pet dogs as attachment figures

21
http://spr.sagepub.com/ Relationships Journal of Social and Personal http://spr.sagepub.com/content/25/2/247 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0265407507087958 2008 25: 247 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Lawrence A. Kurdek Pet dogs as attachment figures Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: International Association for Relationship Research can be found at: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Additional services and information for http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://spr.sagepub.com/content/25/2/247.refs.html Citations: What is This? - Apr 3, 2008 Version of Record >> at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014 spr.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Upload: l-a

Post on 25-Dec-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pet dogs as attachment figures

http://spr.sagepub.com/Relationships

Journal of Social and Personal

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/25/2/247The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0265407507087958

2008 25: 247Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsLawrence A. Kurdek

Pet dogs as attachment figures  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

International Association for Relationship Research

can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for    

  http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/25/2/247.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Apr 3, 2008Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 2: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Pet dogs as attachment figures

Lawrence A. Kurdek

Wright State University

ABSTRACTFour samples of college students (N = 923) were used toaddress the extent to which pet dogs, relative to humans,exhibited features of an attachment figure and to identifycharacteristics of persons with strong attachments to their petdogs. Dogs exhibited the feature of proximity maintenance aswell as fathers and siblings did, and secure basis and proxim-ity maintenance were their most salient features. Differencesin the closeness of relationships with dogs versus humanswere minimal for students with high levels of attachment totheir dogs. Attachment was positively linked to involvementin the care for the dog, the extent to which the dog met needsregarding relatedness, owner traits of openness, and dog traitsof energy and intelligence.

KEY WORDS: attachment • pet dogs

Although attachment to pets has been examined in the literature onhuman–pet interactions (see review by Archer, 1997), this topic has receivedlittle attention in the close relationships literature. This omission is surpris-ing because owners report strong emotional ties to their pets (Katcher,Friedmann, Goodman, & Goodman, 1983), regard pets as members of thefamily (Albert & Bulcroft, 1988), name pets as providers of social support(Doherty & Feeney, 2004), and grieve the death of their pets (Stallones,1994). In the current article, theory and methods employed in the study ofclose relationships were used to examine the extent to which dogs, relative

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 25(2): 247–266. DOI: 10.1177/0265407507087958

Appreciation is extended to Kellyn Antolak, Patrick Przyborowski, and Toby Smith for theirassistance in data collection, data coding, and data entry; to Tamera Schneider for commentson a previous version of the article; and to three reviewers for their helpful comments. Thisarticle is dedicated to Lilly and Gretta, the canine pinnacles of my own attachment hierarchy.All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Larry Kurdek, Departmentof Psychology, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435–0001, USA [e-mail: [email protected]]. Paul Mongeau was the Action Editor on this article.

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 3: Pet dogs as attachment figures

to humans, serve as attachment figures and to identify the characteristics ofpet owners with high levels of attachment to their dogs.

Dogs were selected because there are more than 60 million pet dogs inthe United States alone (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2002),and attachments to them tend to be stronger than those to other pets(Johnson, Garrity, & Stallones, 1992; Siegel, 1990). College students wereof interest for two reasons. First, as young adults, they face the develop-mental task of establishing intimacy. Although this task may involve re-organizing attachment systems as ties to parents and siblings decrease andties to romantic partners and friends increase (Trinke & Bartholomew,1997), it is not clear how ties to nonhuman figures might be affected.Second, as autonomy needs increase for young adults, pet dogs, unlikeparents and siblings, may not be perceived as critical, judgmental, andrestrictive and may even offset feelings of loneliness and social isolationthat often accompany the individuation process (Archer, 1997).

Characteristics of attachment bonds in dyads

Hazan and Zeifman (1999) identified four criteria for attachment bonds toexist between members of a dyad. Although it is recognized that dogs canbe attached to their owners (e.g., Topál, Miklósi, Csányi, & Dóka, 1998), thefocus of the current article was on owners’ attachment to their dogs. Withregard to physical contact, members of bonded pairs should engage inphysical intimacy such as mutual gazing, cuddling, kissing, and body contact.Observations of behavioral interactions between pet dogs and their ownersindicate that owners frequently pet their dogs, invite them to sit on theirlaps or in close proximity, engage in face-to-face play with them, kiss them,and sleep next to them (Prato-Previde, Fallani, & Valsecchi, 2006; Smith,1983). Concerning selection criteria, preference within relatively enduringbonded pairs should be given to attachment figures who are familiar, respon-sive, and competent in alleviating distress. Owners report that interactingwith pet dogs is distinct from interacting with other people or other animalsin that dogs are highly responsive, provide unconditional affection, and alle-viate distress regarding loneliness and safety (Archer, 1997).

