In a study of Swiss adults, women and people who spent more time with a pet or another animal they might feel close to reported feeling more attached to the animal and receiving more socio-emotional support from it. However, the study found little evidence for links between pet ownership and participants’ overall wellbeing. Rahel Marti of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues present these findings in the open access journal PLOS One on July 29, 2026.

Despite the widespread assumption that pet ownership benefits owners’ health, research on this possibility is inconclusive. Prior evidence suggests that links between health and pet ownership may involve interactions between many factors, such as animal species, owners’ sociodemographic characteristics, and particulars of the human-animal relationship.

However, few studies have examined all of these factors at once. To address that gap, Marti and colleagues analyzed survey data from 2,328 Swiss adults. They investigated whether factors such as pet ownership, regular animal contact, and attachment to an animal were statistically linked to aspects of wellbeing, such as physical health, social support, and loneliness. They also examined links between participants’ demographic characteristics and their relationships with animals.

The analysis revealed some demographic links; for instance, women, participants who spent more time with an animal, and those interacting with dogs tended to feel more attached to the animal and more socio-emotionally supported by it.

The researchers found no overarching association between participants’ health and pet ownership or regular animal contact. However, some links emerged. For instance, pet owners tended to report being less healthy and smoking cigarettes slightly more often than non-owners. Participants who felt more supported by an animal reported lower psychological wellbeing and more loneliness. Participants who spent more time with an animal reported higher psychological wellbeing and more frequent smoking.

This study does not confirm any cause-effect relationship. For example, the authors note that while it is possible pet ownership leads to worse health, it is also possible that unhealthier Swiss are more likely to obtain pets.

As this is a cross-sectional survey conducted in only one country, future research could address some of this study’s limitations, such as by including objective data and participants from other countries.

The authors add: “Our findings suggest that simply owning a pet is not associated with better health or well-being. Instead, we found that the relationship people have with their animals is much more nuanced than a simple yes-or-no question of pet ownership. Two people may both own a dog, but their relationships with that dog can be very different. Our findings suggest that understanding these differences may be more informative than simply comparing pet owners with non-pet owners.”

“Rather than asking whether someone owns a pet, future research should consider how people interact with their animals and what role the animal plays in their lives. What appeared to matter in some cases was not pet ownership itself, but whether people experienced their animal as a source of socio-emotional support and how much time they spent together.”

“The inconsistent findings reported in previous studies may partly reflect the fact that pet ownership is often treated as a simple yes-or-no variable. Our results suggest that pet ownership is a multidimensional construct that includes characteristics of the owner, the animal, and their relationship.”

In your coverage, please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in PLOS One:

Citation: Marti R, Hediger K, Pauli E, Hattendorf J (2026) Factors of pet ownership associated with human health: A representative cross-sectional survey of Switzerland. PLoS One 21(7): e0352778.

Author countries: Switzerland, Netherlands.

Funding: This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under an Eccellenza Professorial Fellowship grant (Nr. PCEFP1_194591 / 1) to KH and by FORS (www.forscenter.ch), the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences, which conducted the MOSAiCH survey (Measurement and Observation of Social Attitudes in Switzerland [CH]). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

The study’s premise was to investigate whether interacting with pets actively reduces stress or if their emotional benefits stem from different mechanisms. Utilizing a sophisticated, real-time data collection method, the researchers prompted participants — both dog and cat owners — to report their feelings and interactions with their pets multiple times daily over a span of five days. This innovative approach generated nearly 8,000 moment-to-moment data points, providing an unprecedentedly granular dataset that captures how daily interactions with pets influence emotional states in naturalistic settings rather than artificial laboratory constraints.

Contrary to the popular belief that pets primarily function as buffers against stress, the results surprisingly revealed no significant evidence supporting this theory. Interaction with a pet did not appear to mitigate the immediate negative emotional impact of stressful moments. Instead, the beneficial emotional effects noted were consistent across all participants regardless of whether they were actively engaging with their pets during these periods of distress. According to Dr. Mayke Janssens, an assistant professor of psychology and the study’s corresponding author, the presence or interaction with cats or dogs during stress did not function as a protective buffer against negative emotions.

