Abstract
Background
Pet ownership, which has increased over the last decade, can offer owners health benefits. However, relatively few studies have examined the psycho-social benefits of pet ownership, particularly across diverse contexts and types of pets. Existing research is largely Western-focused, and has paid limited attention to the potential interrelationships between pet ownership, pet types, and gender. This study planned to examine associations between various categories of pet ownership and multiple psycho-social benefits in a sample of adults from Japan.
Method
A cross-sectional design was applied to investigate and analyze pet species and psycho-social health outcomes. Data were collected via an online survey conducted in 21 major Japanese cities during October to November 2020. Four pet ownership categories were analyzed: “non-pet”, “dog”, “other pet”, and “dog and other pet”. Gender-stratified multivariable linear regression models were applied to explore the associations between psycho-social health outcomes and pet ownership categories for both men and women.
Results
A total of 8,821 participants were included in analysis. The results showed owning both dogs and other pets was associated with higher neighborhood place attachment and social capital for both men and women. For men, owning other pets (excluding dogs) was positively associated with higher neighborhood place attachment and social capital. Dog ownership was also positively associated with social capital, but not neighborhood place attachment, regardless of gender.
Conclusions
The findings highlight the psycho-social benefits of both single-dog and multi-pet ownership, suggesting their potential for fostering health and social well-being. More research is needed to examine the contributions of specific multi-pet and single-dog ownership and the pathways by which pet ownership contribute to health and well-being.
Keywords: Neighborhood place attachment, Social capital, Happiness, Dog ownership
Introduction
A significant proportion of households worldwide contain pets. For example, approximately 60% of the population in the USA owns a pet, with dogs representing the most prevalent species [1]. In China, pet ownership has become prevalent, with 21.6% of urban households owning a pet [2]. In Japan, the 2024 survey conducted by the Japan Pet Food Association reported cat and dog ownership rates of 9.6% and 10.2%, respectively [3]. Evidence highlights the physical and mental health benefits of owning pets, including improved cardiovascular health, reduced anxiety, and decreased loneliness [4–6]. For example, a study conducted in the USA found pet ownership was correlated with reduced blood pressure and a decreased prevalence of systemic hypertension [7]. A study conducted in Singapore found that pet ownership was linked to improved mental wellness and better social functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic [8].
A key benefit of pet ownership is its positive effects on psycho-social outcomes, such as improved happiness [9], social support [10], and quality of life [11]. A recent systematic review revealed that pet ownership was correlated with lower loneliness and decreased social isolation [6]. Pet ownership can enhance psycho-social outcomes through several pathways, such as increased physical activity, social interactions, and emotional support [12–14]. For example, dog owners often engage in dog walking, which not only promotes mental health through physical activity but also facilitates incidental social interactions with other pet owners or community members [15]. Moreover, a study revealed that dog owners in the UK were substantially more likely to adhere to physical activity guidelines compared to those without dogs [16]. A study from the Netherlands found owning a companion animal may reduce negative emotions and promote positive emotions through human-pet interaction [17].
Nevertheless, this body of research is limited in several important ways. First, the impacts of pet ownership on individuals remains mixed, highlighting the necessity for further research into human-pet relationships [18, 19]. Except for the benefits of owning pets, some research revealed negative impacts or null results [18, 20]. For example, individuals who own cats have been reported to be more likely to experience cognitive issues [21] or poorer cardiac health outcomes [22]. Additionally, a literature review on companion pets and loneliness found insufficient evidence to confirm the effectiveness of pet interventions in reducing loneliness [23]. These mixed findings underscore the complexity of human-pet interactions and the necessity for more evidence. Second, much of the evidence to date is focused on physical health benefits of pet ownership, with relatively few studies examining the psycho-social benefits, especially in Aisa [24, 25]. In a review of 22 studies on pet ownership and social isolation, only one study was undertaken outside a Western country [6]. This lack of evidence from diverse geographical regions is important because different cultural norms, urban design contexts, living conditions, and social structures can impact pet ownership and its effects on individuals’ psycho-social outcomes [16]. Third, there is limited evidence on gender-specific relationships between pet ownership and health [26]. Pet ownership tends to be more prevalent among women with reported proportion of 64.4% in the USA [1]. Moreover, gender differences in attachment to pets and interaction patterns have been documented [11, 27]. For instance, women report stronger attachments to their pets [11] and are more likely to use language as a means of fostering these relationships [27]. These patterns suggest that women may derive distinct emotional and social benefits from pet ownership, which could influence gender-specific health outcomes. Last, only a few studies have explored how different pet types influence health outcomes [28–32]. Certain types or combinations of pets may have varying effects on owner health and well-being due to differences in care routines and human-pet interactions [32–34].
Given the aforementioned limitations in past research, this study aims to explore the associations between pet ownership and psycho-social benefits in an extensive sample of individuals from 21 major cities across Japan. Based on previous research and theoretical considerations, the following hypotheses were proposed: (1) pet ownership is positively associated with psycho-social benefits compared to non-pet owners; (2) gender moderates the associations between pet ownership and psycho-social benefits; and (3) psycho-social benefits vary according to pet types and their combinations.
Materials and methods
Data source and participants
Cross-sectional data were obtained from the Geo-social Survey for Urban Lifestyle Preferences (GULP). GULP aimed to investigate associations between individual preferences and geographic space in large cities in Japan. Methodological details for the survey can be found elsewhere [35]. Briefly, GULP included three surveys: a metro survey, a nonmetro survey, and a nationwide postal survey based on different geographic populations. The metro and nonmetro refer to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas respectively. The metro survey constitutes an online survey of residents in Tokyo special wards and Japan's 20 ordinance-designated cities, whereas the nonmetro survey covers residents residing outside these 21 cities. Our study included data from the metro survey, which was the primary component of GULP and covered 21 large Japanese cities. The metro survey consisted of 60 questions, including 30 core questions that captured individual and household sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., marital status and household composition) and information about the geographical area in which participants resided (e.g., regional awareness and experiences). Participants completed approximately 10 additional questions, randomly selected from the remaining pool of non-core 30 questions on a broad array of topics, such as health status and lifestyle habits. Thus, each participant answered about 40 questions. The metro survey was administered online, with a group of registered panelists for participants’ recruitment. Data were collected in October and November 2020 by a survey company (Nippon Research Centre Ltd). Initially, 234,483 panelists received the invitation email, and 90,676 responded. From these, 30,000 registered members were invited to participate in the metro survey. A pre-determined distribution table was used to ensure consistent proportions of the general population by gender, age, and place of residence. During the survey, participants were informed about its purpose, the processing of personal data, and how results would be published. Only those who agreed could proceed, ensuring all respondents provided informed online consent. The survey was terminated once the participant quotas for each demographic category were reached. Of those who participated, 10,038 participants answered all questions relevant to our analysis. As an incentive, participants were awarded points equivalent to 46 Japanese yen. The GULP survey was approved by the Ethics Committee of Human Subjects Research at the Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University (20A-10), Japan.
Measures
Pet ownership status
Survey participants were asked, “Do you have a pet?” and provided with several options, including indoor dogs, outdoor dogs, cats, ornamental fish, birds, other pets (e.g., rabbits, hamsters, and reptiles), and no pet. Since dogs constitute the majority of pet population [1, 36] and are the most focused species in pet research [32], a dog-centered four-category variable was created to describe respondents’ pet ownership status. Participants who indicated they did not have a pet were classified as “non-pet owner”. In the survey, indoor and outdoor dogs were listed separately to capture culturally specific pet-keeping practices in Japan, where both types are common. However, for the purpose of this study, owners of indoor and outdoor dogs were combined into a single “dog owner” category. This decision was based on the assumption that the core aspects of the human–animal relationship relevant to psycho-social outcomes—such as companionship, responsibility, and opportunities for dog walking—are likely to be similar regardless of whether the dog is kept indoors or outdoors. While variation in the nature of owner–dog interactions may exist, we did not expect this to substantially influence the psycho-social constructs examined in this study (e.g., neighborhood place attachment and social capital). Participants who owned one or more pets other than a dog were classified as “other pet owner”. Finally, participants who owned both a dog and other type of pet were classified as “dog and other pet owner”.
Psycho-social benefits
Neighborhood place attachment
Neighborhood place attachment was assessed as a single dimension using six items adapted from established scales. On a 5-point Likert response scale, participants reported their degree of assent (from 1: strongly agree to 5: strongly disagree) to the following 5 items: “I am attached to this neighborhood” [37, 38], “I want to improve this neighborhood with my own hands” [39], “I want to preserve the culture and appearance of this neighborhood” [39], “My life is strongly tied to this neighborhood” [40], and “In general, this neighborhood has a good reputation” [40]. The sixth item was newly developed and asked participants “What percentage of your neighbors do you think would answer ‘I am attached to this neighborhood’?” (from 1: 80% or more to 5: less than 20%). After reverse coding all six items, the scores were aggregated. Higher total scores indicated stronger neighborhood place attachment. The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87).
Social capital
Four items, adapted from previous scales, captured social capital related to the neighborhood: “Generally, my neighbors can be trusted” [41–43], “My neighbors and I help each other” [41–43], “I know where my neighbors work and their family structure” [42, 43], and “I feel I am a part of this neighborhood” [41]. Participants provided responses to the items using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (agree) to 5 (disagree). Items were reverse coded and scores were summed, with higher total scores reflecting greater social capital. This scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87).
Happiness
Happiness was measured using a single item on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1: strongly agree to 5: strongly disagree): “Overall, do you think you are happy?” [44, 45]. The item was reverse-coded so that higher scores represented greater happiness.
Gender and covariates
In the GULP survey, participants self-reported their gender as either man or woman. Several other variables were included as covariates in the analyses because of their associations with psychological outcomes and pet ownership. They comprised number of family members (1 = 1 to 3 people, 2 = 4 people or more), house type (1 = Single-family owner-occupied house, 2 = Single-family rented house, 3 = Owner-occupied unit in a housing complex, 4 = Rented unit in a housing complex, 5 = Others), education (1 = Below tertiary, 2 = Tertiary or higher), employment status (1 = Employed, 2 = Unemployed), self-rated health (1 = Good, 2 = Fairly good, 3 = Average, 4 = Not very good, 5 = Poor), age (1 = 20–24 years old, 2 = 25–29 years old, 3 = 30–34 years old, 4 = 35–39 years old, 5 = 40–44 years old, 6 = 45–49 years old, 7 = 50–54 years old, 8 = 55–59 years old, 9 = 60–64 years old, 10 = 65–69 years old), marital status (1 = Married, 2 = Single), total household yearly income (1 = < ¥5,000,000, 2 = ≥ ¥5,000,000), and length of residence at current address (1 = Less than 5 years, 2 = 5 to less than 20 years, 3 = 20 years or more) [26, 46, 47].
Statistical analysis
We utilized a complete-case approach in this study. Descriptive analysis was employed to compute means and standard deviations (SD), or counts and proportions (%), for variables across the total sample and gender groups (men and women). One-way analysis of variance was applied to estimate intra-cluster correlations (ICC). The proportion of total variance in all three psycho-social outcomes attributable to differences due to city clustering (n = 21) was minimal for place attachment, social capital, and happiness (ICCs ≤ 0.01), thus multilevel linear regression models were deemed unnecessary [48]. Multivariable linear regression was then applied to separately regress the psycho-social benefits of pet ownership. Models were gender-stratified and adjusted for covariates, and unstandardized regression coefficients (B) along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 15.1 and the statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.
Results
Characteristics of participants
Since 1,217 participants (12.1%) answered “I don’t know” for some sociodemographic questions, they were excluded from the original sample of 10,038 due to missing values. The distribution of all our interested variables was generally consistent between the original sample and the study sample. This analysis included 8,821 participants, including 4,189 women and 4,632 men. The characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1. Participants across various age groups were almost equal in proportion (around 10.0%), except for a lower representation of those aged 20–24 (5.5%) and 65–69 (6.6%). Most participants had attained higher education (81.6%), currently held jobs (76.3%), and lived with 1 to 3 family members including themselves (77.3%). Over half of the participants reported being married (56.9%) and earned a yearly household income of more than 5 million yen (51.8%). For length of residence and type of housing, more participants lived in their current location between 5 to less than 20 years (38.1%) and lived in a rented unit in a housing complex (42.2%). All participants self-rated their health at an average of 3.6 out of 5 (SD = 1.0) by a reverse-coded calculation. The majority of participants reported non-pet ownership (75.8%), which is similar to the results of the latest survey on pet ownership conducted by the Japan Pet Food Association, indicating that 74.3% of Japanese do not have pets [3]. Our data also showed that 14.7% owned pets other than dogs, 7.5% owned dogs, and 2.0% owned both dogs and other types of pets. The average scores were 19.9 out of 30 (SD = 4.8) for neighborhood place attachment, 11.7 out of 20 (SD = 3.7) for social capital, and 3.6 out of 5 (SD = 1.0) for happiness. In this study, 81.6% of participants reported having attained tertiary education or higher, which is notably higher than the national figure of 61.5% reported by the Statistical Bureau of Japan for the same sampling areas and age range in which our study was conducted [49]. Even though other demographic characteristics, such as age, employment status, and length of residence, closely resembled the distributions reported in the 2020 census [49], our data was obtained through non-probability sampling. Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalizing the results.
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants (n = 8,821)
| Variable | N (%) or Mean (SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total (n = 8,821) | Women (n = 4,189) | Men (n = 4,632) | |
| Age | |||
| 20–24 years old | 489 (5.5) | 249 (5.9) | 240 (5.2) |
| 25–29 years old | 965 (10.9) | 442 (10.6) | 523 (11.3) |
| 30–34 years old | 841 (9.5) | 475 (11.3) | 366 (7.9) |
| 35–39 years old | 1,009 (11.4) | 480 (11.5) | 529 (11.4) |
| 40–44 years old | 986 (11.2) | 516 (12.3) | 470 (10.1) |
| 45–49 years old | 1,213 (13.8) | 513 (12.2) | 700 (15.1) |
| 50–54 years old | 957 (10.8) | 458 (10.9) | 499 (10.8) |
| 55–59 years old | 926 (10.5) | 389 (9.3) | 537 (11.6) |
| 60–64 years old | 849 (9.6) | 407 (9.7) | 442 (9.5) |
| 65–69 years old | 586 (6.6) | 260 (6.2) | 326 (7.0) |
| Education level | |||
| Below tertiary | 1,623 (18.4) | 847 (20.2) | 776 (16.8) |
| Tertiary or higher | 7,198 (81.6) | 3,342 (79.8) | 3,856 (83.2) |
| Employment status | |||
| Employed | 6,730 (76.3) | 2,700 (64.5) | 4,030 (87.0) |
| Unemployed | 2,091 (23.7) | 1,489 (35.5) | 602 (13.0) |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 5,016 (56.9) | 2,490 (59.4) | 2,526 (54.5) |
| Single | 3,805 (43.1) | 1,699 (40.6) | 2,106 (45.5) |
| Gross annual household income | |||
| < ¥5,000,000 | 4,251 (48.2) | 2,142 (51.1) | 2,109 (45.5) |
| ≥ ¥5,000,000 | 4,570 (51.8) | 2,047 (48.9) | 2,523 (54.5) |
| Length of residence | |||
| Less than 5 years | 2,799 (31.7) | 1,419 (33.9) | 1,380 (29.8) |
| 5 to less than 20 years | 3,362 (38.1) | 1,557 (37.2) | 1,805 (39.0) |
| 20 years or more | 2,660 (30.2) | 1,213 (29.0) | 1,447 (31.2) |
| Type of housing | |||
| Single-family owner-occupied house | 2,691 (30.5) | 1,200 (28.6) | 1,491 (32.2) |
| Single-family rented house | 202 (2.3) | 95 (2.3) | 107 (2.3) |
| Owner-occupied unit in a housing complex | 2,036 (23.1) | 1,000 (23.9) | 1,036 (22.4) |
| Rented unit in a housing complex | 3,724 (42.2) | 1,819 (43.4) | 1,905 (41.1) |
| Others | 168 (1.9) | 75 (1.8) | 93 (2.0) |
| Number of family members | |||
| 1 to 3 people | 6,820 (77.3) | 3,254 (77.7) | 3,566 (77.0) |
| 4 people or more | 2,001 (22.7) | 935 (22.3) | 1,066 (23.0) |
| Self-rated healtha | 3.6 (1.0) | 3.6 (1.0) | 3.5 (1.0) |
| Pet status | |||
| Non-pet | 6,689 (75.8) | 3,153 (75.3) | 3,536 (76.3) |
| Dog | 661 (7.5) | 306 (7.3) | 355 (7.7) |
| Other pet | 1,292 (14.7) | 646 (15.4) | 646 (13.9) |
| Dog and other pet | 179 (2.0) | 84 (2.0) | 95 (2.1) |
| Psycho-social benefits | |||
| Neighborhood place attachmentb | 19.9 (4.8) | 19.9 (4.8) | 19.9 (4.8) |
| Social capitalc | 11.7 (3.7) | 11.6 (3.8) | 11.8 (3.6) |
| Happinessa | 3.6 (1.0) | 3.8 (1.0) | 3.5 (1.1) |
aBased on a 5-point single-item measure
bBased on the sum of six adapted items (out of 30)
cBased on the sum of four adapted items (out of 20)
Associations of pet ownership with psycho-social benefits
Associations between pet ownership status and psycho-social benefits are illustrated in Table 2. Compared to non-pet ownership, neighborhood place attachment was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with other pet ownership for total (B = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.05–0.60) and men (B = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.09–0.86) and with dog and other pet ownership for both total (B = 1.51, 95% CI = 0.83–2.19), women (B = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.23–2.21), and men (B = 1.73, 95% CI = 0.79–2.67). Social capital was significantly associated with dog ownership for total (B = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.22–0.76), women (B = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.05–0.86), and men (B = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.16–0.90) and with dog and other pet ownership for total (B = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.17–2.16), women (B = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.39–1.86), and men (B = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.47–2.82). Ratings of social capital were also greater for total (B = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.17–0.57) and men (B = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.31–0.87) who owned other pets. Significant associations between pet ownership and happiness were not observed for either men or women.
Table 2.
Associations of pet ownership and psycho-social benefits (n = 8,821)
| Psycho-social benefits | Total (n = 8,821) | Women (n = 4,189) | Men (n = 4,632) |
|---|---|---|---|
| B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) | B (95% CI) | |
| Neighborhood place attachment | |||
| Non-pet | Reference | ||
| Dog | 0.33 (−0.04, 0.70) | 0.12 (−0.42, 0.67) | 0.49 (−0.02, 1.00) |
| Other pet | 0.33 (0.05, 0.60) * | 0.18 (−0.21, 0.57) | 0.48 (0.09, 0.86) * |
| Dog and other pet | 1.51 (0.83, 2.19) ** | 1.22 (0.23, 2.21) * | 1.73 (0.79, 2.67) ** |
| Social capital | |||
| Non-pet | Reference | ||
| Dog | 0.49 (0.22, 0.76) ** | 0.45 (0.05, 0.86) * | 0.53 (0.16, 0.90) ** |
| Other pet | 0.37 (0.17, 0.57) ** | 0.16 (−0.13, 0.45) | 0.59 (0.31, 0.87) ** |
| Dog and other pet | 1.67 (1.17, 2.16) ** | 1.13 (0.39, 1.86) ** | 2.14 (1.47, 2.82) ** |
| Happiness | |||
| Non-pet | Reference | ||
| Dog | −0.03 (−0.10, 0.04) | −0.07 (−0.17, 0.03) | −0.00 (−0.10, 0.10) |
| Other pet | −0.01 (−0.06, 0.05) | −0.03 (−0.11, 0.04) | 0.01 (−0.07, 0.08) |
| Dog and other pet | 0.11 (−0.02, 0.24) | 0.07 (−0.12, 0.25) | 0.13 (−0.06, 0.31) |
B = unstandardized regression coefficient; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Separate models were run for each of the three psycho-social benefits. All models were adjusted for age, education level, marital status, gross annual household income, employment status, type of housing, number of family members, self-related health, and length of residence
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Discussion
This study contributes to the literature by highlighting the psycho-social benefits of pet ownership in a Japanese context, including differences by gender. Unlike previous research that primarily examines physical health benefits and has been conducted in Western populations, our study explores multiple psycho-social benefits in a non-Western context. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first study to investigate the impacts of different patterns of pet ownership on psycho-social benefits in a large Japanese sample. The study provided novel evidence that may be useful for informing pet-benefit policies and interventions in Asia.
