The human-animal bond literature is extensive. We now know that in addition to the long recognised companionship, caring, sharing and security aspects, pet ownership can have a very positive health effect. The following discussion highlights only some of the studies that have been conducted relying where possible on the most recent Australian work.
The health benefits of pet ownership are increasingly being recognised. There is something soothing about stroking and petting an animal. They are uncomplaining, unvengeful and unjudging in their relationship with their owner and are now suggested as a drug free way of coping with stress. Dogs also encourage owners to exercise. McHarg et al. found that dog owners are more physically active than the rest of the population (1995, 19).
Proof of the therapeutic benefit of pets becomes stronger every day as more studies and case histories become available. The seminal work by Dr. Warwick Anderson of the Baker Medical Institute in Melbourne showed that pet owners had significantly lower risk factors for cardiovascular disease than non-owners. Some 5,741 people participated in the study that revealed a beneficial effect of pet ownership on several of the classical factors for coronary heart disease. Heart related diseases are the biggest cause of death among adults in Australia (Anderson with Reid and Jennings 1992). Dog owners in the McHarg et al. survey also reported better physical and mental health than non dog-owners. They go to the doctor less often. Fewer take medication for high blood pressure, sleeping difficulties, high cholesterol or a heart problem. They also report greater satisfaction with their physical fitness (McHarg et al. 1995, 19).
In Melbourne, the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society (JACOPIS) documented the introduction of a 'pet in residence' at Caulfield hospital. A former guide dog named 'Honey' was introduced into two long-term care wards which accommodated 60 frail and elderly patients. The Study showed that Honey's presence in these wards had a positive effect on a large number of patients in terms of their emotional well-being (Salmon and Salmon 1983).
Pets also help to foster family cohesion. McCallum Research Pty Ltd et al. considered this question in light of the greater complexity of family relationships arising from divorce, the blending of families, the pressures on working mothers or conversely of unemployment. They argue that these pressures add enormously to the difficulties and complexities of modern day life and conclude that "the undemanding simplicity of the love offered or required by a pet can be a welcome contrast to this." (McCallum Research et al. 1992, p. 8)
Pets can act as emotional substitutes for spouses, romantic partners and children. Albert and Bulcroft's 1986 survey of 436 people in the Rhode Island metropolitan area (USA) is just one study that supports this popular view. They found that the people who felt closer to their pets tended to be those without a present spouse or romantic partner, who have no children or have no children present in the home. They found that widows, single people and empty nesters are more likely to emphasise the companionship qualities of pets. In the McHarg et al. survey, 79% of pet owners find it comforting to be with their pet when things go wrong and 91% feel very close to their pet. The McHarg et al. survey also revealed that 58% of pet owners said they got to know people and made friends through having pets, while 62% said that having a pet around when people visit makes it easier to get into conversation and create a friendly atmosphere.
Pets are often obtained to help children learn responsibility and how
to share. They show that if affection is given it will be returned. McCallum
Research Pty Ltd et al. confirmed the significance of the teaching role
when they concluded:
"Some parents feel they would be failing in their responsibilities
as parents if they 'deprived' their children of pets and that what they
learn from pets makes them better human beings."
(McCallum Research et al. 1992, p. 16)