Intriguingly, a species-specific effect emerged when observing interactions under stress. Cat owners who engaged more intensively with their felines during stressful episodes actually experienced heightened negative emotions. This counterintuitive finding suggests that interaction with cats in such contexts might not only fail to alleviate stress but could exacerbate emotional difficulties. The researchers speculate that the typically more passive and low-demand nature of cat interactions might not align well with the need for active emotional support during stress, leading to potentially more complex emotional responses.

In contrast, dog owners did not report an intensification of negative emotions when interacting with their pets in stressful contexts, although interaction did not prove to be effective in reducing stress-related mood disturbances either. This nuanced distinction highlights an important element in the human-pet relationship: while dogs may provide a steadier emotional presence, the immediate mood-lifting effects under acute stress are limited. Such findings challenge popular cultural narratives attributing near-magical stress-relief powers to dogs during moments of high emotional strain.

A key revelation from the study is the underlying emotional benefit that both cats and dogs provide, which is independent of stress relief. Interaction with pets correlated strongly with increased positive emotions and decreased negative feelings overall, suggesting that companionship itself fosters emotional well-being. The research posits that the emotional uplift is more likely linked to a sense of connection and reduced feelings of loneliness that pet ownership and interaction promote, rather than a direct counteraction of stress responses.

The researchers also observed that owner identification with their pet species — dog people versus cat people — might influence the emotional benefits derived from these interactions. This “owner-pet match” hypothesis suggests that personal affinity and psychological congruence between owners and their animal companions play key roles in shaping the emotional outcomes of their interactions. These findings invite further exploration into the intricate interplay of personality traits, pet preferences, and emotional health benefits.

Methodologically, the use of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) techniques enabled the research team to capture real-world emotional states with temporal precision. Delivering multiple app-based prompts to participants daily allowed for the collection of contemporaneous emotional and interaction reports, minimizing recall bias typical of retrospective surveys. This approach marks a significant advance in studying human-animal relationships by anchoring emotional data to exact interaction events, thus fostering a more accurate mapping of cause and effect.

Given these rich results, the study underscores a crucial need to look beyond the traditional stress-buffering framework to understand the mechanisms through which pets contribute to human emotional health. The authors stress that other psychological and social factors—such as companionship, routine, and unconditional acceptance—may underpin the emotional benefits, emphasizing the complexity of human-animal bonds. Future research should critically examine these alternate pathways, incorporating variables like owner personality, attachment styles, and contextual factors of interaction.

Despite the striking insights, the authors advise caution in interpreting the data, particularly concerning cats, due to smaller sample sizes and inconsistent statistical significance across some analyses. The emotional dynamics of cat ownership appear more intricate and less predictable, prompting calls for larger-scale and longitudinal studies. Similarly, the extent to which variations in individual pet behavior and owner anxiety levels affect outcomes remains an open question.

Ultimately, the research confirms that neither dogs nor cats can be unequivocally declared as “better” pets in terms of emotional support, but instead highlights the importance of owner-pet compatibility and mutual identification. The parallel emotional benefits seen across species reinforce the idea that pets serve as facilitators of positive emotional experiences largely through companionship rather than through stress alleviation alone. This nuanced understanding has potential implications for therapeutic animal-assisted interventions and pet adoption guidance.

In a world where stress-related mental health challenges continue to rise, these findings recalibrate expectations of the psychological impacts of pet ownership. They encourage a reframing of pets as sources of consistent emotional connection and joy, rather than quick fixes for stress. As Dr. Sanne Peeters remarks, the emotional rewards of interacting with cats and dogs derive chiefly from the relationship’s quality, underscoring the broader human need for meaningful social bonds, whether with a four-legged friend or a fellow human.

This pioneering exploration into the emotional landscapes of human-animal interaction sets a strong foundation for future interdisciplinary investigations at the intersection of psychology, ethology, and human health. It invites technologists, mental health professionals, and animal welfare advocates to ponder the multifaceted roles that pets play in our emotional lives, enriching the discourse on well-being with data-driven insight and a fresh perspective on companionship’s true power.

Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Human-animal interaction: understanding the role of dog and cat interactions in emotional well-being
News Publication Date: 16-Jun-2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1768288
References: Frontiers in Psychology
Keywords: human-animal interaction, emotional well-being, pet ownership, stress buffering, dog vs cat, ecological momentary assessment, companionship, emotional health

The study employed a robust methodological framework that leveraged longitudinal cohort data, allowing for observations over an extended timeframe to capture the nuances of developmental trajectories. Importantly, the INMA project, known for its rigorous standards and comprehensive population-based data collection, served as the foundation for this research. By tracking children’s environments and behaviors in tandem with their psychological assessments, the researchers could discern patterns that simpler cross-sectional studies often overlook. This approach strengthens the causal inferences about pet ownership’s role in fostering mental well-being.

From a neurodevelopmental perspective, early childhood represents a critical window where environmental inputs can significantly influence brain architecture and psychosocial outcomes. The research team hypothesized that interacting with pets could provide emotional support, social stimulation, and routine responsibilities, all of which contribute to the maturation of emotional regulation networks in the brain. The study’s findings support this hypothesis, revealing that children exposed to pets in these formative years exhibited fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression and demonstrated better overall emotional resilience as measured at ages 7 and 8.

In interpreting these associations, the study considered confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, parental mental health, and baseline child behavior, which are known to impact mental health trajectories. Through advanced statistical modeling, including multivariate adjustments, researchers ensured that the observed benefits linked to pet ownership were not merely artifacts of these factors. This comprehensive adjustment lends credibility to the assertion that pets themselves play a meaningful role in enhancing childhood mental health rather than serving as a proxy for other environmental advantages.

Interestingly, the study highlighted a dose-response relationship, suggesting that the presence of pets at both critical early ages (1 year and 4 to 5 years) amplifies the mental health benefits compared to pet exposure at a single time point. This finding underscores the importance of sustained interaction over intermittent or sporadic exposure. It signals that the continued presence of pets during key developmental periods fosters lasting positive psychological outcomes, potentially by reinforcing feelings of safety, attachment, and social engagement.

The types of pets most commonly associated with positive outcomes were primarily dogs and cats, animals traditionally favored for their companionship qualities. However, the study did not limit its scope strictly to these animals, acknowledging that interaction with various species could contribute to emotional development, albeit perhaps through differing mechanisms. The tactile interaction with pets, accompanied by playful engagement and nurturing behaviors, likely triggers oxytocin release in children, a biochemical pathway linked to stress reduction and social bonding, explaining part of the biological underpinnings for these mental health benefits.

Moreover, the social context of pet ownership appears to be a vital mediator in this relationship. Children with pets often engage more in family interactions and bear additional responsibilities, such as feeding and caring for their animals. These activities cultivate a structured environment that promotes self-efficacy and empathy, attributes known to buffer against anxiety disorders and depressive symptoms. The study carefully teased out these ecological variables, illustrating the multifaceted pathways through which pets influence child psychology.

Despite these promising results, the researchers caution against overgeneralization. The study’s population, while diverse, reflects specific demographic characteristics inherent to the cohort studied. There is recognition of cultural variations in attitudes toward pets and their roles within family dynamics, which may modulate the extent of mental health benefits in different sociocultural settings. Future research expanding across diverse global populations could illuminate how these complex interactions manifest universally or diverge according to societal norms.

From a clinical perspective, these findings open exciting avenues for integrating animal-assisted interventions in pediatric mental health strategies. Clinicians and child psychologists might consider recommending pet adoption as a complementary approach to traditional therapies, particularly for children at risk of internalizing disorders. Nonetheless, such recommendations must be tempered with considerations about the feasibility and readiness of families to care for pets, underscoring the need for a holistic evaluation before endorsing pet ownership as a mental health adjunct.

