Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human
Animal Bond, Emotional Regulation, Empathy, Stress,
Attachment Styles and Resilience in Pet owning and
non-Pet owning Families
Priya Bhatnagar 1
and *Rhisikesh Dave 2
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Aryabhatta College, University of
Delhi, Delhi, India
2
Dean, Sharda School of Law, Sharda university, Greater Noida, U.P., India
rhishikesh.dave@sharda.ac.in
Abstract. The present research investigates the psychological aspects of pet ownership by
comparing the levels of Emotional Regulation (Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, ERQ),
Empathy (Toronto Empathy Questionaire, TEQ), Perceived Stress (Cohen's Perceived Stress
Scale, PSS), and Resilience (Brief Resilience Scale, BRS) amongst pet-owning (n = 85) and
non-pet-owning (n = 85) families within the urban Indian context. The quantitative results were
analyzed using independent samples t-tests and correlation, whereas the results of the semi
structured interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. The numeric results showed that
the levels of cognitive reappraisal, empathy, and resilience were significantly higher in the pet
families than the non-pet families, whereas the results for expressive suppression and perceived
stress were only marginally non-significant. The results of the thematic analysis provided insights into the human-animal bond as a dynamic source of emotional regulation, with the participants referring to their pets as 'silent therapists' and 'unconditional companions.' The results
also showed that the attachment style of the participants played a moderating role, with the
securely attached participants showing the highest benefits of pet ownership.
Keywords: Emotional Regulation, Empathy, Perceived Stress, Resilience,
Attachment Style
1
Introduction
The interface between human well-being and companion animal relationships has
been a topic of significant academic interest in recent decades. Pets, such as canine,
feline, avian, and small mammal companions, are situated in a state 1of liminality in
© The Author(s) 2026
R. Dave et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Conceptualizing Legal Framework and
Policies for Domestic Animal and Wildlife Conservation: Issues and Challenges in Hybrid Mode (ICAR 2026),
Atlantis Highlights in Social Sciences, Education and Humanities 52,
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6239-725-5_15
170
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
family structures, acting as social companions, emotional reflections, and stress reducers [1]. The conceptual underpinnings for this relationship are supported by a
number of
converging theories.
Attachment Theory, as conceptualized by [2], was originally designed to explain
human infant attachment, yet its principles were extended by [3] and [4] to encompass
human-animal relationships, where pets are considered subsidiary attachment figures
with the capacity for eliciting proximity-seeking behaviour, especially in a state of
threat. This is not a metaphorical extension, as neurobiological evidence indicates that
oxytocin-mediated bonding, as a result of human-pet gazing, activates identical brain
structures as those activated in human dyadic attachment relationships [5]. The Social
Support Theory, as conceptualized by [6], offers a further framework for
conceptualizing companion animal relationships as perceived social resources, which
mitigate stress appraisal via perceived availability and non-judgmental responding.
The Process Model of Emotion Regulation by [7] has cognitive reappraisal and
expressive suppression as the two major modes by which emotional responses are
regulated. There are instances where pet owners often comment that their interactions
with pets spontaneously generate reappraisals of threatening or stressful situations.
For example, a neighbor's dog accidentally bumping against one's leg during a stressful phone call reappraises the emotional situation. Lazarus & Folkman's Transactional
Model of Stress & Coping further situates the appraisal effects of pet ownership by
seeing the pet as a coping resource that influences both primary & secondary appraisals [8].
Empathy, a multidimensional construct that has both affective & cognitive
dimensions [9] has also been implicated in the effects of pet ownership by seeing it as
a means by which social learning & practice generate a capacity for empathy. Seeing
& interpreting the non-verbal cues of a pet has been implicated in the development of
empathy in children & adults that generalizes to interpersonal relationships [10], a
finding that is supported by Bandura's Social Learning Theory [11].
The construct of resilience—a dynamic positive adaptation to severe adversity
[12]—has been related to relationships with companion animals. The mechanism is
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
171
perceived to be social support received from the animal, the sense of structure provided by the animal, as well as the promotion of physical activity [13]. The introduction
of the Indian context will add another layer to the complexity. The collectivist context
[14], wherein the sense of responsibility for the family is high and people are less
inclined to discuss personal experiences with others due to a sense of shame or fear of
ridicule, the animal-human relationship with its unique characteristic of a non
judgmental and non-mutual relationship could be a significant source of emotional
release for the individual. However, the research in the area is patchy. The majority of
the research is conducted on Western populations with an individualistic orientation
[15], is mostly cross-sectional with self-reported data on a single component of the
relationship in isolation. Research lends support to pet owners having a more quiescent cardiovascular response to social stress than non-owners, even when a spouse is
present [16]. The literature landscape suggests the paucity of researches exploring the
complexity of the experience of the human-animal bond from the human end in Indian context. This research will address the gaps with a convergent approach to mixed
research design with the added benefit of exploring the relationship between attachment style and the human-animal bond.
