Pets are an important aspect of many families and households, but how many Americans have them? The purpose of this study is to compare point estimates of pet ownership in the U.S. from the General Social Survey (GSS) to estimates from other surveys, and to report demographic and social correlates to pet ownership. Wide discrepancies in estimates of U.S. pet ownership have been previously reported, relying on private industry surveys that do not disclose sampling design. Further, some surveys that reported pet ownership were not available for public use and/or did not lend themselves to social science due to a limited number of other measures of important social and demographic characteristics. U.S. estimates of pet ownership from the GSS tended to be slightly higher than those based on the American Veterinary Medical Association Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook and consistently lower than estimates based on the American Pet Products Association National Pet Owners Survey. Pet ownership varied by race/ethnicity, age, size of place, household composition, and dwelling type. Number and type of pets also varied considerably by social and demographic characteristics. We conclude that the 2018 GSS has several advantages for studying human–animal interaction including a nationally representative sample, availability of a wide range of covariates, and public accessibility.

Purpose: The social and behavioral health of older adults is of particular concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is estimated that at least 50% of older adults in the U.S. have pets; while pets may be a source of support, they could also pose unique challenges during an already trying time. We aimed to investigate how pets impacted the everyday lives of older adults in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: A large survey of U.S. pet owners (n = 2,068) was administered to assess the impact of relationships with pets during COVID-19 on human health and well-being. We conducted bivariate analyses to compare levels of social support, loneliness, pet attachment, and family income for a subset of older adults (ages 65 and older) with a younger comparison group (ages 18–64). Using thematic and content analysis, we analyzed two open-ended prompts from age 65+ respondents (n = 122): (1) the pros and cons of living with pets during the pandemic, and (2) advice for those living with pets in future pandemics.Results: Older adults, on average, reported lower levels of social support and less loneliness than respondents below age 65. There were no significant differences in strength of attachment to pets nor income between the younger and older respondents. For the open-ended prompt regarding pros and cons, we coded three emerging themes and related sub-themes: (1) pros (company; more time together; life purpose or meaning; love; support; stress relief; routine; distraction; exercise), (2) cons (general worry; potential for illness; limited participation; veterinary care access; obtaining supplies; difficulty meeting pet needs; financial concerns), and (3) no difference. Advice shared was coded into 13 themes/sub-themes: pets' health and welfare; make plans; veterinary information; treat pets like family; don't abandon pets; human health and well-being; stay calm; enjoy pets; keep routine; be careful of transmission; seek community resources; keep supplies stocked; and finances.Conclusions: Pets may fulfill some social and emotional needs for older adults during this particularly isolating event; equally important to consider are the challenges that may be precipitated by and/or exacerbated by this public health emergency.

Love and strong social bonds are known buffers in the experience of adversity. Humans often form strong bonds with non-human animals. The human-animal bond refers to a mutually beneficial and dynamic relationship between humans and non-human animals. Previous research suggests that strong bonds with pets may promote resilience in the experience of adversity, but a strong bond with a pet can also complicate this very experience of adversity, particularly among low-resourced and disadvantaged populations. What is the role of the human-animal bond in adversity, and what is the role of adversity in the bond between a human and a non-human animal? In this article we outline the state of research on the role of various types and sources of adversities in multispecies households (i.e., families, relationships) to consider this overarching question. We focus specifically on intimate partner violence, housing discrimination, LGBTQ+ identity-based discrimination, racism, neighborhood disadvantage, and economic inequality. We then outline an agenda for future research about love, adversity, and multispecies relationships, and discuss implications for public policy and community-based interventions.

This cross-sectional study examined whether, and to what extent, attachment to pets was associated with changes in latent patterns of adults’ perceived mental health symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 1942). We used latent transition analysis to determine the stability of subgroup membership pre- and post-COVID and the effect of attachment to pets on transition probabilities. Mental health before COVID-19 was measured retrospectively. Five subgroups were identified: low symptoms, mild symptoms, moderate symptoms, high symptoms, and severe symptoms. Among individuals in the moderate and high symptoms subgroups, those who reported high attachment to pets generally had greater odds of transitioning to a less severe symptom profile (OR = 2.12) over time than those with low attachment to pets (OR = 1.39). However, those who had a severe symptom profile and high attachment to pets had lower odds of transitioning to a less severe symptom profile (OR = 0.30) and higher odds of maintaining a severe symptom profile (OR = 3.33) than those with low attachment to pets. These findings suggest that the protective and risk effects of attachment to pets differ based on individuals’ psychological symptom patterns across multiple indicators. We discuss the implications of these findings for research, policy, and practice.