultz D, McNeill J, Bowers G, & Rust R (2019). Unlearning cisheteronormativity at the intersections of difference: Performing queer worldmaking through collaged relational autoethnography. Text and Performance Quarterly, 39(4), 341–370. 10.1080/10462937.2019.1672885 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. McConnell EA, Birkett MA, & Mustanski B (2015). Typologies of social support and associations with mental health outcomes among LGBT youth. LGBT health, 2(1), 55–61. 10.1089/lgbt.2014.0051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. McDonald K (2018). Social support and mental health in LGBTQ adolescents: a review of the literature. Issues in mental health nursing, 39(1), 16–29. 10.1080/01612840.2017.1398283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Meyer IH, & Frost DM (2013). Minority stress and the health of sexual minorities. In Patterson CJ & D’Augelli AR (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation (pp. 252–266). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Miltiades H, & Shearer J (2011). Attachment to pet dogs and depression in rural older adults. Anthrozoös, 24(2), 147–154. 10.2752/175303711X12998632257585 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Munro L, Travers R, & Woodford MR (2019). Overlooked and invisible: Everyday experiences of microaggressions for LGBTQ adolescents. Journal of homosexuality, 66(10), 1439–1471. 10.1080/00918369.2018.1542205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Muraco A, Putney J, Shiu C, & Fredriksen-Goldsen KI (2018). Lifesaving in every way: The role of companion animals in the lives of older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults age 50 and over. Research on aging, 40(9), 859–882. 10.1177/0164027517752149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nadal KL (2018). Microaggressions and traumatic stress: Theory, research, and clinical treatment. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  32. Nadal KL, Issa MA, Leon J, Meterko V, Wideman M, & Wong Y (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions:“Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(3), 234–259. 10.1080/19361653.2011.584204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nimer J, & Lundahl B (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis. Anthrozoös, 20(3), 225–238. 10.2752/089279307X224773 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Parra LA, Bell TS, Benibgui M, Helm JL, & Hastings PD (2018). The buffering effect of peer support on the links between family rejection and psychosocial adjustment in LGB emerging adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(6), 854–871. 10.1177/0265407517699713 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Paul ES, & Serpell JA (1996). Obtaining a new pet dog: Effects on middle childhood children and their families. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47(1–2), 17–29. 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01007-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pittman DM, Riedy Rush C, Hurley KB, & Minges ML (2020). Double jeopardy: Intimate partner violence vulnerability among emerging adult women through lenses of race and sexual orientation. Journal of American college health, 1–9. 10.1080/07448481.2020.1740710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Platt LF, & Lenzen AL (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of sexual minorities. Journal of homosexuality, 60(7), 1011–1034. 10.1080/00918369.2013.774878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Purewal R, Christley R, Kordas K, Joinson C, Meints K, Gee N, & Westgarth C (2017). Companion animals and child/adolescent development: a systematic review of the evidence. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(3), 234. 10.3390/ijerph14030234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Riggs DW, Taylor N, Signal T, Fraser H, & Donovan C (2018). People of diverse genders and/or sexualities and their animal companions: Experiences of family violence in a binational sample. Journal of Family Issues, 39(18), 4226–4247. 10.1177/0192513X18811164 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Robinson A (2020, March). ‘Dogs have a magic effect’: How pets can improve our mental health. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/17/dogs-have-a-magic-effect-the-power-of-pets-on-our-mental-health [Google Scholar]
  41. Rosenberg S, Riggs DW, Taylor N, & Fraser H (2020). ‘Being together really helped’: Australian transgender and non-binary people and their animal companions living through violence and marginalisation. Journal of sociology, 56(4), 571–590. 10.1177/1440783319896413 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sable P (2013). The pet connection: An attachment perspective. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41(1), 93–99. 10.1007/s10615-012-0405-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Salvatore C, & Daftary-Kapur T (2020). The Influence of Emerging Adulthood on the Risky and Dangerous Behaviors of LGBT Populations. Social Sciences, 9(12), 228. 10.3390/socsci9120228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmitz RM, Carlisle ZT, & Tabler J (2021). “Companion, friend, four-legged fluff ball”: The power of pets in the lives of LGBTQ+ young people experiencing homelessness. Sexualities, 1363460720986908. 10.1177/1363460720986908 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schmitz RM, Tabler J, Carlisle ZT, & Almy L (2021). LGBTQ+ People’s Mental Health and Pets: Novel Strategies of Coping and Resilience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(7), 3065–3077. 10.1007/s10508-021-02105-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Scroggs B, Love HA, & Torgerson C (2021). COVID-19 and LGBTQ emerging adults: Risk in the face of social distancing. Emerging Adulthood, 9(5), 639–644. 10.1177/2167696820968699 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Seelman KL, Woodford MR, & Nicolazzo Z (2016). Victimization and microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: Gender identity as a moderator of psychological distress. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1–2), 112–125. 10.1080/15313204.2016.1263816 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Snapp SD, Watson RJ, Russell ST, Diaz RM, & Ryan C (2015). Social support networks for LGBT young adults: Low cost strategies for positive adjustment. Family Relations, 64(3), 420–430. 10.1111/fare.12124 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Staats S, Wallace H, & Anderson T (2008). Reasons for companion animal guardianship (pet ownership) from two populations. Society & Animals, 16, 279–291. 10.1163/156853008X323411 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sue DW (2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sutton J (2021, November). Pets and mental health: 15 Benefits of emotional support animals. Positive Psychology. https://positivepsychology.com/pets-mental-health/ [Google Scholar]
  52. Testa RJ, Habarth J, Peta J, Balsam K, & Bockting W (2015). Development of the gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65. 10.1037/sgd0000081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Teo JT, & Thomas SJ (2019). Psychological mechanisms predicting wellbeing in pet owners: Rogers’ core conditions versus Bowlby’s attachment. Anthrozoös, 32(3), 399–417. 10.1080/08927936.2019.1598660 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wagaman MA, Keller MF, & Cavaliere SJ (2016). What does it mean to be a successful adult? Exploring perceptions of the transition into adulthood among LGBTQ emerging adults in a community-based service context. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 28(2), 140–158. 10.1080/10538720.2016.1155519 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Woodford MR, Chonody JM, Kulick A, Brennan DJ, & Renn K (2015). The LGBQ microaggressions on campus scale: A scale development and validation study. Journal of homosexuality, 62(12), 1660–1687. 10.1080/00918369.2015.1078205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Woodford MR, Kulick A, Sinco BR, & Hong JS (2014). Contemporary heterosexism on campus and psychological distress among LGBQ students: The mediating role of self-acceptance. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(5), 519. 10.1037/ort0000015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Woodford MR, Weber G, Nicolazzo Z, Hunt R, Kulick A, Coleman T, ... & Renn KA (2018). Depression and attempted suicide among LGBTQ college students: Fostering resilience to the effects of heterosexism and cisgenderism on campus. Journal of College Student Development, 59(4), 421–438. 10.1353/csd.2018.0040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zilcha-Mano S, Mikulincer M, & Shaver PR (2011). An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(4), 345–357. 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, & Farley GK (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES