Cat owners’ disenfranchised guilt and its predictive value on owners’ depression and anxiety
Abstract
Numerous studies have found pets to have a beneficial effect on people’s psychological well-being, yet a growing body of research suggests that the positive impact of pet ownership is more complex than once thought and does not always lead to improved owner physical and mental health. One potential drawback to pet ownership is pet-related guilt. Research pertaining to work-family conflict and parental guilt has traditionally focused on human family members, yet the majority of pet owners consider their pets to be family members. Similar to parental guilt, dog-related guilt has been found to be associated with feelings of anxiety, depression, and reduced psychological health. The current study was designed to expand on dog-related guilt research by assessing cat owners. An online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed through Prolific and resulted in 604 responses for analysis. Multiple linear regression was used to predict owner depression. Gender, age, social compensatory techniques, and two guilt factors (Attention and Veterinary-related) significantly predicted depression scores. Participants’ anxiety scores, assessed with multiple linear regression, were predicted by gender, age, social compensatory techniques, and three guilt factors (Attention, Veterinary-related, and Lifestyle). Our results suggest that cat-related guilt, analogous to parental guilt, is a significant predictor of anxiety and depression. It is imperative that society recognize cat owners’ guilt, often disenfranchised; unrecognized; and unacknowledged, and help support owners’ efforts to mitigate this guilt in healthy ways.
Introduction
Cats are a common pet within the United States, with 45.4 million households (35%) sharing their home with at least one cat (HSUS, 2021). Numerous studies have found pets to have a positive effect on people’s psychological well-being (Bao and Schreer, 2016; Janssens et al., 2020; Nagasawa et al., 2020; Currin-McCulloch et al., 2021; Kogan et al., 2021a) and act as a source of emotional and social support (Zasloff and Kidd, 1994; Stammbach and Turner, 1999; Castelli et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2005; Hafen Jr. et al., 2007; Pachana et al., 2011; Applebaum and Zsembik, 2020; Hajek and König, 2020). One line of research suggests that pets may offer some of these benefits by increasing oxytocin (Miller et al., 2009; Nagasawa et al., 2009; Borgi and Cirulli, 2016) and regulating cortisol levels (Cardoso et al., 2014; Engert et al., 2016; Pendry and Vandagriff, 2020).
The relationship between an owner and a companion animal often consists of a unique bond, a strong emotional connection that provides security, comfort, and support (Ainsworth, 1989; Meehan et al., 2017). Pets are viewed as family members by most owners (Bowen, 1993; McConnell et al., 2011, 2019; Serpell and Paul, 2011; Irvine and Cilia, 2017; Laurent-Simpson, 2021; Kogan et al., 2022b; Humane Society of the United States, n.d.), with many owners viewing their pets as children (Turner, 2001; Volsche, 2018, 2019; Owens and Grauerholz, 2019) and seeing themselves as “pet parents”; someone responsible for their physical, psychological, and financial support (Volsche, 2019).
Pets offer a plethora of benefits including increased well-being (Bao and Schreer, 2016; Brooks et al., 2018; McConnell et al., 2019; Hajek and König, 2020; Gee et al., 2021; McDonald et al., 2021; Trigg, 2021) and a buffer against depression (Watson and Weinstein, 1993; Friedmann et al., 2011; McConnell et al., 2011; Lem et al., 2016; Cheung and Kam, 2018), anxiety (Jennings, 1997; Wright et al., 2015; Hussein et al., 2021), and stressors (Allen et al., 2001; Friedmann, 2013; Wheeler and Faulkner, 2015; Young et al., 2020; Applebaum et al., 2021a; Bussolari et al., 2021; Currin-McCulloch et al., 2021; Kogan et al., 2021a; McDonald et al., 2021). Yet, many pet owners also feel pet-related guilt (Kogan et al., 2022a, 2023).
Yet, a growing body of research suggests that the positive impact of pet ownership is more complex than once thought and does not always lead to improved owner physical and mental health (Islam and Towell, 2013; Brooks et al., 2018; Scoresby et al., 2021). For example, although some studies conducted during the initial years of the COVID-19 pandemic found a positive impact of pet ownership on owners (Ratschen et al., 2020; Applebaum et al., 2021a; Bussolari et al., 2021; Currin-McCulloch et al., 2021; Kogan et al., 2021b; Wells et al., 2022), others found nuanced or no positive effect (Grajfoner et al., 2021; Mueller et al., 2021; Phillipou et al., 2021).
In addition, there can be drawbacks to pet ownership including owners’ refusal or reluctance to obtain medical care for themselves, act as a barrier to housing, or adding to caregivers’ tasks and responsibilities (Bibbo and Proulx, 2018; Toohey and Rock, 2019; Bolstad et al., 2021; Polick et al., 2021). Another aspect that can negatively impact pet owners’ well-being is pet-related guilt.
Guilt is a complex feeling that includes both affective and cognitive components in which people believe that their behaviors – independent of any actual physical, psychological, or emotional harm – have resulted in a negative outcome (Watson and Clark, 1991; Harder et al., 1992; O’Connor et al., 1999; Kubany and Ralston, 2006; Tilghman-Osborne et al., 2010; Borelli et al., 2017a). Guilt is an unpleasant, often painful emotion brought about by a sense of responsibility and remorse in response to specific circumstances. It stems from the feeling that one may be in the wrong or that others may have this perception (Baumeister et al., 1994; Tangney, 1996). Guilty people blame themselves for something whether they have actually done something wrong or not (Tilghman-Osborne et al., 2010). Guilt has been linked with depression (Beck et al., 1961; Alexander et al., 1999; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), anxiety (Averill et al., 2002; Schoenleber et al., 2014; Cândea and Szentagotai-Tătar, 2018), and decreased quality of life (O’Connor et al., 1999; Duarte and Pinto-Gouveia, 2017).
Parental guilt is one common type of guilt and often accompanies work-family conflict (WFC) (Haslam et al., 2015; Rotkirch and Janhunen, 2010; Buttigieg, 2021; Chakraborty, 2021). Parenting brings many new social and cultural responsibilities, and new parents have to establish a balance between the time they need to devote to their children and the time spent on other responsibilities, including work (Polat et al., 2022). The main emphasis in the studies done on guilt about parenting seems to be on maintaining the balance between work life and home. When parents are unable to meet the high standards they have set for parenting, this leads them to feel guilty (Korabik, 2015a). WFC and related guilt have been found to be associated with both depression and anxiety and can lead to negative behavior choices (Ghatavi et al., 2002; Shapiro and Stewart, 2011).
Research pertaining to WFC and parental guilt has centered around human family members, yet 85% of dog owners and 76% of cat owners consider their pets to be family members (Laurent-Simpson, 2021) and integral parts of the family structure (McConnell et al., 2011, 2019; Serpell and Paul, 2011; Irvine and Cilia, 2017; Laurent-Simpson, 2021; Kogan et al., 2022b). Despite the fact that many people view their pets as family members and even children, parental guilt regarding pets has received minimal attention, with most research pertaining to guilt and pets revolving around relinquishment decisions (DiGiacomo et al., 1998; Sharkin and Ruff, 2011; Grigg and McCormick Donaldson, 2019) or end-of-life care decisions (Bussolari et al., 2018; Locksley and Hart, 2019; Behler, 2020; Cleary et al., 2021; Marr et al., 2022).
Pet-related guilt, similar to parental guilt with human children (Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2019; Caldwell et al., 2021; Law et al., 2021), has been found to be associated with feelings of anxiety, depression, and reduced psychological health (Kogan et al., 2022a, 2023). Kogan et al. (2022a) found dog owners’ reported parental guilt and dog-related WFC to be similar to that reported by parents with human children. They also found that dog-related WFC and dog-related guilt factors predict depression level. Furthermore, they found that dog-related WFC and social compensatory behaviors (e.g., saying no to vacations, evening or weekend plans because of guilt for leaving their dog at home) predict anxiety level (Kogan et al., 2022a).
Many cat owners anecdotally report experiencing cat-related guilt, yet no empirically validated general measures of cat-related guilt exist. The current study was designed to expand on the dog-related guilt studies by assessing cat owners. The goals of this study were to explore the conversion of the dog-guilt-related scales first reported by Kogan et al. (2022a) including: Guilt about Dog Parenting Scale (GAPS-D), Work Dog Conflict (WDC) scale, and Dog-related Guilt Factors – for cat owners. To this end, we used Principal axis factoring with promax rotation in SPSS version 28 to explore Cat-related Guilt factors. Pearson’s correlations with the Cat-related Guilt factors, the GAPS-S, and the WCC scales to establish convergent validity. Convergent validity represents the extent to which a questionnaire correlates or agrees with other assessment tools intending to measure the same or similar construct of interest (Rodriguez et al., 2018).
We also sought to determine the relationship between scores on the Guilt about Cat Parenting Scale (GAPS-C) and owners’ compensatory behaviors as well as identify guilt-related predictors for cat owners’ reported levels of depression and anxiety. Specifically, we sought to assess the predictive value of Guilt about Cat Parenting Scale (GAPS-C), Work Cat Conflict (WCC) scale, Cat-related Guilt factors, and social compensatory behaviors – controlling for owner demographics – on depression as measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). We also strove to assess the predictive value of Guilt about Cat Parenting Scale (GAPS-C), Work Cat Conflict (WCC) scale, Cat-related Guilt Factors, and social compensatory behaviors, controlling for owner demographics, on anxiety as measured by the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI).
Methods
An online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey was developed using Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Inc., Provo, UT, USA). The study was approved by [retracted] Review Board (IRB #4037). Survey respondents were cat owners, 18 years or older who resided in the United States, and were the primary caretakers of a cat they had owned for at least 6 months. Participants were recruited in July 2023 through Prolific, an open online marketplace whereby respondents receive small monetary compensation for completing surveys. The quality of data collected through platforms like Prolific has been shown to be higher than typical Internet samples and meets the psychometric standards considered acceptable for published research (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Prolific allows researchers to set parameters including cat ownership. Participants for this survey were only eligible through Prolific if they stated they owned at least one cat. To help ensure a minimum of “false” subjects, the survey began with screening questions to ensure participants met the requirements.
SURVEY
The survey began with an introduction that explained the study’s purpose and gave instructions regarding how to complete the survey if the respondent owned more than one cat (see Supplementary Material). A series of screening questions followed to ensure the participants met the criteria for the study (e.g., lived in the United States and were adult primary caretakers of a cat for at least 6 months). These were followed by one question to assess bond level with their cat, asking participants “how bonded you feel towards your cat” using a 10-point scale, with 1 = “not bonded at all” and 10 = “extremely bonded.” The next series of questions included several modified established scales. The items in the survey (i.e., GAPS-C, Cat-related guilt items, compensatory behaviors) were piloted on a small group of cat owners (~10) to ensure that each item felt relevant to cat owners.
To test the validity of the newly developed cat-related guilt scales, we computed Pearson’s correlations to assess the convergent validity of the GAPS-C, the WCC scale, the Cat-related Guilt Factors, and the Social Compensatory Behavior Factor. All the newly developed scales demonstrate good convergent validity with each other (Table 1).
| WCC | GAPS-C | Guilt factor: Time-away | Guilt factor: Attention | Guilt factor: Lifestyle | Guilt factor: Veterinary | Social compensatory | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WCC | r | 1 | 0.508** | 0.508** | 0.491** | 0.296** | 0.248** | 0.469** |
| p (1-tailed) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| GAPS-C | r | 1 | 0.691** | 0.683** | 0.295** | 0.464** | 0.399** | |
| p (1-tailed) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| Guilt factor: Time-away | r | 1 | 0.475** | 0.296** | 0.424** | 0.516** | ||
| p (1-tailed) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| Guilt factor: Attention | r | 1 | 0.338** | 0.361** | 0.323** | |||
| p (1-tailed) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
| Guilt factor: Lifestyle | r | 1 | 0.257** | 0.290** | ||||
| p (1-tailed) | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Guilt factor: Veterinary | r | 1 | 0.208** | |||||
| p (1-tailed) | <0.001 | |||||||
| Social compensatory | r | 1 | ||||||
| p (1-tailed) | ||||||||
**
significant at 0.001.
GUILT ABOUT CAT PARENTING SCALE (GAPS-C)
The Guilt about Dog Parenting Scale (GAPS-D) was first used by Kogan et al. (2022a) and was created by modifying the Guilt about Parenting Scale (GAPS) (Haslam et al., 2020). The GAPS, consisting of 10 items with a single-factor structure, was designed to measure the cognitive and emotional characteristics of guilt felt about parenting (Haslam et al., 2020). The questions in GAPS and GAPS-D are similar; the only difference is the substitution of the word “child” with the word “dog.” Because one of the goals of this study was to determine if pet-related guilt differs for dog and cat owners, this study retained the wording of the GAPS-D with the exception of changing the word “dog” to “cat”. Cronbach’s alpha for the GAPS-D was reported as 0.89 (Kogan et al., 2022a), similar to that found for the original GAPS (α = 0.89) (Haslam et al., 2020). The GAPS-C consists of 10 items, scored using a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 = “definitely do not agree” and 7 = “definitely agree.” Possible scores range from 10 to 70 with higher scores indicating a greater sense of guilt related to cat “parenting.” Examples of items in the scale include “I feel bad if I put my own needs ahead of my cat’s needs” and “I feel guilty if my cat gets upset when I leave them.”
WORK CAT CONFLICT (WCC)
The Work Cat Conflict (WCC) scale was modeled after the Work Dog Conflict (WDC) scale created by Kogan et al. (2022a), which was derived from the five-question Work–Family Conflict (WFC) scale (Netemeyer et al., 1996). The WFC scale is a tool used to assess conflicts that arise when required time devotion and strain for work obligations interfere with family responsibilities (WFC) (Komlenac et al., 2021). The WFC scale focuses primarily on assessing conflicting time demands and experienced strain caused by conflicting demands of work and family responsibilities (Netemeyer et al., 1996).
Because many people view their cats as family members, and pilot results of a small group of cat owners (~10) indicated the statements were relevant to cat owners, it was felt that the scale could be of use in assessing the conflict cat owners feel between their cats and their work. The questions in the WCC and the WFC scales are nearly the same; the only difference is the word “cat” is substituted for the word “family.” Similar to the GAPS, one of our goals in this study was to determine if pet-related guilt differs for dog and cat owners; therefore, the wordings of the WCC and the WDC scales were kept similar. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha for the WFC has been reported to be 0.88 (Netemeyer et al., 1996), similar to that of the WDC scale (α = 0.934) (Kogan et al., 2022a). Examples of questions in the WCC scale include “My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill my cat-related duties” and “Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans that involve my cat.”
CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES DEPRESSION SCALE (CES-D)
Depression level was measured with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977). The CES-D is a 20-item measure that asks participants to rate how often they have experienced feelings or behaviors over the past week, with possible responses including 0 = “rarely or none of the time” (less than 1 day), 1 = “some or little of the time” (1–2 days), 2 = “moderately or much of the time” (3–4 days), and 3 = “most or almost all the time” (5–7 days). The range of scores is between 0 and 60, with higher scores indicating greater depressive symptoms. The CES-D has been shown to have high internal consistency (α = 0.82) (Lewinsohn et al., 1997) with a cutoff score of 16 or greater used to identify those at risk of depression (Radloff, 1977).
THE BECK ANXIETY INVENTORY (BAI)
Anxiety was measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), which has been shown to have good internal consistency (α = 0.92) (Beck et al., 1988). A total anxiety score is calculated by adding the 21 items with possible scores ranging from 0 to 63. Accepted cutoff scores for levels of anxiety are: 0–7 = minimal, 8–15 = mild, 16–25 = moderate, and 26–63 = severe (Beck et al., 1988).
ADDITIONAL SURVEY COMPONENTS
Cat-related guilt
Participants were asked to indicate their agreement level to 15 statements pertaining to areas of possible cat-related guilt using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree” (or not applicable). Because one of the goals of this study was to determine if there are similar guilt-related factors for dog and cat owners, these items were modeled after the guilt-related factors found for dog owners (Kogan et al., 2022a, 2023).
Examples of these questions include: “I feel guilty if I do not take my cat for an annual veterinary/health checkup” and “I feel guilty that I do not play with my cat more/enough.” Principal axis factoring was used to explore factor properties of the 15 guilt-related statements.
Compensatory behaviors
Owners were asked to report how often they engage in 11 potential compensatory behaviors as a result of feeling cat-related guilt using a 4-point Likert scale with 1 = “never/rarely” and 4 = “a great deal/always” (or not applicable). Examples of items include “I spend time with my cat at the expense of other family members because I feel guilty” and “Spend too much money on your cat because you feel guilty.” Principal axis factoring was used to explore the behaviors’ factor properties.
At the end of the survey, participants were asked a series of demographic questions that included age, ethnicity, race, marital status, education level, gender, and whether they had children under the age of 18 living in the home.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, Kruskal–Wallis (KW) nonparametric analyses of variance tests, Pearson’s correlation, and linear regression were conducted with IBM SPSS, Version 28 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Reliability of the new scales GAPS-C, WCC, Cat-related Guilt Factors, and Compensatory Behaviors were assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent validity, using Pearson’s correlation, was conducted on Cat-related Guilt Factors, the GAPS-C, and WCC.
Descriptive statistics were calculated to characterize owner demographics. Factor analysis was used to derive Cat-related Guilt Factors from the series of 16 statements as well as Compensatory Behavior Factors from the 11 potential compensatory behaviors. KW tests were used to assess the relationship between GAPS-C scores and owner demographics, including marital status (single or partnered/married), education (high school or less, 2-year college, 4-year college, graduate/professional school), age (under 30 years of age, 30–39, 40–49, 50 years or older), gender (male, female, nonbinary, prefer not to say), children under 18 in the home (yes, no), and dog bond score (low, medium, high, very high). KW tests were also used to explore the relationship between owner demographics with GAPS-C, depression (CES-D Scale), and anxiety (BAI). Results of these exploratory KW analyses were used to guide the selection of predictors for the multiple regression models for GAPS-C, depression (CES-D Scale), and anxiety (BAI). Significance level was set at p = 0.05.
Results
DEMOGRAPHICS
A total of 681 surveys were completed by adult cat owners residing in the United States. Of these, 77 participants were eliminated because they owned their cat for less than 6 months, were not the primary caretaker, or did not complete the attention questions correctly. This left 604 responses for analysis.
The participants included 298 (49%) females, 290 (48%) males, and 15 (2.5%) non-binary. The majority were White (493, 82%) and non-Hispanic/Latinx (540, 89%). Most participants had a high school degree or less (185, 31%) or a 4-year college degree (226, 38%). Approximately half of the participants were partnered/married (290, 49%) and the majority had no children under the age of 18 in the home (429, 72%). The ages of participants ranged from under 30 (120, 20%) to 50 and older (179, 30%). When participants were asked to rate their bond level on a 10-point scale, with 1 = “not bonded at all” and 10 = “extremely bonded,” only 42 (7%) responded with 6 or less. Therefore, the bond level categories were defined as: 1–6 = low, 7 = medium, 8–9 = high, and 10 = very high. The majority of participants reported high (164, 27%) or very high (326, 54%) bond with their cat (Table 2).
| Category | N | (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (n = 604) | ||
| Under 30 years | 120 | 20 |
| 30–39 | 163 | 27 |
| 40–49 | 140 | 23 |
| 50–59 | 101 | 17 |
| 60–69 | 60 | 10 |
| 70 years or older | 18 | 3 |
| Prefer to not say | 2 | <1 |
| Race (n = 604) | ||
| African American/Black | 34 | 6 |
| Asian | 29 | 5 |
| Biracial/multiracial | 26 | 4 |
| Middle Eastern | 1 | <1 |
| Native American/Indigenous | 7 | 1 |
| Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 3 | 1 |
| White/Caucasian | 493 | 82 |
| Other | 9 | 2 |
| Prefer to not say | 2 | <1 |
| Ethnicity (n = 604) | ||
| Hispanic/Latinx | 56 | 9 |
| Not Hispanic/Latinx | 540 | 89 |
| Prefer to not say | ||
| Gender (n = 603) | ||
| Male | 290 | 48 |
| Female | 298 | 49 |
| Non-binary | 15 | 3 |
| Prefer to not say | 0 | 0 |
| Education (n = 604) | ||
| High school or less | 185 | 31 |
| Vocational/trade school/2-year college degree | 114 | 19 |
| College (4-year degree) | 226 | 37 |
| Graduate school/professional school | 77 | 13 |
| Prefer to not say | 2 | <1 |
| Marital/relationship status (n = 604) | ||
| Single | 220 | 36 |
| Partnered/married | 308 | 51 |
| Divorced | 58 | 10 |
| Widowed | 12 | 2 |
| Prefer to not say | 6 | 1 |
| Children (n = 604) | ||
| Yes | 170 | 28 |
| No | 429 | 71 |
| Prefer to not say | 5 | 1 |
| Bond Scale (n = 604) | ||
| Low (1–6) | 42 | 7 |
| Medium (7) | 72 | 12 |
| High (8–9) | 164 | 27 |
| Very high (10) | 326 | 54 |
GUILT ABOUT CAT PARENTING SCALE (GAPS-C)
The Guilt about Cat Parenting Scale’s (GAPS-C) Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90, with scores ranging from 10 to 70 (M = 40.12, SD 13.17). This is similar to Cronbach’s alpha reported for the GAPS-D (0.89) (Kogan et al., 2022a) and the original GAPS (α = 0.89) (Haslam et al., 2020). KW nonparametric analyses of variance tests were run to assess the relationship between participants’ demographics and bond level with GAPS-C scores. Participants younger than 30 years of age had higher GAPS-C scores than participants over 30 years of age (H = 27.73, p < 0.001). Single participants had higher GAPS-D scores than partnered participants (H = 14.33, p < 0.001) and participants without children had higher GAPS-C scores than participants with children (H = 8.62, p = 0.003). Higher bond level was associated with higher GAPS-C scores (H = 19.77, p <0.001). Gender (p = 0.096) and education level (0.094) were not significant (Table 3). Therefore, age, partner status, child status, and bond level were used in the GAPS-C regression model.
| H (df) | P | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (highest for youngest) | 27.73 (3) | <0.001 |
| Gender | 2.77 (1) | = 0.096 |
| Relationship (higher for single) | 14.33 (1) | <0.001 |
| Education | 6.39 (3) | = 0.094 |
| Children (higher for those with no children) | 8.62 (1) | = 0.003 |
| Bond Scale (higher for those with higher bond) | 14.89 (3) | = 0.002 |
WORK CAT CONFLICT (WCC)
Cronbach’s alpha for the WCC was 0.95. Cronbach’s alpha for the original WFC scale has been reported to be 0.88 (Netemeyer et al., 1996), and the revised WDC scale was 0.93 (Kogan et al., 2022a). Because some participants might not work outside the home, a not applicable (NA) option was added to the possible response options and excluded from analysis. The range of scores for the sum of the five WFC-D scale items was 5–25 (M = 11.57, SD = 5.42) and the mean score was 2.35 (SD = 1.08). A total of 109 (21%) respondents scored above the cutoff of the WFC scale of 16.69 (Netemeyer et al., 1996), indicating they struggle with cat-related WFC. Male participants scored higher than females (H = 4.84, p = 0.028). There was a significant relationship between age and WCC scores (H = 13.87, p = 0.003), with participants under 30 years of age scoring higher than those 30 years of age or older. Education level (p = 0.896), marital status (p = 0.092), child status (p = 0.829), and bond level (p = 0.354) were not significant (Table 4). Pearson’s correlation between WCC and GAPS-C was 0.517 (p < 0.001), indicating a significant, moderate correlation between cat owner guilt and cat-related WFC.
| H (df) | P | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (highest for youngest) | 13.87 (3) | = 0.003 |
| Gender (males scored higher) | 4.84 (1) | = 0.028 |
| Relationship | 2.84 (1) | = 0.092 |
| Education | 0.601 (3) | = 0.896 |
| Children | 0.046 (1) | = 0.829 |
| Bond Scale | 3.15 (3) | = 0.369 |
CAT-RELATED GUILT FACTORS
Responses to the 15 cat-guilt-related factors are presented in Table 5. Over 50% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they feel guilty for going out of town and leaving their cat at home (372/543, 69%), if they cannot afford their veterinarian’s recommendations (319/496, 64%), if they do not take their cat for an annual veterinary health checkup (313/503, 62%), or when they are too tired to pay attention to their cat (373/598, 62%).
| Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel guilty when I go out of town/travel and leave my cat at home (n = 543) | 41 | 7.6% | 75 | 13.8% | 55 | 10.1% | 187 | 34.4% | 185 | 34.1% |
| I feel guilty if I can’t afford my veterinarian’s recommendations (n = 496) | 44 | 8.9% | 63 | 12.7% | 70 | 14.1% | 161 | 32.5% | 158 | 31.9% |
| I feel guilty if I do not take my cat for an annual veterinary/health checkup (n = 503) | 49 | 9.7% | 67 | 13.3% | 74 | 14.7% | 170 | 33.8% | 143 | 28.4% |
| I feel guilty when I am too tired to pay attention to my cat (n = 598) | 45 | 7.5% | 101 | 16.9% | 79 | 13.2% | 246 | 41.1% | 127 | 21.2% |
| I feel guilty that I do not play with my cat more/enough (n = 595) | 56 | 9.4% | 144 | 24.2% | 72 | 12.1% | 219 | 36.8% | 104 | 17.5% |
| I feel guilty when I work long shifts away from home (n = 496) | 66 | 13.3% | 134 | 27.0% | 88 | 17.7% | 129 | 26.0% | 79 | 15.9% |
| I feel guilty that I declawed my cat (n = 420) | 73 | 39.7% | 36 | 19.6% | 40 | 21.7% | 12 | 6.5% | 23 | 12.5% |
| I feel guilty when I leave the house for long periods of time (more than 2 h) and leave my cat at home (n = 593) | 113 | 19.1% | 191 | 32.2% | 68 | 11.5% | 148 | 25.0% | 73 | 12.3% |
| I feel guilty that I do not brush my cat – at all or enough (n = 584) | 92 | 15.8% | 195 | 33.4% | 59 | 10.1% | 175 | 30.0% | 63 | 10.8% |
| I feel guilty that I do not pet my cat enough (n = 594) | 110 | 18.5% | 223 | 37.5% | 69 | 11.6% | 131 | 22.1% | 61 | 10.3% |
| I feel guilty when I go to work (n = 515) | 107 | 20.8% | 169 | 32.8% | 86 | 16.7% | 102 | 19.8% | 51 | 9.9% |
| I feel guilty when I allow my cat outdoors (n = 344) | 119 | 34.6% | 107 | 31.1% | 50 | 14.5% | 38 | 11.0% | 30 | 8.7% |
| I feel guilty that I don’t have another cat for my cat to play with (n = 428) | 131 | 30.6% | 129 | 30.1% | 52 | 12.1% | 80 | 18.7% | 36 | 8.4% |
| I feel guilty that I don’t let my cat outdoors (n = 518) | 212 | 40.9% | 145 | 28.0% | 49 | 9.5% | 78 | 15.1% | 34 | 6.6% |
| I feel guilty when I leave the house for short periods of time (less than 2 h) and leave my cat at home (n = 597) | 221 | 37.0% | 231 | 38.7% | 52 | 8.7% | 64 | 10.7% | 29 | 4.9% |
Factor analysis was conducted on 15 statements pertaining to possible areas of cat-related guilt. After assessing for missing data and collinearity between the variables, inter-correlation among items was assessed using a correlation matrix to ensure all items were contributing to the latent construct. Since no items correlated at a level higher than 0.8, each item was determined to be conceptually distinct, with no multicollinearity or singularity issues. Next, the 16 items were examined using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and deemed acceptable at 0.88. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (105) = 1095.62, p < 0.001), and the communalities were all above 0.30. Therefore, the 15 items were found to share some common variance with other items and deemed to be suitable for factor analysis. Two statements were excluded due to low factor loading. These included “I feel guilty when I am too tired to pay attention to my cat” and “I feel guilty that I don’t have another cat for my cat to play with.” The results confirmed the existence of four factors, which explained 73.45%. Principal axis factor, with principal component analysis as the extraction method and direct oblimin with Kaiser normalization as the rotation method, was used after determining that the component correlation values exceeded the acceptable value of 0.32. The four guilt factors derived include: Time Away from Home (α = 0.880), Attention/Interaction (α = 0.770), Lifestyle (α = 0.555), and Veterinary-related (α = 0.760), explaining 44.48, 12.03, 8.94, and 8.00% of the variance, respectively (Table 6).
| Time away from home (α = 0.880) | Attention Interaction (α = 0.770) | Lifestyle (α = 0.555) | Veterinary-related (α = 0.760) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel guilty when I go to work | 0.854 | |||
| I feel guilty when I work long shifts away from home | 0.838 | |||
| I feel guilty when I leave the house for long periods of time (more than 2 h) and leave my cat at home | 0.779 | |||
| I feel guilty when I go out of town/travel and leave my cat at home | 0.656 | |||
| I feel guilty when I leave the house for short periods of time (less than 2 h) and leave my cat at home | 0.611 | |||
| I feel guilty that I do not pet my cat enough | 0.803 | |||
| I feel guilty that I do not brush my cat – at all or enough | 0.798 | |||
| I feel guilty that I do not play with my cat more/enough | 0.794 | |||
| I feel guilty that I declawed my cat | 0.830 | |||
| I feel guilty when I allow my cat outdoors | 0.533 | |||
| I feel guilty that I don’t let my cat outdoors | 0.487 | |||
| I feel guilty if I can’t afford my veterinarian’s recommendations | 0.854 | |||
| I feel guilty if I do not take my cat for an annual veterinary/health checkup | 0.754 |
COMPENSATORY BEHAVIORS, FEELINGS, AND THOUGHTS
A series of 10 items were included in the survey to assess reported compensatory behaviors/feelings participants might engage in as a way to cope with their cat-related guilt using a 5-point scale with 1 = “never/rarely” and 4 = “a great deal/always” (or NA). Not appliable responses were excluded from further analysis. Approximately 84% of participants reported reminding themselves that their cat has a good life when they feel guilty and 46% reported feeling resigned to feeling guilty about their cat. Approximately 41% reported putting off visits to the veterinarian because they feel guilty when they cannot afford recommended services and 28% indicated they put off going to the veterinarian because they feel guilty they did not take their cat in sooner. Nearly 40% reported saying “no” to vacations because they feel guilty leaving their cat at home and between 25 and 30% of respondents indicated they reduce their socialization/recreation time in response to their cat-related guilt (Table 7).
| Never/rarely | Sometimes | A fair amount | A great deal/always | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remind yourself that your cat has a good life when you feel guilty | 93 | 16.3% | 160 | 28.0% | 168 | 29.4% | 150 | 26.3% |
| Put off going to the veterinarian because you feel guilty when they recommend things you can’t afford | 336 | 58.7% | 114 | 19.9% | 63 | 11.0% | 59 | 10.3% |
| I say no to vacations because I feel guilty leaving my cat at home | 347 | 61.4% | 125 | 22.1% | 45 | 8.0% | 48 | 8.5% |
| I say no to weekend social events because I feel guilty leaving my cat at home | 401 | 70.0% | 108 | 18.8% | 35 | 6.1% | 29 | 5.1% |
| Spend too much money on your cat because you feel guilty | 385 | 65.8% | 135 | 23.1% | 42 | 7.2% | 23 | 3.9% |
| I put off going to the veterinarian because I feel guilty I have not taken my cat in sooner | 409 | 72.3% | 87 | 15.4% | 50 | 8.8% | 20 | 3.5% |
| I talk with my friends about feeling guilty about my cat | 418 | 71.0% | 118 | 20.0% | 33 | 5.6% | 20 | 3.4% |
| Feel resigned to feeling guilty about your cat | 312 | 54.1% | 167 | 28.9% | 79 | 13.7% | 19 | 3.3% |
| I say no to evening social events because I feel guilty leaving my cat at home | 430 | 73.9% | 95 | 16.3% | 38 | 6.5% | 19 | 3.3% |
| I spend time with my cat at the expense of other family members because I feel guilty | 428 | 73.8% | 96 | 16.6% | 39 | 6.7% | 17 | 2.9% |
The statements pertaining to decreased social engagement were combined into one variable called social compensation (α = 0.863) and it was used as a predictor in the depression and anxiety regression models. These statements included: “I say no to evening social events because I feel guilty leaving my cat at home,” “I say no to weekend social events because I feel guilty leaving my cat at home,” “I say no to vacations because I feel guilty leaving my cat at home,” and “I spend time with my cat at the expense of other family members because I feel guilty.”
KW nonparametric analyses of variance tests were performed to explore the relationship between compensatory behaviors, feelings, and thoughts with GAPS-C scores. The use of all compensatory reactions was found to be associated with higher GAPS-D scores (Table 8).
| H (df) | P | |
|---|---|---|
| Say no to evening social events because you feel guilty leaving your cat at home (n = 582) | 90.33 (3) | <0.001 |
| Say no to weekend social events because you feel guilty leaving your cat at home (n = 573) | 86.66 (3) | <0.001 |
| Say no to vacations because you feel guilty leaving your cat at home (n = 565) | 113.11 (3) | <0.001 |
| Spend time with your cat at the expense of other family members because you feel guilty (n = 580) | 76.43 (3) | <0.001 |
| I talk with my friends about feeling guilty about my cat (n = 589) | 80.79 (3) | <0.001 |
| I put off going to the veterinarian because I feel guilty I have not taken my cat in sooner (n = 566) | 33.79 (3) | <0.001 |
| Put off going to the veterinarian because you feel guilty when they recommend things you cannot afford (n = 572) | 48.42 (3) | <0.001 |
| Remind yourself that your cat has a good life when you feel guilty (n = 571) | 54.01 (3) | <0.001 |
| Feel resigned to feeling guilty about your cat (n = 577) | 143.42 (3) | <0.001 |
| Spend too much money on your cat because you feel guilty (n = 585) | 98.78 (3) | <0.001 |
Bold = social compensation.
CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES DEPRESSION SCALE (CES-D), NIMH
The CES-D scores in the current study ranged from 0 to 48 (M = 17.75, SD = 8.06; α= 0.775). A total of 292/604 (48.3%) scored above the cutoff (16 or greater) for those at risk of depression.
THE BECK ANXIETY TEST
In our study, the scores ranged from 0 to 60 (M = 8.86, SD = 10.27; α = 0.940). A total of 478/604 (79%) reported low anxiety, 76/604 (13%) reported moderate anxiety, and 50/604 (8%) reported high anxiety.
MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSIONS
GAPS-C
Based on the KW test results, participant demographics including age, partner status, child status, and bond level were the variables controlled for in the multiple linear regression predicting GAPS-C using WCC, Cat-related Guilt Factors (Away from Home, Time/Attention, Lifestyle, Veterinary-related). All variables were entered simultaneously. The multiple regression model predicting the GAPS-C score was significant (F(13) = 67.74, p < 0.001), with an R2 of 0.668. Significant predictors of GAPS-C scores included child status (B = 2.26, p = 0.010) (those without children had higher GAPS-C scores than those with children); WCC scores (B = 0.970, p = 0.023); Cat-related Guilt Factors – Time Away (B = 5.05, p < 0.001) and Attention (B = 4.91, p < 0.001); and Veterinary-related (B = 1.25, p < 0.001). The largest predictors of GAPS-C scores were Cat-related Guilt Factors (Time Away and Attention) (Table 9).
| ANOVA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Sum of squares | df | Mean squares | F | Sig. | |
| Regression Total |
51,904.22 77,721.00 |
13 451 |
3992.63 | 67.74 | <0.001 | |
| Coefficients* (Dependent Variable: GAPS-C score) | 95.0% CI | |||||
| Variable | Coefficient (B) | Std. Error | t | Sig. | Lower Bound | Upper Bound |
| (Constant) | 4.012 | 1.610 | 2.492 | 0.013 | 0.848 | 7.176 |
| Bond – low | −2.709 | 1.508 | −1.797 | 0.073 | −5.672 | 0.255 |
| Bond – medium | −0.369 | 1.151 | −0.320 | 0.749 | −2.631 | 1.893 |
| Bond – high | 0.545 | 0.873 | 0.624 | 0.533 | −1.172 | 2.262 |
| Bond – very high | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Age – under 30 | 0.988 | 1.093 | 0.903 | 0.367 | −1.161 | 3.136 |
| Age – 30–39 | 0.211 | 0.999 | 0.211 | 0.833 | −1.752 | 2.174 |
| Age – 40–49 | 0.397 | 1.045 | 0.380 | 0.704 | −1.656 | 2.451 |
| Age – 50 and older | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Marital – single | 1.358 | 0.787 | 1.727 | 0.085 | −0.188 | 2.905 |
| Marital – partnered | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Children – yes | −2.259 | 0.870 | −2.596 | 0.010 | −3.970 | −0.549 |
| Children – no | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Time_away_factor | 5.048 | 0.470 | 10.731 | <0.001 | 4.123 | 5.972 |
| Attention_factor | 4.910 | 0.431 | 11.385 | <0.001 | 4.063 | 5.758 |
| Lifestyle_factor | −0.060 | 0.377 | −0.160 | 0.873 | −0.801 | 0.681 |
| Vet_factor | 1.245 | 0.348 | 3.577 | <0.001 | 0.561 | 1.929 |
| WCC | 0.970 | 0.426 | 2.276 | 0.023 | 0.132 | 1.808 |
DEPRESSION
To determine the variables to include in the multiple linear regression to predict depression measured by the CES-C, KW tests were performed to explore the relationship between depression scores and owner demographics, including bond scores (Table 10). All owner demographics, except for child status and bond scores, were significantly associated with CES-D scores and, therefore, were entered into the regression model. We performed a multiple linear regression analysis to predict depression using WCC, GAPS-C, cat-guilt factors, and social compensatory techniques, controlling for owner gender, age, education, and relationship status. All variables were entered simultaneously. The multiple regression model predicting the depression score was significant (F(15) = 9.20, p < 0.001), with an R2 of 0.242. Significant predictors of depression scores included gender (females had higher depression scores (B = −1.864, p = 0.009)); age (participants under 30 years of age (B = 3.55, p <0.001) and those 30–39 years of age (B = 2.29, p = 0.015) had higher depression scores than those 50 years of age and older); GAPS-C (B = 0.096, p < 0.031), social compensatory techniques (B = 0.361, p = 0.018), guilt factor Attention (B = 1.10, p = 0.016), and guilt factor Veterinary-related (B = 1.02, p = 0.002). The largest predictors of depression scores were Cat-related Guilt Factors – Attention and Veterinary-related, and gender (Table 11).
| H (df) | P | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (highest for youngest) | 28.27 (3) | <0.001 |
| Gender (females scored higher) | 10.20 (1) | = 0.001 |
| Relationship (single scored higher) | 9.38 (1) | = 0.002 |
| Education (highest for high school education) | 11.18 (3) | = 0.011 |
| Children | 0.097 (1) | = 0.755 |
| Bond Scale | 0.928 (3) | = 0.819 |
| ANOVA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Sum of squares | df | Mean squares | F | Sig. | |
| Regression Total |
6920.83 28,593.92 |
15 447 |
461.39 | 9.20 | <0.001 | |
| Coefficients* (Dependent Variable: CES-D score) | 95.0% CI | |||||
| Variable | Coefficient (B) | Std. Error | t | Sig. | Lower Bound | Upper Bound |
| Intercept | 5.501 | 1.711 | 3.215 | 0.001 | 2.138 | 8.864 |
| Age – under 30 | 3.545 | 1.024 | 3.461 | <0.001 | 1.532 | 5.558 |
| Age – 30–39 | 2.288 | 0.934 | 2.449 | 0.015 | 0.452 | 4.125 |
| Age – 40–49 | 1.247 | 0.957 | 1.304 | 0.193 | −0.633 | 3.128 |
| Age – 50 and older | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Marital – single | 0.246 | 0.700 | 0.351 | 0.726 | −1.130 | 1.622 |
| Marital – partnered | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| WCC | −0.004 | 0.420 | −0.009 | 0.993 | −0.829 | 0.822 |
| Gender – male | −1.847 | 0.700 | −2.638 | 0.009 | −3.223 | −0.471 |
| Gender – female | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Education – high school | 0.175 | 1.152 | 0.152 | 0.879 | −2.088 | 2.439 |
| Education – 2-year degree | −0.867 | 1.241 | −0.699 | 0.485 | −3.306 | 1.572 |
| Education – 4-year degree | −1.764 | 1.113 | −1.584 | 0.114 | −3.952 | 0.425 |
| Education – graduate degree | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Social compensation | 0.361 | 0.152 | 2.370 | 0.018 | 0.062 | 0.660 |
| Time away factor | −0.571 | 0.507 | −1.126 | 0.261 | −1.568 | 0.426 |
| Attention factor | 1.097 | 0.454 | 2.418 | 0.016 | 0.205 | 1.989 |
| Lifestyle factor | 0.484 | 0.345 | 1.406 | 0.160 | −0.193 | 1.162 |
| Veterinary-related factor | 1.015 | 0.327 | 3.104 | 0.002 | 0.372 | 1.658 |
| GAPS-C | 0.960 | 0.443 | 2.168 | 0.031 | 0.090 | 1.831 |
ANXIETY
To determine the variables to include in the multiple linear regression predicting anxiety, using the BAI, KW tests were performed to explore the relationship between anxiety scores and owner demographics. All owner demographics, except for child status and bond, were significantly associated with anxiety scores and, therefore, entered into the regression model (Table 12). We performed a multiple linear regression analysis to predict anxiety using WCC, GAPS-C, compensatory social behaviors, and Cat-related Guilt Factors, controlling for owner gender, age, education, and relationship status. All variables were entered simultaneously. The multiple regression model predicting BAI scores was significant (F(15) = 9.92, p < 0.001), with an R2 of 0.256. Significant predictors of BAI scores included gender (females had higher anxiety scores (B = 3.19, p < 0.001); age (those 30 years or younger (B = 4.16, p = 0.002) and those 30–39 years of age (B = 2.64, p = 0.028) had higher levels than those 50 years or older); compensatory social behaviors (B = 0.490, p < 0.013); and Cat-related Guilt Factors – Attention (B = 1.83, p = 0.002), Lifestyle (B = 0.904, p = 0.033), and Veterinary-related (B = 1.17, p = 0.006). The largest predictors of BAI scores were owners’ gender and age, followed by guilt factors – Attention and Veterinary-related (Table 13).
| H (df) | P | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (highest for youngest) | 22.16 (3) | <0.001 |
| Gender (females scored higher) | 12.95 (1) | = 0.001 |
| Relationship (single scored higher) | 8.44 (1) | = 0.004 |
| Education (less education scored higher) | 24.84 (3) | < 0.001 |
| Children | 0.486 (1) | = 0.486 |
| Bond Scale | 0.525 (3) | = 0.913 |
| ANOVA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Sum of squares | df | Mean squares | F | Sig. | |
| Regression Total |
12342.94 48165.00 |
15 447 |
822.86 | 9.92 | <0.001 | |
| Coefficients* (Dependent Variable: BAI score) | 95.0% CI | |||||
| Variable | Coefficient (B) | Std. Error | t | Sig. | Lower Bound | Upper Bound |
| Intercept | −5.878 | 2.200 | −2.672 | 0.008 | −10.202 | −1.554 |
| Age – under 30 | 4.161 | 1.317 | 3.160 | 0.002 | 1.573 | 6.749 |
| Age – 30–39 | 2.643 | 1.201 | 2.200 | 0.028 | 0.282 | 5.004 |
| Age – 40–49 | 1.113 | 1.230 | 0.905 | 0.366 | −1.304 | 3.530 |
| Age – 50 and older | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Marital – single | −0.301 | 0.900 | −0.335 | 0.738 | −2.070 | 1.468 |
| Marital – partnered | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| WCC | 0.255 | 0.540 | 0.473 | 0.637 | −0.806 | 1.316 |
| Gender – male | −3.189 | 0.900 | −3.543 | <0.001 | −4.958 | −1.420 |
| gender – female | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Education – high school | 0.303 | 1.481 | 0.205 | 0.838 | −2.607 | 3.213 |
| Education – 2-year degree | −1.719 | 1.595 | −1.077 | 0.282 | −4.855 | 1.417 |
| Education – 4-year degree | −2.521 | 1.431 | −1.761 | 0.079 | −5.334 | 0.293 |
| Education – graduate degree | 0 | . | . | . | . | . |
| Social compensation | 0.490 | 0.196 | 2.503 | 0.013 | 0.105 | 0.874 |
| Time away factor | −1.022 | 0.652 | −1.566 | 0.118 | −2.304 | 0.260 |
| Attention factor | 1.834 | 0.583 | 3.145 | 0.002 | 0.688 | 2.981 |
| Lifestyle factor | 0.904 | 0.443 | 2.041 | 0.042 | 0.033 | 1.775 |
| Veterinary-related factor | 1.171 | 0.420 | 2.785 | 0.006 | 0.345 | 1.997 |
| GAPS-C | 0.955 | 0.569 | 1.678 | 0.094 | −0.164 | 2.075 |
Discussion
This study was designed to assess cat-related guilt of cat owners and explore the predictive value of cat-related guilt scales modified from dog-related guilt scales (Kogan et al., 2022a) on owners’ reported levels of depression and anxiety.
GUILT ABOUT CAT PARENTING SCALE (GAPS-C)
This study found that the Guilt about Cat Parenting Scale (GAPS-C), derived from the Guilt about Dog Parenting Scale (GAPS-D) (Kogan et al., 2022a) had reliability (α = 0.90) similar to the GAPS-D (α = 0.89) and the original GAPS developed to measure guilt among working parents (0.89) (Haslam et al., 2020). Consistent with the findings found for the GAPS-D, younger cat owners scored higher on the GAPS-C than older owners. Unique to this cat-owner population, we found that single participants without children scored higher on the GAPS-C than partnered participants with children. Cat owners without children may have less familial responsibilities and may place more emphasis on fostering their relationship with their cat. Subsequently, when unable to provide the time and attention they would like toward their cat, feelings of guilt may emerge. Interestingly, gender was not associated with higher GAPS-C scores, although it was significantly associated with higher GAPS-D scores (Kogan et al., 2023). Further research is needed to determine if there is something different between gender among dog owners when compared to cat owners to reflect these differences.
WORK CAT CONFLICT (WCC) SCALE
When we assessed the Work Cat Conflict (WCC) scale, we found its reliability to be similar to that found for the Work Dog Conflict (WDC) scale (Kogan et al., 2022a) (α = 0.960 versus α = 0.950), both of which were higher than that reported for the original WFC scale (α = 0.880) (Netemeyer et al., 1996). The current study of cat owners found 21% of participants scored above the cutoff of the WFC scale (Netemeyer et al., 1996), indicating they struggle with cat-related conflict. The fact that one in five participants reported struggling with WCC suggests this is an area that deserves additional attention. Future research should explore how limited acquired wealth may drive younger people and those from minoritized groups to work more and have less time to nurture their relationship with their cat.
WCC AND THE GAPS-C
Pearson’s correlation between the WCC and the GAPS-C was 0.517, higher than that reported for the WDC and GAPS-D scales (r = 0.414 and 0.389) (Kogan et al., 2022a, 2023). This relationship between parental guilt and WFC is a common theme within WFC research (Aycan and Eskin, 2005; Judge et al., 2006; Livingston and Judge, 2008). Within WFC, parental guilt is the result of competing demands of work and family responsibilities (Eby et al., 2010; Haslam et al., 2015; Korabik, 2015a) and occurs when one feels unable to meet the demands of both (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Frone et al., 1997).
WFC and related guilt often lead to feeling forced to reduce or leave paid employment or take on too many responsibilities at home (Hochschild and Machung, 1989; Martínez et al., 2011). WFC is associated with several adverse effects including fatigue, higher stress levels, lower life satisfaction, poorer general physical health, and increased risk of anxiety, depression, and burnout (Allen et al., 2000; Ghatavi et al., 2002; Frone, 2003; Amstad et al., 2011; Shapiro and Stewart, 2011; Jacobsen et al., 2014; Buxton et al., 2016; Minnotte and Yucel, 2018; Lawson et al., 2021).
The lack of time or resources for parent-child activities created by WFC often prevents parents from engaging in positive interactions with their children (Volman et al., 2013), activities that can help parents cope with work stressors (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007; Volman et al., 2013). This reduction in parent-child activities has negative psychological effects on parents (Borelli et al., 2017a, b) including reduced life satisfaction (Allen et al., 2000, 2020) and a feeling of having failed in fulfilling their family responsibilities (Borelli et al., 2017a, b; Glavin et al., 2011; Korabik, 2015b). Given the research that suggests that interacting with a pet creates positive feelings and can lead to a lessoning of stress (McConnell et al., 2011), it is likely that engaging with one’s cat is a positive experience that may offset work and life stressors. The inability to do so because of WFC removes one potential way to mitigate stress as well as increasing feelings of guilt. As detailed below, in our study, one of the four Cat-related Guilt Factors was Attention/Interaction which was a significant predictor of depression and anxiety.
CAT-RELATED GUILT FACTOR: ATTENTION/INTERACTION
The fact that many cat owners feel guilty about their inability to provide the level of Attention/Interaction with their cat they want suggests that they feel their cats enjoy and benefit from these interactions. Although many people believe that cats prefer to be alone and can easily be separated from their owner for extended periods of time, several studies suggest that cats form bonds with their owners (Edwards et al., 2007; Wedl et al., 2011; Eriksson et al., 2017; Vitale and Udell, 2019), demonstrate physiological reactions upon their owners’ absence (Schwartz, 2002; Crowell-Davis et al., 2004; Pongrácz and Szapu, 2018), and seek contact with their owners through affiliative behaviors (Wedl et al., 2011; Vitale Shreve and Udell, 2017; Vitale Shreve et al., 2017; Vitale and Udell, 2019). As noted by Ramos et al., most cats enjoy physical contact with their owners (Ramos et al., 2013). Furthermore, increased time spent interacting with owners has been shown to correlate with fewer behavioral problems (Heidenberger, 1997) and can improve the cat-owner bond. Kogan et al. (2021b), for example, found that over 60% of cat owners surveyed during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic felt that spending more time with their cat during the COVID-19 lockdown strengthened their bond.
Other studies have supported the premise that cats form significant bonds with their owners. One study, using a modified version of the Ainsworth test (Ainsworth, 1979), found that cats demonstrate a higher frequency of exploratory and playful behaviors when accompanied by their owners, in comparison to when they are alone with an unknown person (Edwards et al., 2007). Another study by Eriksson et al. (2017) found that cats exhibit an increase in affiliative behaviors when reunited with their owners. These studies suggest that cats have a capacity for the formation of secure attachments toward owners similar to that seen in children and dogs (Vitale et al., 2019). In short, it would appear that the belief that most domestic cats are aloof and have a detached relationship with their owners is not supported by recent research (Ines et al., 2021). These findings, coupled with reported guilt from cat owners, suggest that it is important for both cats and owners to have adequate time together.
CAT-RELATED GUILT FACTOR: LIFESTYLE
Another of the cat-guilt-related factors created through factor analysis was “lifestyle” consisting of three statements: two about outdoor access and one about declawing. We found that nearly equal percentages of owners feel guilty that they do not let their cat outdoors (22%) as those who feel guilty because they do let their cat outdoors (20%). The internal struggle many cat owners feel when it comes to deciding whether to allow their cats outdoors is not surprising; this topic is quite controversial (Yeates and Yates, 2017). Within several countries including Europe, Denmark, Chile, and the United Kingdom, most owners allow their cats to freely roam outside the house (Howell et al., 2016; Rochlitz and Yeates, 2018; Sandøe et al., 2018). Cats in the USA and Canada, however, are typically restricted to indoors (Rochlitz and Yeates, 2018; Foreman-Worsley and Farnworth, 2019; Grigg and Kogan, 2019; Tan et al., 2021). Both management styles include risks and benefits (Yeates and Yates, 2017). Risks related to allowing cats outdoors include unwanted pregnancies, car accidents, fights with other cats, propagation of infectious diseases, and the potential for mistreatment by people who do not like cats (Rochlitz, 2004, 2005; McLeod et al., 2015; Machado et al., 2020). Additionally, there is concern about the significant impact that cats have on wildlife, and birds in particular (Ferreira et al., 2019; Linklater et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2021). Yet, on the other hand, it has been suggested that outdoor access offers welfare benefits since it promotes physical activity and natural behaviors such as hunting, exploring, and climbing (Rochlitz, 2004).
There are potential drawbacks to keeping cats indoors, including behavioral problems and obesity, decreased mental stimulation, and increased boredom and frustration (Rochlitz, 2005; Yeates and Yates, 2017; Sandøe et al., 2018; Horwitz, 2019; Wall et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2021). Unfortunately, too many indoor-only cats receive minimal environmental enrichment, much less than the recommended amount of interactive enrichment by cat experts (Grigg and Kogan, 2019). One recent study, for example, found that only about half of cat owners report playing with their cats daily (Grigg and Kogan, 2019). This is despite the fact that appropriate environmental enrichment and interactions not only enhance cats’ lives, but can also positively impact cat owners by reducing negative cat behaviors, improving the bond, and reducing owners’ guilt (Grigg and Kogan, 2019; Wall et al., 2019; Cecchetti et al., 2021; Ines et al., 2021; Windschnurer et al., 2022). Therefore, cat owners are encouraged to explore the wide array of enrichment toys currently available as they seek out innovative ways to meet their cat’s need for attention and enrichment.
The lifestyle factor also included feeling guilty about the choice to declaw their cat. Declawing (onychectomy) is a controversial procedure (Fritscher and Ha, 2016), which consists of the surgical amputation of all or part of a cat’s third phalanges (toe bones) and the attached claws. Declawing is a painful procedure and is typically performed to prevent destructive or injurious scratching behaviors (AVMA, 2019). In the United States, it is estimated that approximately 24% of owned cats are declawed (AVMA, 2019). While some argue that declawing causes a range of physical, psychological, and behavioral problems and should therefore be banned, others feel it is a better alternative than relinquishment or euthanasia (Atwood-Harvey, 2005; Wechsler, 2007). One study by Landsberg (1991) found that 96% of owners who chose to declaw their cat feel positive about the decision, yet in our study we found that many owners (19%) feel guilty about their choice. There are numerous alternative nonsurgical options to declawing and most veterinarians discuss these options with clients (Ruch-Gallie et al., 2016). It is suggested that cat owners ask for information about alternative options to declawing to help them make the best decision for themselves and their cat.
CAT-RELATED GUILT FACTOR: VETERINARY-RELATED
The Veterinary-related guilt factor consisted of two items, “Feel guilty if I don’t take my cat for annual checkups” (62% agreed) and “Feel guilty if I can’t afford vet recommendations” (64% agreed). Veterinary care is an essential element of cat welfare. However, studies indicate that veterinary visits are often stressful for owners because they are stressful for their pets (Habacher et al., 2010; Volk et al., 2011; Mariti et al., 2016); 28% of cat owners and 22% of dog owners report that they would visit a veterinarian more often if the visit was less stressful for their pet. Many cats find leaving a familiar environment like their home and the unpredictability and loss of control during a veterinary visit extremely stressful (Rodan et al., 2011; Ellis et al., 2013; Nibblett et al., 2015; Moody et al., 2018). Unfortunately, this negatively impacts cats’ health care and welfare since many cat owners only take their cat to the veterinarian when they are sick (Volk et al., 2011). Creating low-stress veterinary experiences offers both welfare and health benefits and may help cats receive the health care they need. Options include creating a different cat entrance and waiting area, using pre-visit pharmaceuticals such as gabapentin to help calm cats, and using low-stress handling techniques including recognizing signs of stress and adjusting procedures accordingly (Riemer et al., 2021).
COMPENSATORY BEHAVIORS, FEELINGS, AND THOUGHTS
This study found that higher GAPS-C scores were related to an increased likelihood of utilizing all 11 compensatory techniques assessed. These techniques included a variety of behaviors to deal with feelings of guilt including four techniques that involved a reduction of social engagement with other people. When these four factors were combined into one variable (Social Compensatory Behaviors), it was found to be a significant predictor of both depression and anxiety. The use of social compensatory techniques is an important discovery because reducing social interactions can lead to feelings of isolation and reduced social support (Novotney, 2019). It is important to encourage cat owners to explore alternative coping options including providing enrichment or getting a pet sitter while also being mindful that people from marginalized groups may experience additional distress if they have limited social support networks or financial means to provide for their cat’s socialization or enrichment (Applebaum et al., 2021b).
In addition to the challenge created for cat owners by the common misperception that cats do not mind being left alone for long periods of time, another challenge involves the stereotype of “cat people.” Many people subscribe to the idea that there are “cat people” and “dog people” and feel whether someone prefers dogs or cats says something about that individual’s personality (Bauer and Woodward, 2007; Gosling et al., 2010; Alba and Haslam, 2015; Guastello et al., 2017). Indeed, some research suggests that there are differences between cat and dog people. Cat people have been found to be less extraverted, less conscientious and agreeable, and more neurotic than dog people (Edelson and Lester, 1983; Gosling and Bonnenburg, 1998; Gosling et al., 2010; Reevy and Delgado, 2015). Research by Hagan et al. (2017), for example, found that people with cats are more likely to be neurotic, introverted, open to experience, and less conscientious than the general population.
This line of research that suggests cat owners are more neurotic than dog owners or the general population can create challenges for cat owners. Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, emotional instability, and depression and can lead to poor responses to typical environmental stressors (Reevy and Delgado, 2015; Widiger and Oltmanns, 2017). These attributes may be ascribed even more readily to female cat owners as a result of the “crazy cat lady” cultural trope that plays on the negative stereotype of the female cat owner (Gruen and Probyn-Rapsey, 2018), making it even more difficult for female cat owners to voice their cat-related concerns. Together, the preconceived notions of cat owners as well as the lack of understanding about what is required for cat welfare create unique challenges for cat owners that are typically not present for dog owners, placing them at increased risk of disenfranchised guilt.
STUDY LIMITATIONS
This study has several limitations inherent in cross-sectional research, including the potential for biases based on self-reports. The sample was derived from an open online marketplace that provides access to potential survey respondents instead of cat-related social media sites to maximize the ability to generalize the results to the general population. Yet, because of cultural differences surrounding pets, the sample was restricted to cat owners within the United States. The sample lacked racial and ethnic diversity. It will be important for future research to assess cat-related guilt among diverse samples to understand how cat-related guilt may appear among marginalized groups who experience disenfranchisement based on their identities or social positions. In addition, although many cat owners view their cats as family members and even children, we did not ask participants if they viewed their cats as children. A follow-up study in which participants note the role their cats play within the family would be of benefit. In addition, another limitation of this study is the lack of cat demographics. It is possible that cat age, for example, might impact owners’ feelings of guilt. Findings from this study provide the foundation and survey measures for future research to understand how Black, Indigenous and people of color, and those from LGBTQIA+ communities experience cat-related guilt in the context of the minority stress and adversities they experience living as a member of a marginalized group (Applebaum et al., 2021b).
CONCLUSIONS
Traditionally, the word disenfranchised has been linked with the pet bereavement experience; one that often involves a failure of others to understand the meaning and experience of the loss (Neimeyer and Jordan, 2002; Habarth et al., 2017), leading to a sense of isolation and separation from others (Toray, 2004; Erdman and Ruby, 2019; Spain et al., 2019; Park et al., 2021). Because pet-related guilt is similarly unrecognized nor acknowledged, we suggest it is disenfranchised, analogous to parental guilt (Caldwell et al., 2021; Law et al., 2021), and can cause feelings of anxiety and depression. It is imperative, therefore, that society recognize cat owners’ guilt and help support owners’ efforts to mitigate this guilt in healthy ways. By appreciating the interrelatedness of animal and human welfare as described by the One Welfare concept (Pinillos et al., 2016) through acknowledging cat-related disenfranchised guilt, we can help promote the health and well-being of both cats and their owners.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This research has been approved by Colorado State University’s IRB.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors contributed to the design, implementation, and writing of the manuscript.
FUNDING STATEMENT
This research received no external funding.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Data is available upon request.
References
Ainsworth, M.S. (1979) Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist 34(10), 932–937.
Ainsworth, M.S. (1989) Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist 44(4), 709–716.
Alba, B. and Haslam, N. (2015) Dog People and Cat People Differ on Dominance-Related Traits. Anthrozoös 28(1), 37–44.
Alexander, B., Brewin, C.R., Vearnals, S., Wolff, G. and Leff, J. (1999) An investigation of shame and guilt in a depressed sample. The British Journal of Medical Psychology 72(Pt 3), 323–338.
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000) Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(2), 278–308.
Allen, K., Shykoff, B.E. and Izzo, J.L. (2001) Pet ownership, but not ace inhibitor therapy, blunts home blood pressure responses to mental stress. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex.: 1979) 38(4), 815–820.
Allen, T.D., French, K.A., Dumani, S. and Shockley, K.M. (2020) A cross-national meta-analytic examination of predictors and outcomes associated with work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology 105, 539–576.
American Psychiatric Association (2013) APA – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5 Fifth Edition, 5th edn. Available at: https://www.appi.org/diagnostic_and_statistical_manual_of_mental_disorders_dsm-5_fifth_edition.
Amstad, F.T., Meier, L.L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A. and Semmer, N.K. (2011) A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16, 151–169.
Applebaum, J.W. and Zsembik, B.A. (2020) Pet attachment in the context of family conflict. Anthrozoös 33(3), 361–370.
Applebaum, J.W., Ellison, C., Struckmeyer, L., Zsembik, B.A. and McDonald, S.E. (2021a) The impact of pets on everyday life for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health 9.
Applebaum, J.W., MacLean, E.L. and McDonald, S.E. (2021b) Love, fear, and the human-animal bond: On adversity and multispecies relationships. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology 7, 100071.
Atwood-Harvey, D. (2005) Death or declaw: Dealing with moral ambiguity in a veterinary hospital. Society & Animals: Social Scientific Studies of the Human Experience of Other Animals 13(4), 315–342.
Averill, P.M., Diefenbach, G.J., Stanley, M.A., Breckenridge, J.K. and Lusby, B. (2002) Assessment of shame and guilt in a psychiatric sample: A comparison of two measures. Personality and Individual Differences 32(8), 1365–1376.
AVMA (2019) Welfare Implications of Declawing of Domestic Cats. American Veterinary Medical Association. Available at: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/welfare-implications-declawing-domestic-cats.
Aycan, Z. and Eskin, M. (2005) Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support in reducing work-family conflict for men and women: The case of Turkey. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 53(7–8), 453–471.
Bao, K.J. and Schreer, G. (2016) Pets and happiness: Examining the association between pet ownership and wellbeing. Anthrozoös 29(2), 283–296.
Bauer, A. and Woodward, L. (2007) People and their pets: A relational perspective on interpersonal complementarity and attachment in companion animal owners. Society & Animals 15(2), 169–189.
Baumeister, R.F., Stillwell, A.M. and Heatherton, T.F. (1994) Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin 115(2), 243–267.
Beck, A.T., Ward, C.H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. and Erbaugh, J. (1961) An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 4, 561–571.
Beck, A.T., Epstein, N., Brown, G. and Steer, R.A. (1988) An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56, 893–897.
Behler, A.M.C. (2020) “We Lost a Member of the Family”: Predictors of the grief experience surrounding the loss of a pet. Human Animal Interaction Bulletin 8(3), 18.
Bibbo, J. and Proulx, C.M. (2018) The impact of a care recipient’s pet on the instrumental caregiving experience. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 61(6), 675–684.
Bolstad, C.J., Edwards, G.E., Gardner, A. and Nadorff, M.R. (2021) Pets and a pandemic: An exploratory mixed method analysis of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected dogs, cats, and owners. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 2021.
Borelli, J.L., Nelson, S.K., River, L.M., Birken, S.A. and Moss-Racusin, C. (2017a) Gender differences in work-family guilt in parents of young children. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 76(5–6), 356–368.
Borelli, J.L., Nelson-Coffey, S.K., River, L.M., Birken, S.A. and Moss-Racusin, C. (2017b) Bringing work home: Gender and parenting correlates of work-family guilt among parents of toddlers. Journal of Child and Family Studies 26(6), 1734–1745.
Borgi, M. and Cirulli, F. (2016) Pet face: Mechanisms underlying human-animal relationships. Frontiers in Psychology 7.
Bowen, M. (1993) Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. Jason Aronson, Lanham, MD.
Brooks, H.L., Rushton, K., Lovell, K., Bee, P., Walker, L., Grant, L. and 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), 31.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. and Gosling, S.D. (2011) Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1), 3–5.
Bussolari, C., Habarth, J., Katz, R., Phillips, S., Carmack, B. and Packman, W. (2018) The euthanasia decision-making process: A qualitative exploration of bereaved companion animal owners. Bereavement Care 37(3), 101–108.
Bussolari, C., Currin-McCulloch, J., Packman, W., Kogan, L. and Erdman, P. (2021) “I Couldn’t Have Asked for a Better Quarantine Partner!”: Experiences with companion dogs during Covid-19. Animals 11(2), Article 2.
Buttigieg, M. (2021) Assessment of Parental Guilt and Professional Burnout amongst Gozitan Nurses. University of Malta Tal-Qroqq, Msida.
Buxton, O.M., Lee, S., Beverly, C., Berkman, L.F., Moen, P.et al. (2016) Work-family conflict and employee sleep: Evidence from IT workers in the work, family and health study. Sleep 39(10), 1871–1882.
Caldwell, J., Meredith, P., Whittingham, K. and Ziviani, J. (2021) Shame and guilt in the postnatal period: A systematic review. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 39(1), 67–85.
Cândea, D.-M. and Szentagotai-Tătar, A. (2018) Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness and anxiety symptoms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 58, 78–106.
Cardoso, C., Kingdon, D. and Ellenbogen, M.A. (2014) A meta-analytic review of the impact of intranasal oxytocin administration on cortisol concentrations during laboratory tasks: Moderation by method and mental health. Psychoneuroendocrinology 49, 161–170.
Castelli, P., Hart, L.A. and Zasloff, R.L. (2001) Companion cats and the social support systems of men with aids. Psychological Reports 89(1), 177–187.
Cecchetti, M., Crowley, S.L., Goodwin, C.E.D. and McDonald, R.A. (2021) Provision of high meat content food and object play reduce predation of wild animals by domestic cats felis catus. Current Biology 31(5), 1107-1111.e5.
Chakraborty, S. (2021) Effect of Yogic Intervention in Psychological Wellbeing (parental guilt, psychological distress, anxiety, and self-esteem) of Working Mothers. Available at: https://www.svyasadde.com/assets/img/doc/Sample%20Dissertation.pdf (accessed 26 August 2023).
Cheung, C. and Kam, P.K. (2018) Conditions for pets to prevent depression in older adults. Aging & Mental Health 22(12), 1627–1633.
Cleary, M., West, S., Thapa, D.K., Westman, M., Vesk, K. and Kornhaber, R. (2021) Grieving the loss of a pet: A qualitative systematic review. Death Studies 0(0), 1–12.
Crowell-Davis, S.L., Curtis, T.M. and Knowles, R.J. (2004) Social organization in the cat: A modern understanding. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 6(1), 19–28.
Currin-McCulloch, J., Bussolari, C., Packman, W., Kogan, L.R. and Erdman, P. (2021) Grounded by purrs and petting: Experiences with companion cats during COVID-19. Human Animal Interaction Bulletin 11(2), 1–15.
DiGiacomo, N., Arluke, A. and Patronek, G. (1998) Surrendering pets to Shelters: The Relinquisher’s perspective. Anthrozoös 11(1), 41–51.
Duarte, J. and Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2017) Empathy and feelings of guilt experienced by nurses: A cross-sectional study of their role in burnout and compassion fatigue symptoms. Applied Nursing Research 35, 42–47.
Eby, L.T., Maher, C.P. and Butts, M.M. (2010) The intersection of work and family life: The role of affect. Annual Review of Psychology 61, 599–622.
Edelson, J. and Lester, D. (1983) Personality and pet ownership: A preliminary study. Psychological Reports 53(3, Pt 1), 990–990.
Edwards, C., Heiblum, M., Tejeda, A. and Galindo, F. (2007) Experimental evaluation of attachment behaviors in owned cats. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2(4), 119–125.
Ellis, S.et al. (2013) AAFP and ISFM feline environmental needs guidelines. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 15, 219–230.
Engert, V., Koester, A.M., Riepenhausen, A. and Singer, T. (2016) Boosting recovery rather than buffering reactivity: Higher stress-induced oxytocin secretion is associated with increased cortisol reactivity and faster vagal recovery after acute psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 74, 111–120.
Erdman, P. and Ruby, K. (2019) Grieving pet loss. In: Pet Loss, Grief, and Therapeutic Interventions: Practitioners Navigating the Human-Animal Bond. Routledge, Oxordshire, UK, pp. 267–280.
Eriksson, M., Keeling, L.J. and Rehn, T. (2017) Cats and owners interact more with each other after a longer duration of separation. Plos One 12(10), e0185599.
Ferreira, G.A., Nakano-Oliveira, E., Andriolo, A. and Genaro, G. (2019) Assessment of potential impact of domestic cats on small mammals in a protected insular area. Animal Biology 69(4), 463–481.
Foreman-Worsley, R. and Farnworth, M.J. (2019) A systematic review of social and environmental factors and their implications for indoor cat welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 220, 104841.
Friedmann, E. (2013) The role of pets in enhancing human well-being: Physiological effects. In: The Waltham Book of Human-Animal Interaction: Benefits and Responsibilities of Pet Ownership. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Friedmann, E., Thomas, S.A. and Son, H. (2011) Pets, depression and long-term survival in community living patients following myocardial infarction. Anthrozoös 24(3), 273–285.
Fritscher, S.J. and Ha, J. (2016) Declawing has no effect on biting behavior but does affect adoption outcomes for domestic cats in an animal shelter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 180, 107–113.
Frone, M.R. (2003) Work-family balance. In: Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 143–162.
Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K. and Markel, K.S. (1997) Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior 50(2), 145–167.
Gee, N.R., Rodriguez, K.E., Fine, A.H. and Trammell, J.P. (2021) Dogs supporting human health and well-being: A biopsychosocial approach. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8.
Ghatavi, K., Nicolson, R., MacDonald, C., Osher, S. and Levitt, A. (2002) Defining guilt in depression: A comparison of subjects with major depression, chronic medical illness and healthy controls. Journal of Affective Disorders 68(2–3), 307–315.
Glavin, P., Schieman, S. and Reid, S. (2011) Boundary-spanning work demands and their consequences for guilt and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 52(1), 43–57.
Gosling, S.D. and Bonnenburg, A.V. (1998) An integrative approach to personality research in anthrozoology: Ratings of six species of pets and their owners. Anthrozoös 11(3), 148–156.
Gosling, S.D., Sandy, C.J. and Potter, J. (2010) Personalities of Self-Identified “Dog People” and “Cat People.” Anthrozoös 23(3), 213–222.
Grajfoner, D., Ke, G.N. and Wong, R.M.M. (2021) The effect of pets on human mental health and wellbeing during COVID-19 lockdown in Malaysia. Animals 11(9), Article 9.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985) Sources and conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review 10(1), 76–88.
Grigg, E.K. and Kogan, L.R. (2019) Owners’ attitudes, knowledge, and care practices: Exploring the implications for domestic cat behavior and welfare in the home. Animals 9(11), Article 11.
Grigg, E. and McCormick Donaldson, T. (2019) Helping clients cope with grief associated with euthanasia for behavior problems. In: Pet Loss, Grief, and Therapeutic Interventions: Practitioners Navigating the Human-Animal Bond. Routledge, Oxordshire, UK, pp. 236–264.
Gruen, L. and Probyn-Rapsey, F. (2018) Animaladies: Gender, Animals, and Madness. Bloomsbury Publishing, USA.
Guastello, A.D., Guastello, D.D. and Guastello, S.J. (2017) Personality differences between dog people and cat people. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 2017.
Habacher, G., Gruffydd-Jones, T. and Murray, J. (2010) Use of a web-based questionnaire to explore cat owners’ attitudes towards vaccination in cats. The Veterinary Record 167(4), 122–127.
Habarth, J., Bussolari, C., Gomez, R., Carmack, B.J., Ronen, R., Field, N.P. and Packman, W. (2017) Continuing bonds and psychosocial functioning in a recently bereaved pet loss sample. Anthrozoös 30(4), 651–670.
Hafen Jr., M., Rush, B.R., Reisbig, A.M.J., McDaniel, K.Z. and White, M.B. (2007) The role of family therapists in veterinary medicine: Opportunities for clinical services, education, and research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 33(2), 165–176.
Hagan, C., Carpenter, J., Ungar, L. and Preotiuc-Pietro, D. (2017) Personality profiles of users sharing animal-related content on social media. Anthrozoös 30(4), 671–680.
Hajek, A. and König, H.-H. (2020) How do cat owners, dog owners and individuals without pets differ in terms of psychosocial outcomes among individuals in old age without a partner?Aging & Mental Health 24(10), 1613–1619.
Harder, D.W., Cutler, L. and Rockart, L. (1992) Assessment of shame and guilt and their relationships to psychopathology. Journal of Personality Assessment 59(3), 584–604.
Haslam, D., Filus, A., Morawska, A., Sanders, M.R. and Fletcher, R. (2015) The work-family conflict scale (WAFCS): Development and initial validation of a self-report measure of work-family conflict for use with parents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 46(3), 346–357.
Haslam, D., Filus, A. and Finch, J. (2020) The Guilt about Parenting Scale (GAPS): Development and initial validation of a self-report measure of parenting guilt, and the relationship between parenting guilt and work and family variables. Journal of Child & Family Studies 29(3), 880–894.
Heidenberger, E. (1997) Housing conditions and behavioural problems of indoor cats as assessed by their owners. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52(3), 345–364.
Hochschild, A.R. and Machung, A. (1989) The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Viking, New York.
Horwitz, D. (2019) Common feline problem behaviors: Urine spraying. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 21, 209–219.
Howell, T.J., Mornement, K. and Bennett, P.C. (2016) Pet cat management practices among a representative sample of owners in Victoria, Australia. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 11, 42–49.
HSUS (2021) Pets by the Numbers. HumanePro. Available at: https://humanepro.org/page/pets-by-the-numbers (accessed 26 August 2023).
Humane Society of the United States (n.d.) Pets by the Numbers. HumanePro. Available at: https://humanepro.org/page/pets-by-the-numbers (accessed 18 October 2022).
Hussein, S., Soliman, W. and Khalifa, A. (2021) Benefits of pet’s ownership – A review based on health perspectives. Journal of Internal Medicine and Emergency Research 2(1), 1–9.
Ines, M., Ricci-Bonot, C. and Mills, D.S. (2021) My cat and me—A study of cat owner perceptions of their bond and relationship. Animals (Basel) 11(6), 1601.
Irvine, L. and Cilia, L. (2017) More-than-human families: Pets, people, and practices in multispecies households. Sociology Compass 11(2), e12455.
Islam, A. and Towell, T. (2013) Cat and dog companionship and well-being: A systematic review. International. Journal of Applied Psychology 3, 149–155.
Jacobsen, H.B., Reme, S.E., Sembajwe, G., Hopcia, K., Stoddard, A.M.et al. (2014) Work-family conflict, psychological distress, and sleep deficiency among patient care workers. Workplace Health & Safety 62(7), 282–291.
Janssens, M., Eshuis, J., Peeters, S., Lataster, J., Reijnders, J., Enders-Slegers, M.-J. and Jacobs, N. (2020) The pet-effect in daily life: An experience sampling study on emotional wellbeing in pet owners. Anthrozoös 33(4), 579–588.
Jennings, L.B. (1997) Potential benefits of pet ownership in health promotion. Journal of Holistic Nursing 15(4), 358–372.
Judge, T.A., Ilies, R. and Scott, B.A. (2006) Work–family conflict and emotions: Effects at work and at home. Personnel Psychology 59(4), 779–814.
Kogan, L.R., Currin-McCulloch, J., Bussolari, C., Packman, W. and Erdman, P. (2021a) The psychosocial influence of companion animals on positive and negative affect during the COVID-19 pandemic. Animals 11(7), Article 7.
Kogan, L.R., Erdman, P., Currin-McCulloch, J., Bussolari, C. and Packman, W. (2021b) The impact of COVID on cat guardians: Veterinary issues. Animals 11(3), Article 3.
Kogan, L.R., Bussolari, C., Currin-McCulloch, J., Packman, W. and Erdman, P. (2022a) Disenfranchised guilt—Pet owners’ Burden. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI 12(13), 1690.
Kogan, L.R., Wallace, J.E., Hellyer, P.W. and Carr, E.C.J. (2022b) Canine caregivers: Paradoxical challenges and rewards. Animals 12(9), Article 9.
Kogan, L.R., Bussolari, C., Currin-McCulloch, J., Packman, W. and Erdman, P. (2023) Dog owners: Disenfranchised guilt and related depression and anxiety. Human-Animal Interactions 2023.
Komlenac, N., Stockinger, L., Vogler, T. and Hochleitner, M. (2021) Psychometric analysis of a German-language version of the work–family conflict and family–work conflict scale. Frontiers in Psychology 12.
Korabik, K. (2015a) The intersection of gender and work–family guilt. In: Mills, M.J. (ed.) Gender and the Work-Family Experience: An Intersection of Two Domains. Springer International Publishing, New York, pp. 141–157.
Korabik, K. (2015b) The Intersection of Gender and Work–Family Guilt. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, Oxford, UK.
Kubany, E.S. and Ralston, T.C. (2006) Cognitive therapy for trauma-related guilt and shame. In: Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies for Trauma.2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York, pp. 258–289.
Landsberg, G.M. (1991) Cat owners’ attitudes toward declawing. Anthrozoös 4(3), 192–197.
Laurent-Simpson, A. (2021) Just Like Family: How Companion Animals Joined the Household. NYU Press, New York.
Law, N.K., Hall, P.L. and Cheshire, A. (2021) Common negative thoughts in early motherhood and their relationship to guilt, shame and depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies 30(8), 1831–1845.
Lawson, K.M., Lee, S. and Maric, D. (2021) Not just work-to-family conflict, but how you react to it matters for physical and mental health. Work & Stress 35(4), 327–343.
Lem, M., Coe, J.B., Haley, D.B., Stone, E. and O’Grady, W. (2016) The protective association between pet ownership and depression among street-involved youth: A cross-sectional study. Anthrozoös 29(1), 123–136.
Lewinsohn, P.M., Seeley, J.R., Roberts, R.E. and Allen, N.B. (1997) Center for epidemiologic studies depression scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for depression among community-residing older adults. Psychology and Aging 12(2), 277–287.
Linklater, W.L., Farnworth, M.J., van Heezik, Y., Stafford, K.J. and MacDonald, E.A. (2019) Prioritizing cat-owner behaviors for a campaign to reduce wildlife depredation. Conservation Science and Practice 1(5), e29.
Livingston, B.A. and Judge, T.A. (2008) Emotional responses to work-family conflict: An examination of gender role orientation among working men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1), 207–216.
Locksley, L.Mc.V. and Hart, L. (2019) Clinician’s guide to treating companion animal issues. In: Pet Loss, Grief, and Therapeutic Interventions: Practitioners Navigating the Human-Animal Bond. Routledge, Oxordshire, UK, pp. 267–280.
Machado, D.de.S., Gonçalves, L.da.S., Vicentini, R.R., Ceballos, M.C. and Sant’Anna, A.C. (2020) Beloved whiskers: Management type, care practices and connections to welfare in domestic cats. Animals (Basel) 10(12), 2308.
Mariti, C., Bowen, J.E., Campa, S., Grebe, G., Sighieri, C. and Gazzano, A. (2016) Guardians’ perceptions of cats’ welfare and behavior regarding visiting veterinary clinics. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 19(4), 375–384.
Marr, C.T., Kaufman, S.V.A. and Craig, E.A. (2022) Communication and disenfranchised grief: managing the unrecognized grief of pet loss. In: Handbook of Research on Communication Strategies for Taboo Topics. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 459–481.
Martínez, P., Carrasco, M.J., Aza, G., Blanco, A. and Espinar, I. (2011) Family gender role and guilt in spanish dual-earner families. Sex Roles 65(11), 813–826.
McConnell, A.R., Brown, C.M., Shoda, T.M., Stayton, L.E. and Martin, C.E. (2011) Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(6), 1239–1252.
McConnell, A.R., Lloyd, E.P. and Humphrey, B.T. (2019) We are family: Viewing pets as family members improves wellbeing. Anthrozoös 32(4), 459–470.
McDonald, S.E.et al. (2021) “He was like, my ride or die”: Sexual and gender minority emerging adults’ perspectives on living with pets during the transition to adulthood. Emerging Adulthood 10(4), 1008–1025.
McDonald, S.E., O’Connor, K.E., Matijczak, A., Tomlinson, C.A., Applebaum, J.W., Murphy, J.L. and Zsembik, B.A. (2021) Attachment to pets moderates transitions in latent patterns of mental health following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of a survey of U.S. adults. Animals 11(3), Article 3.
McLeod, L.J., Hine, D.W. and Bengsen, A.J. (2015) Born to roam? Surveying cat owners in Tasmania, Australia, to identify the drivers and barriers to cat containment. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 122(3), 339–344.
Meehan, M., Massavelli, B. and Pachana, N. (2017) Using attachment theory and social support theory to examine and measure pets as sources of social support and attachment figures. Anthrozoös 30(2), 273–289.
Miller, S.C., Kennedy, C.C., DeVoe, D.C., Hickey, M., Nelson, T. and Kogan, L. (2009) An examination of changes in oxytocin levels in men and women before and after interaction with a bonded dog. Anthrozoös 22(1), 31–42.
Minnotte, K.L. and Yucel, D. (2018) Work–family conflict, job insecurity, and health outcomes among US workers. Social Indicators Research 139(2), 517–540.
Moody, C.M., Picketts, V.A., Mason, G.J., Dewey, C.E. and Niel, L. (2018) Can you handle it? Validating negative responses to restraint in cats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 204, 94–100.
Mueller, M.K., Richer, A.M., Callina, K.S. and Charmaraman, L. (2021) Companion animal relationships and adolescent loneliness during COVID-19. Animals 11(3), Article 3.
Nagasawa, M., Kikusui, T., Onaka, T. and Ohta, M. (2009) Dog’s gaze at its owner increases owner’s urinary oxytocin during social interaction. Hormones and Behavior 55(3), 434–441.
