The State of Research on Human–Animal Relations: Implications for Human Health

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, scientific evidence has accumulated showing that pet ownership can have positive effects on people's physical and mental wellbeing. This paper reviews the current state of affairs regarding the relationship between companion animals and human health, focusing on both the physical and psychological health outcomes related to human-animal interactions. Although designed to set the general scene on the link between animals and human wellbeing, research specific to older adults is highlighted where relevant. A particular emphasis is placed on disorders prevalent in modern-day society, notably cardiovascular disease and depression. The possible mechanisms by which companion animals might be able to enhance human wellbeing and quality of life are discussed, focusing on routes including, amongst others, the provision of companionship, social lubrication, and improvements to physical fitness. The role of the social bonding hormone, oxytocin, in facilitating attachment to our pets and the implications for human health is also discussed. Inconsistencies in the literature and methodological limitations are highlighted throughout. It is concluded that future human-animal interaction experiments should aim to account for the confounding variables that are inherent in studies of this nature.

Human-animal relationships and interactions during the Covid-19 lockdown phase in the UK: Investigating links with mental health and loneliness

“…Nonetheless, in our sample of ‘animal lovers’, having an animal was linked to somewhat attenuated effects of the lockdown experience on mental health and loneliness. This finding resounds with the wider literature relating to the positive effect companion animals can have on human mental health, especially in terms of feelings of loneliness, through various postulated mechanisms [ 8 , 47 ], which we believe should include social buffering. The latter may explain why changes in mental health and loneliness since lockdown were not significantly associated with strength of the human-animal bond (in animal owners), but only with animal ownership in more general terms.…”

COVID-19: Impact on United Kingdom Horse Owners

“…Across all UK regions and types of establishment, horse owners felt that the restricted access to their horses and what activities they could do with them was having a detrimental impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Despite a lack of empirical evidence regarding the positive effect of the human–animal bond on human wellbeing, there is a commonly held belief that companion animal attachment (rather than ownership) contributes to improved wellbeing [ 54 , 55 ]. Interaction with companion animals was reported to reduce feelings of loneliness and depression [ 56 , 57 ], reduce levels of stress [ 58 ], reduce anxiety [ 59 ], improve feelings of self-worth and self-esteem [ 60 ], and increase emotional and social support [ 61 , 62 ].…”

“…Interaction with companion animals was reported to reduce feelings of loneliness and depression [ 56 , 57 ], reduce levels of stress [ 58 ], reduce anxiety [ 59 ], improve feelings of self-worth and self-esteem [ 60 ], and increase emotional and social support [ 61 , 62 ]. Interactions with a familiar animal appear to potentiate the positive effects on wellbeing [ 55 ]. A close familial bond was embedded across survey responses.…”

A One Health Perspective on the Human–Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects

“…Some authors doubt the generalized pet-effect on human mental and physical health because of conflicting results that are prevalent in this area of science and the lack of publication of negative results [13,[104][105][106]. The majority of research evidence was also considered inconclusive due to methodological limitations such as reliance on self-reports, small sample sizes that may not be representative of the general population, homogeneous populations, varying research designs, narrow range of outcome variables that were examined, and the use of cross-sectional designs that do not consider long-term health outcomes [107][108][109].…”