The research also raises intriguing questions about the potential neurobiological mechanisms underlying the observed associations. Beyond oxytocin’s role, the physical activity associated with pet care and play, exposure to the microbiome carried by animals, and the reduction of environmental stressors through affectionate interactions might collectively influence neural circuits involved in mood regulation. Advanced neuroimaging studies and biomarker analyses could further elucidate these pathways, propelling a more mechanistic understanding of how pets contribute to psychological resilience.

Importantly, this study contributes to a growing body of literature emphasizing the importance of early-life environmental enrichment in shaping developmental outcomes. The inclusion of pets as a form of environmental enrichment highlights the interactive nature of human experiences and childhood mental health. It challenges conventional views that primarily focus on human-human interactions and educational inputs, broadening the horizon to include the role of interspecies relationships in developmental psychology.

The evidence also suggests a need to reexamine public health perspectives on mental health promotion from a systems lens. Encouraging pet-friendly community policies and programs that support responsible pet ownership could serve as upstream interventions for improving childhood mental health at a population scale. Such strategies would require cross-sector collaboration among health professionals, educators, urban planners, and animal welfare organizations to harness the full potential of pets as mental health allies.

In the broader narrative of mental health epidemiology, this study shifts attention toward modifiable environmental factors that can be leveraged to enhance well-being in children. It underscores the critical importance of early intervention and prevention, advocating for a proactive rather than reactive stance in mental health care. By identifying a common, accessible, and beloved component of many children’s lives—pets—the research pioneers an innovative path linking everyday experiences with long-term psychological benefits.

To conclude, the INMA project’s meticulous exploration of pet ownership’s impact on childhood mental health delivers robust, nuanced insights that advance our understanding of human development. It invites a reimagining of how families, clinicians, and policymakers conceptualize and promote mental wellness in children. As the mental health crisis among youth escalates globally, such evidence-based, integrative approaches provide much-needed hope and practical guidance for nurturing the next generation’s emotional health through the simple, profound joy of companionship with pets.

Subject of Research: Impact of early childhood pet ownership on mental health outcomes in children.

Article Title: Impact of pet ownership in early childhood at ages 1 and 4–5 years on mental health at ages 7–8: findings from the INMA project.

Article References:
González, L., Guxens, M., Sarzo, B. et al. Impact of pet ownership in early childhood at ages 1 and 4–5 years on mental health at ages 7–8: findings from the INMA project. World J Pediatr (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-025-00942-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-025-00942-2

The study deployed a unique longitudinal design capitalizing on multiple data collection points during the restrictive 2020 pandemic lockdowns when millions worldwide experienced profound social isolation. By measuring indicators of emotional well-being such as cheerfulness, calmness, life satisfaction, anxiety, loneliness, and general activity levels, the research team set out to formally assess whether short- and medium-term changes in well-being could be directly linked to pet ownership dynamics. Importantly, the sample was unbiased: data was gathered from participants irrespective of their initial attitudes toward pets, allowing for results that could be generalized beyond the typical cohort of self-identified animal lovers.

Pet acquisition—the process by which individuals or households bring a new animal companion into their lives—has often been celebrated as inherently beneficial for mental health, particularly during periods of heightened stress or loneliness. Campaigns by animal shelters and pet food companies promote dogs and cats as antidotes to isolation and anxiety. However, this new evidence from Hungary suggests that while there may be a transient uplift in mood immediately after adopting a dog, such effects are short-lived. Over the longer term, dog owners in the study reported decreases in calmness, cheerfulness, and life satisfaction, challenging the simplistic narrative that pets universally buffer against psychological distress.

The data also yielded surprising findings about the impact of pet loss. Contrary to expectations that losing a pet would generate measurable declines in emotional well-being, researchers observed no statistically significant changes across a variety of well-being metrics following the departure of a companion animal from a household. This challenges the stereotype of the pet-owner bond as an emotionally transformative attachment comparable to other significant relationships. Instead, these results hint at complex social and psychological processes mediating how individuals experience companionship and loss.