Nagasawa, T., Ohta, M. and Uchiyama, H. (2020) Effects of the characteristic temperament of cats on the emotions and hemodynamic responses of humans. Plos One 15(6), e0235188.
Neimeyer, R. and Jordan, J. (2002) Disenfranchisement as empathic failure: Grief therapy and the co-construction of meaning. I. In: Disenfranchised Grief. Research Press, Champaign, IL, pp. 95–117.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996) Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(4), 400–410.
Nibblett, B.M., Ketzis, J.K. and Grigg, E.K. (2015) Comparison of stress exhibited by cats examined in a clinic versus a home setting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 173, 68–75.
Novotney, A. (2019) The risks of social isolation. Monitor on Psychology 50(5), 32.
O’Connor, L.E., Berry, J.W. and Weiss, J. (1999) Interpersonal guilt, shame, and psychological problems. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18(2), 181–203.
Owens, N. and Grauerholz, L. (2019) Interspecies parenting: How pet parents construct their roles. Humanity & Society 43(2), 96–119.
Pachana, N., Massavelli, B. and Robleda-Gomez, S. (2011) A developmental psychological perspective on the human–animal bond. In: The Psychology of the Human-Animal Bond. Springer, New York, pp. 151–165.
Park, R.M., Royal, K.D. and Gruen, M.E. (2021) A literature review: Pet bereavement and coping mechanisms. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 0(0), 1–15.
Pendry, P. and Vandagriff, J.L. (2020) Salivary studies of the social neuroscience of human–animal interaction. In: Granger, D.A. and Taylor, M.K. (eds) Salivary Bioscience: Foundations of Interdisciplinary Saliva Research and Applications. Springer International Publishing, New York, pp. 555–581.
Phillipou, A., Tan, E., Toh, W., Van Rheenen, T., Meyer, D.et al. (2021) Pet ownership and mental health during COVID-19 lockdown. Australian Veterinary Journal 99(10), 423–426.
Pinillos, R.G., Appleby, M.C., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C. and Velarde, A. (2016) One Welfare—A platform for improving human and animal welfare. The Veterinary Record 179(16), 412–413.
Polat, M., Eryiğit, D., Aydoğdu, B.N., Ekşi, F. and Ekşi, H. (2022) Adapting the Guilt About Parenting Scale (GAPS) to Turkish culture: Validity and reliability study. Current Psychology 42(21), 18099–18107.
Polick, C.S., Applebaum, J.W., Hanna, C., Jackson, D., Tsaras-Schumacher, S.et al. (2021) The impact of pet care needs on medical decision-making among hospitalized patients: A cross-sectional analysis of patient experience. Journal of Patient Experience 8, 23743735211046089.
Pongrácz, P. and Szapu, J.S. (2018) The socio-cognitive relationship between cats and humans – Companion cats (Felis catus) as their owners see them. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 207, 57–66.
Radloff, L.S. (1977) The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement 1(3), 385–401.
Ramos, D., Reche-Junior, A., Fragoso, P.L., Palme, R., Yanasse, N.K.et al. (2013) Are cats (Felis catus) from multi-cat households more stressed? Evidence from assessment of fecal glucocorticoid metabolite analysis. Physiology & Behavior 122, 72–75.
Ratschen, E., Shoesmith, E., Shahab, L., Silva, K., Kale, D.et al. (2020) Human-animal relationships and interactions during the Covid-19 lockdown phase in the UK: Investigating links with mental health and loneliness. Plos One 15(9), e0239397.
Reevy, G.M. and Delgado, M.M. (2015) Are emotionally attached companion animal caregivers conscientious and neurotic? Factors That affect the human–companion animal relationship. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 18(3), 239–258.
Riemer, S., Heritier, C., Windschnurer, I., Pratsch, L., Arhant, C. and Affenzeller, N. (2021) A review on mitigating fear and aggression in dogs and cats in a veterinary setting. Animals 11(1), Article 1.
Rochlitz, I. (2004) The effects of road traffic accidents on domestic cats and their owners. Animal Welfare 13(1), 51–55.
Rochlitz, I. (2005) A review of the housing requirements of domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) kept in the home. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93(1), 97–109.
Rochlitz, I. and Yeates, J. (2018) Cats (Felis silvestris catus). In: Companion Animal Care and Welfare. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 52–80.
Rodan, I.et al. (2011) AAFP and ISFM Feline-Friendly Handling Guidelines. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 13, 364–375.
Rodriguez, K.E., Guérin, N.A., Gabriels, R.L., Serpell, J.A., Schreiner, P.J. and O’Haire, M.E. (2018) The state of assessment in human-animal interaction research. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 2018.
Rotkirch, A. and Janhunen, K. (2010) Maternal guilt. Evolutionary Psychology 8(1), 90–106.
Ruch-Gallie, R., Hellyer, P.W., Schoenfeld-Tacher, R. and Kogan, L.R. (2016) Survey of practices and perceptions regarding feline onychectomy among private practitioners. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 249(3), 291–298.
Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., Orsini, É., Laflaquière, E., Callahan, S. and Séjourné, N. (2019) Depression, anxiety, and guilt in mothers with burnout of preschool and school-aged children: Insight from a cluster analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders 259, 244–250.
Sandøe, P., Nørspang, A.P., Kondrup, S.V., Bjørnvad, C.R., Forkman, B. and Lund, T.B. (2018) Roaming companion cats as potential causes of conflict and controversy: A representative questionnaire study of the Danish public. Anthrozoös 31(4), 459–473.
Schoenleber, M., Chow, P.I. and Berenbaum, H. (2014) Self-conscious emotions in worry and generalized anxiety disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 53(3), 299–314.
Schwartz, S. (2002) Separation anxiety syndrome in cats: 136 cases (1991–2000). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 220(7), 1028–1033.
Scoresby, K.J., Strand, E.B., Ng, Z., Brown, K.C., Stilz, C.R.et al. (2021) Pet ownership and quality of life: A systematic review of the literature. Veterinary Sciences 8(12), Article 12.
Serpell, J.A. and Paul, E.S. (2011) Pets in the Family: An Evolutionary Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Shapiro, L.J. and Stewart, E.S. (2011) Pathological guilt: A persistent yet overlooked treatment factor in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry: Official Journal of the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists 23(1), 63–70.
Sharkin, B.S. and Ruff, L.A. (2011) Broken Bonds: Understanding the experience of pet relinquishment. In: Blazina, C., Boyraz, G. and Shen-Miller, D. (eds) The Psychology of the Human-Animal Bond: A Resource for Clinicians and Researchers. Springer, New York, pp. 275–287.
Sonnentag, S. and Fritz, C. (2007) The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12(3), 204–221.
Spain, B., O’Dwyer, L. and Moston, S. (2019) Pet loss: Understanding disenfranchised grief, memorial use, and posttraumatic growth. Anthrozoös 32(4), 555–568.
Stammbach, K.B. and Turner, D.C. (1999) Understanding the human–cat relationship: Human social support or attachment. Anthrozoös 12(3), 162–168.
Tan, S.M.L., Jajou, S., Stellato, A.C. and Niel, L. (2021) Perspectives of Canadian and American cat owners on provision of uncontrolled outdoor access for owned domestic cats. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8.
Tangney, J.P. (1996) Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and guilt. Behaviour Research and Therapy 34(9), 741–754.
Tilghman-Osborne, C., Cole, D.A. and Felton, J.W. (2010) Definition and measurement of guilt: Implications for clinical research and practice. Clinical Psychology Review 30(5), 536–546.
Toohey, A.M. and Rock, M.J. (2019) Disruptive solidarity or solidarity disrupted? A dialogical narrative analysis of economically vulnerable older adults’ efforts to age in place with pets. Public Health Ethics 12(1), 15–29.
Toray, T. (2004) The human-animal bond and loss: Providing support for grieving clients. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 26, 244–259.
Trigg, J. (2021) Examining the role of pets in cancer survivors’ physical and mental wellbeing. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 0(0), 1–20.
Turner, W. (2001) Our new children: The surrogate role of companion animals in women’s lives. The Qualitative Report 6(1), 1–10.
Vitale Shreve, K.R. and Udell, M.A.R. (2017) Stress, security, and scent: The influence of chemical signals on the social lives of domestic cats and implications for applied settings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 187, 69–76.
Vitale Shreve, K.R., Mehrkam, L.R. and Udell, M.A.R. (2017) Social interaction, food, scent or toys? A formal assessment of domestic pet and shelter cat (Felis silvestris catus) preferences. Behavioural Processes 141, 322–328.
Vitale, K.R. and Udell, M.A.R. (2019) The quality of being sociable: The influence of human attentional state, population, and human familiarity on domestic cat sociability. Behavioural Processes 158, 11–17.
Vitale, K.R., Behnke, A.C. and Udell, M.A.R. (2019) Attachment bonds between domestic cats and humans. Current Biology 29(18), R864–R865.
Volk, J.O., Felsted, K.E., Thomas, J.G. and Siren, C.W. (2011) Executive summary of the Bayer veterinary care usage study. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 238(10), 1275–1282.
Volman, F.E., Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2013) Recovery at home and performance at work: A diary study on self–family facilitation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22(2), 218–234.
Volsche, S. (2018) Negotiated bonds: The practice of childfree pet parenting. Anthrozoös 31(3), 367–377.
Volsche, S. (2019) Pet parents and the loss of attachment. In: Pet Loss, Grief, and Therapeutic Interventions. Routledge, Oxordshire, UK.
Wall, M., Cave, N.J. and Vallee, E. (2019) Owner and cat-related risk factors for feline overweight or obesity. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6.
Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1991) Self- versus peer ratings of specific emotional traits: Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(6), 927–940.
Watson, N.L. and Weinstein, M.L. (1993) Pet ownership in relation to depression, anxiety, and anger in working women. Anthrozoös 6(2), 135–138.
Wechsler, B. (2007) Normal behaviour as a basis for animal welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 16(2), 107–110.
Wedl, M., Bauer, B., Gracey, D., Grabmayer, C., Spielauer, E., Day, J. and Kotrschal, K. (2011) Factors influencing the temporal patterns of dyadic behaviours and interactions between domestic cats and their owners. Behavioural Processes 86(1), 58–67.
Wells, D.L., Clements, M.A., Elliott, L.J., Meehan, E.S., Montgomery, C.J. and Williams, G.A. (2022) Quality of the human–animal bond and mental wellbeing during a COVID-19 lockdown. Anthrozoös 35(6), 847–866.
Wheeler, E.A. and Faulkner, M.E. (2015) The “pet effect”: Physiological calming in the presence of canines. Society & Animals 23(5), 425–438.
Widiger, T.A. and Oltmanns, J.R. (2017) Neuroticism is a fundamental domain of personality with enormous public health implications. World Psychiatry 16(2), 144–145.
Windschnurer, I., Häusler, A., Waiblinger, S. and Coleman, G.J. (2022) Relationships between owner and household characteristics and enrichment and cat behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 247, 105562.
Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B. and Bulsara, M. (2005) The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital?Social Science & Medicine 61(6), 1159–1173.
Wright, H., Hall, S., Hames, A., Hardiman, J., Mills, R., PAWS Project Team and Mills, D. (2015) Pet dogs improve family functioning and reduce anxiety in children with autism spectrum disorder. Anthrozoös 28(4), 611–624.
Yeates, J. and Yates, D. (2017) Staying in or going out? The dilemma for cat welfare. Veterinary Record 180(8), 193–194.
Young, J., Pritchard, R., Nottle, C. and Banwell, H. (2020) Pets, touch, and COVID-19: Health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy 4(2), 25–33.
Zasloff, R.L. and Kidd, A.H. (1994) Loneliness and pet ownership among single women. Psychological Reports 75(2), 747–752.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© The Authors 2023. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
History
Issue publication date: 1 January 2023
Submitted: 28 August 2023
Accepted: 16 November 2023
Published online: 11 December 2023
Keywords:
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONSExport Citation
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login Options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.