2
Statement of Problem
Urban Indian families are witnessing an increase in psychosocial challenges such as
job stress, changes in family dynamics, and a lack of community support. At the same
time, there is an increase in the number of people owning pets in urban cities by an
average of 11% per annum [17]. The underlying psychological factors for this trend
have not been extensively studied in the Indian population. Whether owning a pet
contributes to variations in emotional responses, empathy, stress, and hardiness and
the underlying qualitative factors for these differences remain a mystery.
3
Literature Trends
Research lends support to the presence of pets as emotional scaffolds. This implies
that the pet relationship is unique in its ability to buffer stress, beyond simple social
172
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
support effects. An earlier study by [18] offered some epidemiological evidence that
pet owners had increased survival after a heart attack during a one-year period,
prompting a flood of health outcome studies.
From a psychological point of view [19] proposed that pets serve as a catalyst for
social interaction, helping owners increase their social support networks indirectly.
Literature landscape included a metareview on human-animal interaction and stress,
indicating that the best evidence for reducing stress was mediated through oxytocin
levels, although this was species- and interaction-type-dependent, also depending on
individual attachment patterns [20]. The impact of pet ownership on attchmemt styles
amongst adolescents also revealed avoidant and anxious attachment styles determined
the size of the psychological benefits received.
Presence of pets has been well corelated higher degree of empathy. However,
researches also cautioned that the relationship may be the opposite: that people with
greater empathy might simply be more inclined to adopt a pet in the first place [21].
[22] emphasized the therapeutic potential of animal-assisted interventions for clinical
populations with difficulties in emotional regulation. [23] outlined the neurochemical
changes that occur during human-dog interactions, which include increases in oxytocin, prolactin, dopamine, and beta endorphins.
In the case of India, the research is still in its early stages. [24] found that urban pet
owners in India reported lower levels of loneliness. [25] found some tentative evidence that working women with pets report lower anxiety. However, these studies did
not employ a multi-construct measure or qualitative component to the research.
Therefore, it is difficult to interpret the results.
4
Research Questions
RQ1: Is there a difference in emotional regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal
and expressive suppression), empathy, perceived stress, and resilience between petowning and non-pet-owning families?
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
173
RQ2: What are the patterns and directions of the relationships between the constructs under examination for the pet-owning group compared to the non-pet-owning
group?
RQ3: How do the members of the pet-owning families spontaneously report the
presence of the animal in the context of emotional experiences? What are the thematic
characteristics of the human-animal bond?
RQ4: How does the level of attachment style differ between the members of the
pet-owning and the non-pet-owning families? How does it affect the psychological
correlates of pet ownership?
5
Objectives
The study is designed to:
1.
Examine differences in emotional regulation strategies (such as cognitive
reappraisal, expressive suppression), empathy, perceived stress levels, and
resilience between pet-owning families and non-pet-owning families,
utilizing established measures of these constructs.
2.
Examine associations between these psychological constructs within each
group of participants.
3.
Examine the qualitative aspects of the human-animal bond, or pet-owning
experiences, through semi-structured interviews.
4.
Compare attachment style between pet-owning family members and non
pet-owning family members.
5.
Integrate the above findings into a cohesive framework of understanding the
role of pets as emotional scaffolding agents
6
Hypotheses
H1: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in cognitive
reappraisal and expressive suppression compared to non-pet-owning family members.
H2: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in empathy
compared to non-pet-owning family members.
174
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
H3: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in perceived stress
compared to non-pet-owning family members.
H4: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in resilience
compared to non-pet-owning family members.
H5: Secure attachment style will be more in pet-owning family members compared
to non-pet-owning family members.
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
7
175
Method
7.1. Research Design
A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used [26] whereby both quantitative
and qualitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation occur simultaneously. This
method allows for the extension of the quantitative results by the addition of
qualitative data.
