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.

Historically, dogs transitioned from work-oriented roles—herders, hunters, or guards—to quasi-family members in modern societies, often fulfilling psychological and social needs previously reserved for human relationships. This evolution poses compelling questions about the social function dogs serve today. To address this gap, the researchers compared owners’ perceptions of their dogs’ roles against four archetypal human relationships: child, romantic partner, closest relative, and best friend. The study’s methodology involved surveying over seven hundred dog owners who rated their relationships across thirteen relationship dimensions, ranging from nurturing and security to conflict and control.

The results unveiled a striking paradox: dog-owner bonds encapsulate elements typical of child-parent relationships—such as nurturing and perceived affection—while simultaneously mirroring the low-conflict, companionship-oriented features of best-friendships. This sociopsychological blend, however, is underscored by a pronounced power asymmetry favoring the owner. Unlike human relationships characterized by negotiated equality or mutual influence, dog ownership inherently entails unilateral decision-making authority, shaping the relationship’s emotional texture. Owners consistently reported feeling their dogs exhibited the greatest love and companionship relative to all other partners surveyed.

Beyond emotional gratification, the study elucidates that dog-owner relationships are maintained through sustained human dominance, a form of asymmetric control rarely present in human-human dynamics. This control manifests in owners’ capacity to regulate dogs’ behavior, environments, and routines, which paradoxically enhances relational satisfaction by minimizing conflict and antagonism. Essentially, the predictability and manageability of the canine partner underpin a sense of stability absent from more complex human ties, explaining why many owners find their connection with dogs deeply fulfilling despite the inherent inequality.

Crucially, this research also addresses a prevailing psychological assumption: that dogs serve primarily to compensate for weak human relationships. Contrary to this expectation, the data indicate a positive correlation between the robustness of human networks and the strength of human-dog bonds. Individuals reporting satisfied and supportive human relationships tended to have similarly strong and satisfying relationships with their dogs. This finding suggests that rather than filling an emotional void, dogs function as complementary figures within a broader social support system, enhancing well-being rather than substituting deficient human ties.

The researchers acknowledge, however, sampling limitations, as study participants were volunteers likely skewed towards higher relationship satisfaction with both humans and dogs. This introduces the possibility that the distinctive reliance on dogs as primary emotional supports, often observed in vulnerable populations, remains underrepresented. Future investigations targeting diverse demographics could deepen understanding of how dog relationships adapt under varying social and psychological conditions.

Methodologically, the study’s innovation lies in its adoption of a multidimensional framework to quantitatively dissect dog-owner relationships beyond typical categories such as ‘pet’ or ‘family member,’ thereby capturing nuanced facets of emotional closeness, conflict, power dynamics, and social support. This approach allows for a more precise alignment of canine bonds within the spectrum of human social interactions, enabling comparisons that reveal both shared characteristics and pronounced distinctions grounded in interspecies differences.

Moreover, this research contributes to ethology and social psychology by contextualizing domestication’s long-term impact on behavioral and emotional adaptations in dogs and their human companions. The dog’s evolved role as a socio-emotional partner reflects both biological predispositions and culturally mediated expectations, suggesting a hybrid social niche that blurs boundaries between human kinship and companionship paradigms. For instance, dogs’ high scores in providing relationship security and low antagonism align with evolutionary theories positing that mutualistic bonds between species enhance survival and social cohesion.

From a neurological and biochemical perspective, bonding with dogs may stimulate oxytocin release—a hormone linked to trust and attachment—in owners and pets alike. This biochemical mediating factor likely reinforces positive feedback loops underpinning the satisfaction and affection reported in dog-owner relationships. By maintaining control and reducing conflict, owners may facilitate these neurochemical exchanges, thereby fostering emotional benefits that resemble, but are not identical to, those found in human-human attachments.

Importantly, the power imbalance noted in dog-human relations, with owners exercising almost exclusive control over decisions affecting their dogs, introduces ethical and psychological dimensions that could affect wellbeing and attachment quality. While this asymmetry reduces relational complexity and conflict, it raises questions about autonomy and agency among companion animals, themes increasingly prominent in animal welfare discourse. Understanding how control dynamics influence mutual satisfaction may guide future practices in responsible dog ownership and welfare policies.

The study’s lead authors emphasize the multifaceted nature of dog companionship, highlighting variability among owners. Some seek their dogs for unconditional affection and nurturing opportunities; others value the predictability and low-stress companionship; still others derive psychological stability from caregiving roles inherent in pet ownership. This diversity underlines the inadequacy of one-dimensional labels and invites a richer conceptualization of dogs within human social ecosystems.

In conclusion, this pioneering research establishes that human-dog relationships occupy a unique, hybrid social niche combining the emotional closeness typical of child attachments, the ease and low-conflict features of close friendships, and the predictable structure imposed by human control. These findings deepen our understanding of the social functions dogs serve and challenge reductive views of pets as merely emotional crutches or family substitutes. Instead, dogs emerge as complex social partners whose relationships with humans are defined by both affection and asymmetrical authority, reflecting the evolutionary and cultural tapestry that shapes domestic life.

Subject of Research: Human-dog relationships analyzed through comparison with human-human social bonds using multidimensional relationship scales.

Article Title: Similarities and differences between dog-human and human-human relationships

News Publication Date: 22-Apr-2025

Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95515-8

Image Credits: Photo: Eniko Kubinyi

Keywords: Dogs, Social relationships, Animal research, Social networks, Social research, Family, Animal domestication, Bond formation, Ethology