Our findings indicated distinct psycho-social benefits based on the participants’ pet statuses (non-pet, dog, other pet, dog and other pet). Dog ownership was associated with higher social capital, but not associated with neighborhood place attachment. Dog ownership may enhance psycho-social well-being through fostering social interactions and encouraging physical activity [25, 50]. For instance, dogs can motivate neighborhood walking, encourage engagement in community events, and facilitate the use of local parks or public open spaces [51]. In addition, owning both dogs and other pets was associated with higher neighborhood place attachment and social capital for both men and women. In Japan, pet ownership is frequently restricted, even for common pets such as dogs and cats, especially in rental housing [52]. Pet-friendly properties often impose limits on the type, number, or size of pets. Such constraints can reduce residential mobility, particularly for multi-pet owners, potentially strengthening neighborhood place attachment. Although we did not assess housing and urban design restrictions in this study, these contextual factors may partly explain the stronger attachment observed among owners of multiple pets. This pattern suggests that multi-pet combinations could potentially benefit owners by offering a variety of complementary pet characteristics. It is possible that the unique traits of different pets and the preferences of their owners interact in ways that may synergistically support social connections and well-being. For example, dogs are sociable even with unfamiliar people or animals [33]. Reptiles are convenient, entertaining, companionable, and evoke a sense of responsibility for care [53]. Birds can provide aesthetic appeal, engaging companionship, and a sense of luxury [54]. Meanwhile cat owners may prefer more active social interaction within pet-related networks [55]. However, due to the limited number of participants who owned both dogs and specific other categories of pets, the distinct impacts of these combinations could not be thoroughly examined. Therefore, future studies should explore the psycho-social benefits of multi-pet ownership, particularly combinations of dogs with other species such as, cats, birds, or reptiles.
Several benefits of pet ownership as well as specific differences by gender were found in our study. Men who owned pets other than dogs were associated with higher neighborhood place attachment and social capital, while these associations were not observed among women. Some potential contributing factors may explain this phenomenon. First, in Japan, caregiving responsibilities for both family and pets are disproportionately taken on by women, and this has been linked to reduced leisure time and higher psychological distress [56, 57]. Given that pets in the “other” category (e.g. cats, fish, birds) are mostly kept indoors, caregiving responsibilities may limit women’s engagement with the surrounding neighborhood. Second, unmeasured confounders—such as personality traits or pre-existing sociability—could contribute to both pet choice and psycho-social outcomes.
Overall, our gender-specific findings—where psycho-social benefits were more evident among men—contrast with some previous studies that report stronger emotional attachment or health benefits among women [11, 27, 58]. However, other evidence suggests that pet ownership may be associated with less favorable outcomes among women. For example, Mueller et al. found that the odds of anxiety disorders were significantly higher among women pet owners compared to men [26]. Parslow et al. reported poorer health among women with pets compared to those without [59]. Barker et al. identified a stronger association between internalizing symptoms and pet relationships among women university students than men [60]. Similarly, a Canadian study found lower vitality and life satisfaction among women pet owners during the COVID-19 pandemic [47]. These gender differences may reflect variations in social roles, caregiving responsibilities, or emotional needs. Further research is needed to clarify these mechanisms. However, no significant associations between pet ownership and happiness were observed in our study. Although an abundance of research confirms the association between pet ownership and positive mental health outcomes, the negative aspects of pet ownership, such as pet-behavioral problems, loss of a pet, and the burden of everyday care, cannot be overlooked [61–63]. These mixed findings highlight the complexity of the association between pet ownership and mental health [20, 64]. Moreover, given the nature of happiness, it is likely influenced by various factors beyond pet ownership [65, 66].