7.2. Participants
A total of 170 adult family members (primary decision-makers/caregivers aged 22 to
55 years) were selected from the urban areas of Ghaziabad and Delhi NCR, India.
Purposive sampling along with snowball sampling was used to recruit the
participants. Group 1 (Pet Owners): N = 85, families having domestic, companion
animal for a period of at least six months. All kinds of pet were included in the study.
Group 2
(Non-Pet Owners): N = 85, families without a history of pet
ownership. The criteria to exclude the participants were a current psychiatric
diagnosis, the use of psychotropic drugs, and ongoing psychotherapy. For the
qualitative study, a purposive sample of 10 pet-owning families were selected on the
basis of maximum variation among the families on the types of families, types of pets,
and socioeconomic status.
7.3.
Instruments
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) [27]: A 10-item instrument measuring
cognitive reappraisal (6 items; e.g., "When I want to feel less negative emotion, I
change what I'm thinking about") and expressive suppression (4 items). Participants
rate each item on a 7-point Likert scale. Cronbach's α for the reappraisal and
suppression scales was .79 and .73, respectively.
Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) [28]: A 16-item unidimensional instrument
measuring social-cognitive empathy. Individuals with higher TEQ scores are more
empathic. Cronbach's α was .81 in the present study.
176
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) [29]: A 10-item global perceived stress
scale measuring perceived stress over the last month. Individuals with higher PSS-10
scores indicate greater perceived stress. Cronbach's α was .82 in the present study.
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) [30]: A 6-item instrument measuring the capacity for
bouncing back from stressful events. Individuals with higher BRS scores indicate
greater capacity for resilience. Cronbach's α was .78 in the present study.
Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR-R) [31]: A 36-item instrument
measuring anxiety and avoidance dimensions of adult attachment styles. This
instrument was used for attachment style classification (secure, anxious, avoidant,
disorganized) for the qualitative study.
Interview Schedule: A 28-item interview schedule was constructed to explore the
experiences of human animal interaction amongst pet-owning families. The items
were structured domains of human animal bond, empathy, emotional regulation,
resilience and stress amongst pet owning family members.
7.4.
Procedure
After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval and informed consent,
participants completed the battery of self-report measures in a quiet setting.
Qualitative interviews lasted between 45–60 minutes and were semi-structured. They
were conducted in Hindi or English, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim.
Bilingual transcription was used for authenticity. The interview guide asked
participants for a description of their pet interactions, emotional impact, and relational
dynamics.
7.5.
Statistical Analysis
The analysis of the quantitative data was done using SPSS v.26. Independent sample
t-tests were used for comparing means. Pearson correlation matrices were computed
for pet-owning and non-pet-owning groups separately. The effect size was computed
using Cohen's d for all statistical tests. The alpha level was set at .05 (two-tailed).
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
7.6.
177
Qualitative Analysis
The interview transcripts were subjected to Reflexive Thematic Analysis, which is a
six-step process: familiarization, initial coding, generation of themes, review of
themes, defining and naming themes, and write-up. The bilingual data was left in its
original form and transcribed for thematic analysis.
8. Results and Analysis
8.1.
Quantitative Findings
Table 1. Demographic description of pet Breeds/ Species wise distribution
Pet type
n
%
Dog
38
44.7%
Labrador, Beagle, Spitz, Indian Pariah
Golden Retriever
Breeds/species
Cat
22
25.9%
Domestic shorthair, Persian, Stray-adopted
Bird
12
14.1%
Budgerigar, Cockatiel, Lovebird, Parrot
Small mammal / fish
8
9.4%
Rabbit, Guinea pig, Goldfish, Hamster
Multiple species
5
5.9%
Dog + cat (3); Dog + bird (2)
Table 1 shows the aspects on demographic description of pet breeds (Source- self
created by author)
178
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
Table 2. Demographic description of various pet wise distribution
Duration of ownership
1 – 3 years
n
%
Most common pet type in
bracket
2
28.2
%
Dog (12), Cat (8), Bird (4)
2
31.8
%
Dog (14), Cat (7), Small mammal (4),
Bird (2)
1
17.6
%
Dog (8), Cat (5), Multiple species (2)
8
9.5%
Dog (5), Multiple species (2), Bird (1)
4
3 – 5 years
7
5 – 8 years
5
More than 8 years
Table 2 shows the aspects on demographic description of various pet (Sourceself created by author)
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics by Group
Variable
Pet-owners M(S.D.)