A key methodological strength of the investigation lies in how pet acquisition and loss were documented. Unlike typical studies that often recruit participants already invested in pet ownership, this research used a spontaneous and unbiased cohort. “This approach circumvents common biases seen in past literature, as it includes people who may be casual or incidental pet owners, not just devoted animal caregivers,” explains Eniko Kubinyi, head of the MTA-ELTE Momentum Companion Animals Research Group. The study’s repeated assessments over several months helped illuminate temporal dynamics, distinguishing immediate reactions from sustained emotional trajectories.

From a psychological standpoint, the findings suggest that the assumed “pet effect” is neither universal nor guaranteed. Instead, it appears contingent on individual differences, caregiving roles, and possibly sociocultural factors. For example, people who only casually live with pets but are not primary caregivers may not develop strong emotional attachments or receive psychological benefits from pet ownership. Similarly, the stress of pet loss may not register with those who share a household but whose emotional investment is limited.

Perhaps most provocatively, new pet acquisition did not reduce feelings of loneliness among the participants. This is particularly noteworthy given the widespread promotion of dogs as companions to alleviate social isolation, especially among vulnerable demographics like older adults. The research team, including data scientist Judit Mokos, points out that pet ownership may in fact increase anxiety rather than diminish loneliness, possibly due to the additional responsibilities, care demands, or changed routines that pets introduce into households during an already stressful, pandemic-induced environment.

Evolutionary and cognitive biologists have traditionally noted the mutual benefits humans and their companion animals derive from cohabitation, suggesting a co-evolved social relationship. However, this study’s findings intimate that under acute social stress, such as during global lockdowns, the real-time emotional advantages are more delicate and context-dependent than previously thought. While dedicated animal lovers or those with pre-existing close bonds may enjoy emotional rewards, the broader population’s experience is far more heterogeneous.

The research team’s nuanced conclusions caution against sweeping generalizations and highlight that pet ownership is not a panacea for mental health challenges. The impulsive nature of some pet acquisitions during the pandemic may even have adverse consequences if driven by short-term emotional needs rather than long-term readiness and commitment. The study underscores the importance of recognizing diverse experiences and the need for tailored mental health strategies that do not over-rely on companion animals as therapeutic tools.

By harnessing an unbiased participant sample and leveraging a robust, longitudinal research design, this study adds a new dimension to the scientific understanding of human-animal relationships. It raises critical questions about popular assumptions, commercial messaging, and the role of pets in psychological resilience, especially during unprecedented global crises such as COVID-19. The findings pave the way for future investigations to explore which subpopulations may actually benefit from companion animals and under what circumstances.

In sum, this landmark study challenges humanity’s romanticized narrative about the pet effect, suggesting that the emotional impact of pet ownership is far from a simple, universal phenomenon. While animals remain cherished companions for many, the complex interplay of human psychology, caregiving roles, and social context must be recognized to fully understand the true effects of pets on our well-being—revealing an intricate, sometimes ambivalent, bond rather than a guaranteed emotional lifeline.

Subject of Research: Psychological impacts of pet acquisition and loss on human well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

Article Title: Short-term effects of pet acquisition and loss on well-being in an unbiased sample during the COVID-19 pandemic

News Publication Date: 1-Jul-2025

Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06987-7

References: Mokos, J., Kubinyi, E., Ujfalussy, D., Iotchec, I.B., Paksi, B., Demetrovics, Z., Urbán, R., Miklósi, Á. (2025). Short-term effects of pet acquisition and loss on well-being in an unbiased sample during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports. DOI:10.1038/s41598-025-06987-7

Image Credits: Photo: Vanda Molnár

Keywords: pet ownership, human-animal bond, COVID-19 pandemic, psychological well-being, loneliness, pet acquisition, pet loss, mental health, companion animals, longitudinal study, emotional impact