This study had some limitations. Firstly, causality between variables could not be inferred because this study employed a cross-sectional design. Secondly, the online, self-reported survey may have introduced bias, affecting reliability. Although we adapted items from validated scales, full standardized instruments were not used due to space constraints in the large-scale survey. This limits construct validity. For example, place attachment comprises multiple dimensions, such as place identity and place dependence [38], our neighborhood place attachment measure focused on emotional and cognitive bonding, excluding place dependence. The absence of measures for place dependence, specifically regarding interactions between pets and the neighborhood, may limit the assessment of neighborhood place attachment in this study. For instance, if dog owners rely on their neighborhood for walking their dogs [15], this aspect may not be adequately captured by the measures of place attachment. In addition, our social capital items captured trust and mutual aid but not broader civic engagement. This limitation may affect how comprehensively the constructions were measured. Thirdly, the number of participants owning both dogs and other pets was relatively small compared to other pet ownership groups. Increasing the sample size for underrepresented groups can strengthen the robustness of the results by improving statistical power and ensuring more reliable and precise estimates. Additionally, the survey employed quota sampling, with gender, age, and place of residence proportionally aligned with the general population. This approach focused on individual-level responses, limiting our ability to assess potential gender-based response biases within households. Lastly, most data for this survey were collected in October and early November 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this period did not coincide with a state of emergency and the impact of the “third wave” from mid-November 2020 to early 2021 was relatively minor, participants might still have been influenced by the pandemic. For example, difficulties in going out for walks or visiting pet clinics likely increased stress levels and may have influenced the relationship between pet ownership and psycho-social benefits [47]. Despite these limitations, our research is novel in exploring the impacts of different pet ownership statuses on multiple psycho-social benefits in Japan. Strengths of this study include its comparison of dog-centered pet classifications and its large, diverse sample drawn from 21 major cities in a less explored Asian context. In summary, pet ownership has been on the rise globally, primarily in the dog population [67]. Future studies should explore the mechanisms underlying the psycho-social benefits to develop more effective pet-benefit interventions.
Conclusions
Our study found that dog ownership was significantly associated with higher social capital, while multi-pet combinations of dogs and other pets enhanced both neighborhood place attachment and social capital for both men and women. These findings highlight the psycho-social benefits of both single-dog ownership and multi-pet combinations, suggesting their potential for fostering social well-being. Future research should examine the unique contributions of specific multi-pet combinations while further examining the broader benefits of single-pet ownership.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: JZ, MJK, and TH. Methodology: JZ, MJK, JL, YL, ATK, GRM, KO, and TH. Writing—original draft preparation: JZ, Writing—review and editing: JZ, MJK, JL, YL, ATK, GRM, KO, and TH. Supervision: MJK and TH. All authors participated in this study and agreed to the submitted manuscript.
Funding
MJK is supported by the JSPS KAKENHI (grant JP23K09701). GRM is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundations Scheme Grant (FDN-154331). KO is supported by the JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research program (grant JP20H04113). TH is supported by the JSPS KAKENHI (grant JP17H00947, JP18KK0371, and JP24K00176).
Data availability
To gain access to the dataset, approval from the Social Science Japan Data Archive (SSJDA) is required. Users must register an account on SSJDA Direct, submit a data request, and receive approval. The dataset is here: https://ssjda.iss.utokyo.ac.jp/Direct/gaiyo.php?lang=eng&eid=1468. For step-by-step guidance to obtain access, please refer to: https://csrda.iss.utokyo.ac.jp/english/infrastructure/access/.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Data were obtained from the GULP which was approved by the Ethics Committee of Human Subjects Research at the Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University (20A-10), Japan. All participants were informed about study purpose, the processing of personal data, and how results would be published before the survey started. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. All procedures of this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Applebaum JW, Peek CW, Zsembik BA. Examining US pet ownership using the General Social Survey. Soc Sci J. 2023;60(1):110–9. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wu D, Liu Y, Yang T. Pet ownership: A sign of superior socioeconomic position? Evidences from six cities in China. Prev Vet Med. 2024;225:106140. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 3.Nationwide Survey on dog and cat ownership in 2024. https://petfood.or.jp/pdf/data/2024/3.pdf.
- 4.Maurice C, Engels C, Canouï-Poitrine F, Lemogne C, Fromantin I, Poitrine E. Dog ownership and mental health among community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2022;37(11). 10.1002/gps.5815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 5.Levine GN, Allen K, Braun LT, Christian HE, Friedmann E, Taubert KA, Thomas SA, Wells DL, Lange RA, Clinical AHA, Nursing CCS. Pet ownership and cardiovascular risk: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(23):2353–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kretzler B, König H-H, Hajek A. Pet ownership, loneliness, and social isolation: A systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022;57(10):1935–57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Krittanawong C, Kumar A, Wang Z, Jneid H, Virani SS, Levine GN. Pet ownership and cardiovascular health in the US general population. Am J Cardiol. 2020;125(8):1158–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tan JSQ, Fung W, Tan BSW, Low JY, Syn NL, Goh YX, Pang JX. Association between pet ownership and physical activity and mental health during the COVID-19 “circuit breaker” in Singapore. One Health-Amsterdam. 2021;13:100343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tang TW, Chen CC, Chou JC. Understanding pet attachment and happiness linkages: The mediating role of leisure coping. In: 2013 Seventh International Conference on Complex, Int elligent, and Software Intensive Systems. Piscataway: IEEE; 2013. p. 677–682.