Non-Pet owners M(S.D.)
Cognitive Reappraisal
4.92 (0.88)
4.31 (0.95)
Expressive Suppression
3.44 (0.91)
3.61 (0.87)
Empathy (TEQ)
51.3 (7.2)
46.8 (8.1)
Perceived Stress (PSS)
17.6 (5.4)
19.1 (5.8)
Resilience (BRS)
3.71 (0.64)
3.38 (0.72)
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics by group (Source- self created by author)
Table 4. Independent Samples t-Test Results
Variable
Cognitive
Reappraisal
Expressive
Suppression
Empathy
(TEQ)
Perceived
Stress (PSS)
Resilience
(BRS)
T
3.41
N
168
p
.001**
Cohen's d
0.67
1.03
168
.305 (ns)
0.19
2.98
168
.003**
0.59
1.54
168
.126 (ns)
0.27
2.67
168
.008**
0.48
Significance
Significant
Nonsignificant
Significant
Nonsignificant
Significant
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
179
Note:. **p < .01 (two-tailed). ns = non-significant
Table 4 shows the independent samples t-Test Results (Source- self created by
author)
Table 5. Attachment Style Distribution by Group (ECR-R Classification)
Attachment Style
Pet Owners (%)
Non-Pet Owners (%)
Secure
62.4
48.2
Anxious
16.5
27.1
Avoidant
14.1
18.8
Disorganised
7.0
5.9
Table 5 shows the attachment style distribution by group (Source- self created
by author)
Table 6. Correlation Matrix — Pet-Owning Families
Variable
1
Cognitive
appraisal
—
2
3
4
Expressive suppression
−.18*
—
Empathy
.36**
−.12 (ns)
—
Percieved
stress
−.29**
.21*
−.24*
—
Resilience
.41**
−.19*
.31**
−.44**
5
—
Note: **p < .01; *p < .05; ns = non-significant.
Table 6 shows the Correlation Matrix (Source- Self created by author)
Table 7. Correlation Matrix — Non-Pet-Owning Families
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
180
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
Cognitive
appraisal
—
Expressive
supression
−.09 (ns)
—
Empathy
.19*
−.07 (ns)
—
Percieved
stress
−.14 (ns)
.17*
−.16 (ns)
—
Resilience
.22*
−.11 (ns)
.20*
−.38**
—
Note: **p < .01; *p < .05; ns = non-significant.
Table 7 shows the Correlation Matrix — Non-Pet-Owning Families (Source- Self
created by author)
8.2.
Qualitative Findings
8.3.
Table 8. Qualitative Findings of Correlation Matrix — Non-Pet-Owning
Families
#
THEME 1 —
PET
AS
EMOTIONAL
ANCHOR
1a
Theme
Pet as
Emotional
Anchor
1b
THEME 2 —
PET
AS
REGULATORY
RESOURCE
2a
Pet as
Regulatory
Resource
Subtheme
Core focus
Non-verbal
attunement
Animals
sense
distress before verbal
expression; owners
experience being
"read" without words
Unconditional positive
regard
Acceptance felt
as non-judgmental;
no emotional performance
required
from the owner
Distraction
&
attentional
redirection
Interaction interrupts
rumination;
attention is redirected to the present
moment (functional
mindfulness)
Illustrative
bilingual excerpt
"Jab main bahut
stressed hoti hoon,
woh bina kuch kahe
mere paas aa ke
baithh jaata hai.
Jaise usse pata ho."
— Meera, 38, dog
owner
"Usse nahi pata
main kitna kamata
hoon, kaisa dikhta
hoon.
Woh
bas
mujhe chahta hai."—
Rajan, 44, Labrador
owner
"Office ke baad
agar bahut gussa
hota hai, toh use
khilaata hoon. Woh
sab bhulaata hai."
— Sanjay, 41, cat
owner
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
2b
Routine &
structure
as
resilience scaffolding
Daily care obligations provide purpose, agency, and
structure — especially during low-mood
periods
181
"Uski wajah se
subah uthna padta
hai. Kabhi kabhi
yahi ek kaam hota
hai jo
mujhe bed
se
uthata
hai."