- 10.Wood L, Martin K, Christian H, Nathan A, Lauritsen C, Houghton S, Kawachi I, McCune S. The pet factor-companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, friendship formation and social support. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4): e0122085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lewis A, Krägeloh CU, Shepherd D. Pet ownership, attachment and health-rated quality of life in New Zealand. Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology: General Articles. 2009;5(1):96–101. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Merkouri A, Graham TM, O’Haire ME, Purewal R, Westgarth C. Dogs and the good life: A cross-sectional study of the association between the dog-owner relationship and owner mental wellbeing. Front Psychol. 2022;13:903647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Barcelos AM, Kargas N, Assheton P, Maltby J, Hall S, Mills DS. Dog owner mental health is associated with dog behavioural problems, dog care and dog-facilitated social interaction: a prospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):21734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Higgins JW, Temple V, Murray H, Kumm E, Rhodes R. Walking sole mates: Dogs motivating, enabling and supporting guardians’ physical activity. Anthrozoos. 2013;26(2):237–52. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Christian H, Bauman A, Epping JN, Levine GN, McCormack G, Rhodes RE, Richards E, Rock M, Westgarth C. Encouraging dog walking for health promotion and disease prevention. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2018;12(3):233–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Westgarth C, Christley RM, Jewell C, German AJ, Boddy LM, Christian HE. Dog owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: An investigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK community. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):5704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Janssens M, Eshuis J, Peeters S, Lataster J, Reijnders J, Enders-Slegers MJ, Jacobs N. The pet-effect in daily life: An experience sampling study on emotional wellbeing in pet owners. Anthrozoos. 2020;33(4):579–88. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gee NR, Mueller MK. A systematic review of research on pet ownership and animal interactions among older adults. Anthrozoos. 2019;32(2):183–207. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Herzog H. The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20(4):236–9. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Rodriguez KE, Herzog H, Gee NR. Variability in human-animal interaction research. Front Vet Sci. 2021;7:619600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Herzog H. Are pets as good for us as we think they are? What does the science really say about the impact of pets on human health? 2021.
- 22.Parker GB, Gayed A, Owen CA, Hyett MP, Hilton TM, Heruc GA. Survival following an acute coronary syndrome: a pet theory put to the test. Acta Psychiat Scand. 2010;121(1):65–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gilbey A, Tani K. Companion animals and loneliness: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Anthrozoos. 2015;28(2):181–97. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Amiot CE, Bastian B. Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychol Bull. 2015;141(1):6–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Koohsari MJ, Yasunaga A, Shibata A, Ishii K, Miyawaki R, Araki K, Nakaya T, Hanibuchi T, McCormack GR, Oka K. Dog ownership, dog walking, and social capital. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2021;8(1):1–6.38617731 [Google Scholar]
- 26.Mueller MK, King EK, 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(1):701–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Prato-Previde E, Fallani G, Valsecchi P. Gender differences in owners interacting with pet dogs: An observational study. Ethology. 2006;112(1):64–73. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Taniguchi Y, Ikeuchi T, Yong JS. Dog, cat, bird, fish, and other pet ownership and mortality: Evidence from the HILDA cohort. Plos One. 2024;19(8):e0305546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Buck B, Muniz-Rodriguez K, Jillson S, Huang LT, Adhikari A, Jacob N, Wei YD, Zhang J. Pet ownership and risk of dying from cancer: Observation from a nationally representative cohort. Int J Environ Heal R. 2020;30(1):105–16. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 30.Adhikari A, Jacob NK, Hansen AR, Wei YD, Snook K, Liu FQ, Zhang J. Pet ownership and the risk of dying from lung cancer, findings from an 18 year follow-up of a US national cohort. Environ Res. 2019;173:379–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Adhikari A, Wei YD, Jacob N, Hansen AR, Snook K, Burleson CE, Zhang J. Association between pet ownership and the risk of dying from colorectal cancer: An 18-year follow-up of a national cohort. J Public Health-Heid. 2020;28(5):555–62. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Utz RL. Walking the dog: The effect of pet ownership on human health and health behaviors. Soc Indic Res. 2014;116:327–39. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Menchetti L, Calipari S, Mariti C, Gazzano A, Diverio S. Cats and dogs: Best friends or deadly enemies? What the owners of cats and dogs living in the same household think about their relationship with people and other pets. Plos One. 2020;15(8):e0237822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zasloff RL. Measuring attachment to companion animals: A dog is not a cat is not a bird. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1996;47(1–2):43–8. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hanibuchi T, Uesugi M, Tanimoto R, Nakaya T, Nozaki K, Matsuda S, Muranaka A, Yabe N, Yamauchi M, Yamamoto R. Mapping Japan’s major cities using a social survey. Tokyo: Kokon Shoin; 2022.
- 36.gfk. Man’s best friend: Global pet ownership and feeding trends. In: Growth from knowledge. 2016.