— Priya, 33, dog
owner
THEME 3 —
PET AS SOCIAL
BRIDGE
3a
Pet
Social
Bridge
as
3b
Facilitation
of family cohesion
Pet becomes a
shared positive focal
point,
reducing
interpersonal tension
within the family
system
Empathy development
through caretaking
Interpreting animal cues builds
perspective-taking
capacity, especially
in children; generalises to human relationships
Compensatory substitution
Anxiously
attached owners may
substitute pet relationships for human
ones,
reinforcing
rather than remediating insecurity
"Ghar mein agar
koi tension ho, toh
woh aata hai aur
hum dono uske saath
khel ne lagte hain...
aur jo bhi tha woh
thoda theek ho jaata
hai."
— Anita, 36, Spitz
owner
"Bete ko pehle
samajh nahi aata tha
ki doosron ko kya lag
raha hai. Tommy ke
baad woh poochhta
hai — 'Mumma,
Tommy dard mein
hai
kya?'"
— Kavita, 40, Beagle
owner
ATTACHMEN
T
STYLE
&
RELATIONAL
RISK
Anxious
overreliance on
pet
8.4.
"Pehle log nahi
samjhte the. Ab toh
main sirf usse hi baat
karta
hoon."
— Rohit, 29, anxiously attached dog
owner
Table 8 shows the Qualitative Findings of Correlation Matrix — Non-PetOwning Families (Source- Self created by author)
182
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
9. Discussion
The human animal bond has been observed to be one of the most precious ties
contributing to the evolvement of human and animal species. The research aimed to
explore the differences in pet owning on non- pet owning families on variables of
empathy, resilience, emotional regulation, stress and attachment style. Data from 85
pet owning and non- pet owning families was quantitatively analyzed. 10 pet owning
families were interviewed on dimensions of human animal bond and qualitatively
analyzed.
H1: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in cognitive
reappraisal compared to non-pet-owning family members. Cognitive reappraisal as a
dimension of emotional regulation entails with reinterpreting of the antecedents causing emotional distress. The results of the present research depicted a significant difference between pet owning and non-pet owning families (t = 3.41, p < .001, d =
0.67).
Pet-owning family members scored significantly higher on cognitive
reappraisal, hence confirming the hypotheses. This result is consistent with the assertion that ―pets are attachment resources that enhance regulatory flexibility‖ [32]. In
the case of the
pet-owning group, the relationship between cognitive reappraisal
and resilience is
moderately positive (r = .41, p < .01), whereas the relationship
between cognitive
reappraisal and perceived stress is moderately negative (r =
- .29, p < .01), implying that reappraisal acts as a mediator in the relationship between
pet ownership and
well-being. In the case of the non-pet-owning group, the rela-
tionship between cognitive reappraisal and resilience is lower (r = .22), whereas the
relationship between cognitive reappraisal and perceived stress is negative but does
not reach the level of significance (r = - .14), implying that the relationship between
reappraisal and well-being is less robust without the catalysing effect of the interaction with the animal. The qualitative results shed further light on the mechanism: ―In
order to understand the animal's
non-verbal communication, to decide whether
the animal is hungry, in pain, or wants attention from the human, the reappraisal ability is practiced as the cognitive
gaged in a low-stakes context.‖ This is
interpretive mechanism is habitually enconsistent with the assertion of [33],
who claimed that ―reappraisal is a skill that is facilitated by the repeated activation of
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
183
the reappraisal mechanism.‖ The correlation matrix supports the notion that reappraisal is a mechanism that is catalysed by the
interaction with the animal.
H2: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in empathy
compared to non-pet-owning family members. The ability of the human to resonate
with pain of others tends to be their unique characteristic. Presence of pets in families
could enhance this ability since it requires understanding the needs of the pet in their
silence.
Substantial empathic advantage reflecting in their care, nurturance and
presence generalises for pet owners. The results of the present research established a
difference between the pet owning and non pet owning families on the variable of
empathy (t = 2.98, p < .01, d = 0.59) Interestingly, the TEQ reappraisal correlation is
stronger for pet-owning families (r = .36, p < .01) compared to non-pet-owning families (r = .19, p < .05). This suggests that empathic sensitivity and regulation are more
functionally related in the context of animal relationships, which would be consistent
with the idea that understanding an animal's state requires both cognitive (interpretive) and affective (resonant) processing to occur simultaneously. The qualitative data
also helps to understand the developmental pathway to empathic abilities by showing
that all participants talked about the relationship with their pet requiring an ongoing
practice of perspective-taking towards a non-verbal other. This is consistent with
conceptualisation of empathic abilities as being trainable via interpersonal experience
and evolvement in children's empathic abilities as specifically emerging via their
pet-care responsibilities [34].
H3: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in perceived
stress compared to non-pet-owning family members. Stress has become a common
denominator amongst all age groups. Management of stress has occupied an imperative place in physical and psychological contexts. In the present research, presence of
pet ownership depicting a difference among families was examined. Contrary to the
hypothesis, the groups did not significantly differ on the measure of perceived stress
(t = −1.54, p = .126, d = 0.27). This non-significant finding needs to be interpreted
rather than dismissed. Cohen's d = 0.27 is a small effect size in the expected direction.
This might suggest the study might have been underpowered to detect a real though
small effect or that the global measure of perceived stress might not be as modifiable
184
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
by pet ownership as the more state-like stress reactivity. Qualitatively, the participants
do
report the pets to be stress-moderating on an episodic basis. However, some
participants do comment on the inability of the pets to buffer against the more global
stressors such as financial pressures, job demands, or relationship issues. This distinction between episodic stress reactivity and global stress appraisal might explain the
non-significant group difference on the measure of perceived stress. The correlation
between the PSS and the BRS is similarly high in both groups (pet owners r = −.44, p
< .01; non-pet owners r = −.38, p < .01). This suggests that the dynamics of stress
resilience are
universal processes not dependent on pet ownership. The origi-
nality of the current study lies in its challenge to the popular assumption that pets are
generally beneficial to an individual under stress.
H4: Pet-owning family members will show a significant difference in resilience
compared to non-pet-owning family members. Pet owners scored significantly higher
on the measure of resiliency. The findings suggested a significant difference between
pet owning and non pet owning families on measure of resilience (t = 2.67, p < .01, d
= 0.48), hence confirming the stated hypothesis. The difference could be attributed to
the emotion physical and social support provided by the pets in times of acute crises.
The emotional safety could act as a guard and help the members bounce back better
from the difficult times. The calmness of the pets also acts as contagion, giving much
power and strength to the owners. The relationship between BRS reappraisal is
stronger for the pet owners (r = .41) compared to the non-pet owners (r = .22), implying that for these families, resiliency and reappraisal may be functionally related constructs. The qualitative data shed further light on these results. The theme of routine
and structure as a scaffolding effect on resiliency (Subtheme 2b) offers a microprocess explanation that extends the definition of resiliency as a positive adaptation in
the face of adversity. The experience of caring for a pet seemed to provide a sense of
purpose that is
emotionally rewarding, that must be done on a daily basis, and
that allows for a sense of mastery—all factors that are known to contribute to resiliency.
H5: Secure attachment style will be more in pet-owning family members compared
to non-pet-owning family members. The ECR-R results showed that pet-owning fami-
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
185
ly members had a higher rate of secure attachment (62.4%) compared to non-petowning families (48.2%). Conversely, anxious attachment was found to be higher
among
non-pet-owning families (27.1%) than pet-owning families (16.5%).
Among pet
owning families, those who had secure attachment had the highest
benefits for all four aspects. Conversely, those who had an avoidant attachment had
lower benefits for all aspects, especially for empathy. The qualitative results also
showed that while securely attached pet owners viewed their pet as an additional
source of social support, those who had an anxious attachment sometimes saw an
over-reliance relationship with their pet. One of the respondents reported, "Pehle log
nahi samjhte the. Ab toh main sirf usse hi baat karta hoon." The results indicate that
the percentage of securely attached people is greater for the pet owners compared to
the non-pet owners. Securely attached people were more likely to be involved with
their pets forming a bidirectional effect: people with a secure attachment style may be
more likely to form a committed relationship with a pet. At the same time, the relationship with a pet may contribute to the
development of a secure attach-
ment style [34]. The qualitative results revealed that the risk of anxious over-reliance
on the relationship with the pet is a potential drawback (Rohit's case), with an anxious
attachment style may replace human relationships with a relationship with a pet.
Human-Animal Bond The qualitative analysis of pet owning famiies on exploring
human animal bond and pets acting as major scaffolds enriched the findings. Members of the pet-owning group uniformly spoke of their pets as active participants, not
passive members, of family emotional life. The bond between human and animal was
found to exist along three related dimensions: emotional attunement, unconditional
positive
regard, and bodily comfort. The participants' descriptions of the animal
bond were
similar to descriptions of human attachment bonds, with a special
emphasis on the
unconditionally non-demanding nature of the animal bond. Pet
as Emotional Anchor emerged as n imperative theme. Nonverbal attunement and
unconditional positive
regard depicted by the pet were important subthemes. An-
imals were seen as having a special awareness of the participants' emotional states,
responding to distress before the participants were able to articulate their feelings.