- 37.Kyle G, Graefe A, Manning R. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environ Behav. 2005;37(2):153–77. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Williams DR, Vaske JJ. The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science. 2003;49(6):830–40. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Manzo LC, Perkins DD. Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. J Plan Lit. 2006;20(4):335–50. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Félonneau M-L. Love and loathing of the city: Urbanophilia and urbanophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24(1):43–52. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Western J, Stimson R, Baum S, Van Gellecum Y. Measuring community strength and social capital. Reg Stud. 2005;39(8):1095–109. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Wang P, Chen X, Gong J, Jacques-Tiura AJ. Reliability and validity of the personal social capital scale 16 and personal social capital scale 8: Two short instruments for survey studies. Soc Indic Res. 2014;119:1133–48. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Chen X, Stanton B, Gong J, Fang X, Li X. Personal Social Capital Scale: An instrument for health and behavioral research. Health Educ Res. 2009;24(2):306–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Yasunaga A, Koohsari MJ, Shibata A, Ishii K, Miyawaki R, Araki K, Oka K. Sedentary behavior and happiness: The mediation effects of social capital. Innovation in Aging. 2021;5(4):igab044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Abdel-Khalek AM. Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Soc Behav Personal Int J. 2006;34(2):139–50. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Toruńczyk-Ruiz S, Martinović B. The bright and dark sides of length of residence in the neighbourhood: Consequences for local participation and openness to newcomers. J Environ Psychol. 2020;67: 101383. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Amiot CE, Gagné C, Bastian B. Pet ownership and psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):6091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Snijders TA, Bosker R: Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. 2011.
- 49.Statistical Bureau of Japan: The 2020 Population Census of Japan. In.; 2020.
- 50.Antonacopoulos NMD, Pychyl TA. An examination of the possible benefits for well-being arising from the social interactions that occur while dog walking. Soc Anim. 2014;22(5):459–80. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Wood L, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M. The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(6):1159–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Koohsari MJ, Yasunaga A, McCormack GR, Nakaya T, Nagai Y, Oka K. The design challenges for dog ownership and dog walking in dense urban areas: The case of Japan. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 904122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Azevedo A, Guimaraes L, Ferraz J, Whiting M, Magalhaes-Sant’Ana M. Understanding the human–reptile bond: An exploratory mixed-methods study. Anthrozoos. 2022;35(6):755–72. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Anderson P. A bird in the house: An anthropological perspective on companion parrots. Soc Anim. 2003;11(4):393–418. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Golbeck J: The more people I meet, the more I like my dog: A study of pet-oriented social networks on the Web. Chicago: First Monday; 2011.
- 56.Sun Y, Iwagami M, Watanabe T, Sakata N, Sugiyama T, Miyawaki A, Tamiya N. Factors associated with psychological distress in family caregivers: findings from nationwide data in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2021;21(9):855–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Survey on Pets (2024): Factual Findings. https://www.cross-m.co.jp/report/20241029pet.
- 58.Zhang SM, Wang Q, Wang XY, Qi KL, Zhou YX, Zhou CC. Pet ownership and cognitive frailty among Chinese rural older adults who experienced a social loss: Is there a sex difference? Soc Sci Med. 2022;305:115100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Parslow RA, Jorm AF, Christensen H, Rodgers B, Jacomb P. Pet ownership and health in older adults: Findings from a survey of 2,551 community-based Australians aged 60–64. Gerontology. 2005;51(1):40–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Barker SB, Schubert CM, Barker RT, Kuo SIC, Kendler KS, Dick DM. The relationship between pet ownership, social support, and internalizing symptoms in students from the first to fourth year of college. Appl Dev Sci. 2020;24(3):279–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Tzivian L, Friger M, Kushnir T. Associations between stress and quality of life: Differences between owners keeping a living dog or losing a dog by euthanasia. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3): e0121081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.González-Ramírez MT, Vanegas-Farfano M, Landero-Hernández R. Differences in stress and happiness between owners who perceive their dogs as well behaved or poorly behaved when they are left alone. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2018;28:1–5. [Google Scholar]
- 63.Zoanetti J, Nielsen TD, Hazel S. The potential negative impacts of pet guardianship on the guardian, a scoping review. Discover Animals. 2024;1(1):11. [Google Scholar]
- 64.Scoresby KJ, Strand EB, Ng Z, Brown KC, Stilz CR, Strobel K, Barroso CS, Souza M. Pet ownership and quality of life: A systematic review of the literature. Veterinary Sciences. 2021;8(12):332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Farhud DD, Malmir M, Khanahmadi M. Happiness & health: the biological factors-systematic review article. Iran J Public Health. 2014;43(11):1468–77. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Dolan P, Peasgood T, White M. Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J Econ Psychol. 2008;29(1):94–122. [Google Scholar]
- 67.Global State of Pet Care. https://ahi.org/wp-content/uploads/Global-State-of-Pet-Care.pdf.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
To gain access to the dataset, approval from the Social Science Japan Data Archive (SSJDA) is required. Users must register an account on SSJDA Direct, submit a data request, and receive approval. The dataset is here: https://ssjda.iss.utokyo.ac.jp/Direct/gaiyo.php?lang=eng&eid=1468. For step-by-step guidance to obtain access, please refer to: https://csrda.iss.utokyo.ac.jp/english/infrastructure/access/.