―Jab main bahut stressed hoti hoon, woh bina kuch kahe mere paas aa ke baithh jaata
186
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
hai. Jaise usse pata ho.‖ Contrasting with human relationships, which are often conditional, the participants saw their pets as unconditionally positive, without requiring
any emotional display from them. For instance ―Usse nahi pata main kitna kamata
hoon, kaisa dikhta hoon. Woh bas mujhe chahta hai.‖ The emotional safety provided
by the pets was considered as an important catalyst of human animal bond.
The second theme that emerged from the thematic analysis was finding Pet as
Regulatory Resource.
Distraction and redirection of attention and Routine and
Structure as Resilience Scaffolding were two sub themes that emerged. The participants reported how the interaction with the pets broke the cycle of rumination, directing their minds to the present, a mechanism similar to mindfulness-based regulation
of attention.
One of the participants reported ―Office ke baad agar bahut gussa hota hai, toh use
khilaata hoon. Woh sab bhulaata hai.‖ The responsibility of caring for a pet, such as
feeding, walking, grooming, etc., provided a sense of daily routine that helped
participants stay positive during difficult times. "Uski wajah se subah uthna padta hai.
Kabhi kabhi yahi ek kaam hota hai jo mujhe bed se uthata hai." Where it seemed to be
a atsk at times but in ways it seemed to add meaning and routine to the life of
participants also.
Third dominant theme that emerged from the data was Pet as Social Bridge with
Facilitation of Family Cohesion and Development of Empathy through Caregiving as
two subthemes. There were instances where the participants talked about how the pet
helped create a sense of unity within the family. For instance, one of the spitz owners
reported that ―Ghar mein agar koi tension ho, toh woh aata hai aur hum dono uske
saath khel ne lagte hain... aur jo bhi tha woh thoda theek ho jaata hai." There were
instances where the participants talked about how the experience of caring for a pet
helped them become more empathetic human beings, like Beagle owner reported
"Bete ko pehle samajh nahi aata tha ki doosron ko kya lag raha hai. Tommy ke baad
woh poochhta hai — 'Mumma, Tommy dard mein hai kya?'"
Collectively, the quantitative and qualitative results suggest a consistent and
coherent picture: companion animals serve as dynamic emotional scaffolding in the
family system, consistently enhancing cognitive reappraisal, empathy, and hardness,
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
187
while their effect on global perceived stress is ephemeral. The correlation matrices
indicate that these benefits are not isolated: in pet-owning families, all regulative
capacities cohere in a network of mutual support, a phenomenon not found in non
pet-owning families. The qualitative results shed light on the processes underlying the
quantitative findings: daily non-verbal attunement in reappraisal, caretaking in
hardness, and unconditional acceptance in the low emotional price of self-disclosure.
Attachment style is the critical moderator: secure pet owners reap the full benefits of
these relational resources, while anxious pet owners risk substitution for
supplementation. The pet relationship is not a panacea or a trivial lifestyle choice; it is
a psychologically active and attachment-mediated relationship that deserves clinical
and scientific attention.
10. Discussion Scope and Limitation
10.1. Scope
The study adds to the emerging discipline of anthrozoology by conducting a culturally
contextualized, multi-construct, mixed-methods study of the psychological correlates
of pet ownership in urban India. The bilingual qualitative study adds to the
methodological inclusivity of the study while maintaining cultural authenticity.
10.2. Limitations
The study is subject to certain limitations. The cross-sectional study design does not
enable causal inference. Longitudinal study designs are needed to ascertain causality.
The study is also subject to sampling biases. The study relied on social networks to
recruit participants. The study is also subject to self-selection confounds. Participants
who have an existing capacity for reappraisal, empathy, or resilience may be more
prone to pet ownership. The study was based entirely on North Indian samples. The
study does not enable generalizability to rural or Southern Indian populations. The
qualitative study had a small sample size (N = 10). The study was based entirely on
Hindus. Diversification of religious groups is needed for future studies. Species
differences were not examined. Previous studies have found that dog ownership is
associated with stronger benefits compared to cat or small animal ownership. The
study had an insufficient sample size to enable species differences to be examined.
188
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
11. Conclusion
This research contributes to the body of knowledge with both quantitative and
qualitative results supporting the relationship between companion animal ownership
and better emotional regulation (cognitive reappraisal), higher empathy, and more
resilience for urban Indian families. Although perceived stress was not significant, its
small effect was in the expected direction, highlighting the distinction between episodic stress buffering and chronic stress reduction. The human-animal bond is facilitated through a variety of qualitative factors, including non-verbal attunement, unconditional acceptance, regulatory redirection, caretaking-induced routine, and family
cohesion, which together create a rich ecosystem for human well-being. The attachment style was found to be a relevant factor, with secure attachment style enhancing
the benefits of companion animal ownership, whereas anxious attachment style increases the risk of over-reliance on the human-animal bond. This research has implications for family therapists, mental health professionals, and policymakers concerned
with the inclusion of animal-assisted interventions as part of the mental health care
system in India.
References
[1] Beck, A. M., & Katcher, A. H. (1996). Between pets and people: The importance of animal companionship (Rev. ed.). Purdue University Press
[2] Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
[3] Kurdek, L. A. (2008). Pet dogs as attachment figures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
25(2), 247–266.
[4] Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). An attachment perspective on human-pet
relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in
Personality, 45(4), 345–357.
[5] Nagasawa, M., Mitsui, S., En, S., Ohtani, N., Ohta, M., Sakuma, Y., Onaka, T., Mogi, K., &
Kikusui, T. (2015). Oxytocin-gaze positive feedback loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds.
Science, 348(6232), 333–336.
[6] Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
[7] Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.
[8] Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
[9] Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
Pets as Emotional Scaffolds: Contrasting Human Animal Bond, …
[10]
189
Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2006). An investigation of human–animal interactions and empathy
as related to pet preference, ownership, attachment, and attitudes in children. Anthrozoös, 19(2), 113–
127.
[11]
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice
Hall.
[12]
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evalua-
tion and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562.
[13]
Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and psychophys-
iological effects of human-animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Frontiers in Psychology,
3, 234.
[14]
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.
[15]
Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S. A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support, and one-year survival af-
ter acute myocardial infarction in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST). The American
Journal of Cardiology, 76(17), 1213–1217.
[16]
Allen, K., Shykoff, B. E., & Izzo, J. L. (2002). Pet ownership, but not ACE inhibitor therapy,
blunts home blood pressure responses to mental stress. Hypertension, 38(4), 815–820.
[17]
Euromonitor International. (2022). Pet care in India: Market trends and future outlook. Eu-
romonitor International.
[18]
Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Lynch, J. J., & Thomas, S. A. (1980). Animal companions and
one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95(4),
307–312.
[19]
McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2001). Animals as social supports: Insights for understanding
animal-assisted therapy. In A. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy (pp. 49–71). Academic Press.
[20]
Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and psychophys-
iological effects of human-animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Frontiers in Psychology,
3, 234 (pg 3).
[21]
Marsa-Sambola, F., Williams, J., Stafford, K., & Carr, S. (2016). The LAPS–Adolescents short
questionnaire (LAPS–ASQ): Exploring the meaning of companion-animal ownership among teenagers in Great Britain and Spain. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin, 4(1), 1–23.
[22]
Bryant, B. K. (1990). The richness of the child-pet relationship: A consideration of both benefits
and costs of pets to children. Anthrozoös, 3(4), 253–261.
[23]
Strand, E. B. (2004). Interparental conflict and youth maladjustment: The buffering effects of
sibling relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(3), 367–380.
[24]
Odendaal, J. S. J. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy — magic or medicine? Journal of Psychoso-
matic Research, 49(4), 275–280.
190
[25]
P. Bhatnagar and R. Dave
Singh, A., & Srivastava, S. (2019). Pet ownership and loneliness among urban Indian adults: A
cross-sectional study. Journal of Indian Psychology, 37(2), 89–97.
[26]
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(3rd ed.). SAGE.
[27]
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85(2), 348–362.
[28]
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Ques-
tionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy
measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62–71.
[29]
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Jour-
nal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396.
[30]
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The
Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.
[31]
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-
report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365.
[32]
Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). An attachment perspective on human-
pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(4), 345–357 (pg 10).
[33]
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimen-
sional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126 pg 10.
[34] Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits any noncommercial 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 license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's
Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.