As for reactions to separation and loss, members of bonded pairs shouldfind separation from each other to be upsetting. Archer and Winchester(1994) and Carmack (1985) summarized evidence that pet owners react tothe death of their pet dogs with a protest–despair–detachment sequence.Finally, in reference to physical and psychological health effects, membersof bonded pairs should receive health benefits from having such bonds.Owners of pet dogs may enjoy good physical and psychological health as aresult of the physiologically calming effects of dogs and the relatively highlevels of physical exercise that accompany conscientious pet care (Allen,Blascovich, & Mendes, 2002).

248 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 4: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Features of an attachment figure

If, as claimed earlier, pet owners can establish an attachment bond withtheir pet dogs, then pet dogs should exhibit the features of an attachmentfigure identified by Ainsworth (1991). Secure base indicates that the attach-ment figure is regarded as a dependable source of comfort who mitigatesany vulnerability associated with exploring the world. Safe haven indicatesthat the attachment figure is sought for contact, assurance, or safety in timesof distress. Proximity maintenance indicates that having the attachmentfigure physically near and accessible is enjoyable. Finally, separation distressindicates that being away from the attachment figure results in negativeaffect such as missing or longing for the attachment figure. These featuresare relevant to a distinction that is made in the attachment literaturebetween attachment bonds and caregiving bonds (Bell & Richard, 2000).Whereas proximity maintenance and separation distress are features ofboth an attachment bond and a caregiver bond, secure base and safe havenare features of only an attachment bond.

Previous work based on Ainsworth’s (1991) four-feature model of attach-ment figures has focused only on humans. Trinke and Bartholomew (1997)had college students list the people in their lives to whom they felt a strongemotional tie. They then rank-ordered each figure with regard to strength ofthe secure base, safe haven, proximity maintenance, and separation distressfeatures. Differences in the rankings of figures were examined for three ofthe four features. For secure base, romantic partners and mothers shared thetop ranking. For safe haven, romantic partners were ranked more highly thanmothers, fathers, siblings, and best friends. Finally, for separation distress, lossof mother was seen as more negative than the loss of any other figure.

Doherty and Feeney (2004) used a similar list-and-rank procedure witha diverse sample of adults ranging in age from 16 to 90 years. Unlike Trinkeand Bartholomew (1997), they examined differences in the strength of thefour features for each of six attachment figures. Romantic partners wereranked highest on proximity maintenance and separation distress. Forfamily members (mothers, fathers, and siblings), secure base was the highestranked feature. Friends were ranked highest for proximity maintenance.Finally, children were ranked highest on separation distress.

Instead of using the open-ended list-and-rank procedure, Tancredy andFraley (2006) developed a structured rating scale in which twins and nontwins ranging in age from 14 to 61 years rated siblings, mothers, fathers,romantic partners, and friends on each attachment feature. Level of attach-ment was assessed by averaging ratings across features. They found thatnon twins and twins differed in their level of attachment to each figure. Nontwins rated the most intense attachment to romantic partners, followed bymothers and friends who did not differ from each other, and then siblingsand fathers who did not differ from each other. Twins, on the other hand,rated the most intense attachment to romantic partners and siblings (theircotwins) who did not differ from each other followed by friends, mothers,and fathers.

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 249

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 5: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Purposes of the current study

Taken together, previous studies show that adults develop attachments tomultiple figures and that the strength of adults’ attachments to these figuresdepends on the feature of attachment. What remains unknown is where petdogs fit into this mix of attachments. The current study addressed this limi-tation with data collected from four independent samples.

The first purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which petdogs, relative to humans, exhibited the four features of an attachment figure(Sample 1). As in previous work, the human attachment figures of concernincluded mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and significant others. Ratingswere used because they facilitated identifying which possible attachmentfigures participants actually had available to them. Although multiple-itemrating scales of pet attachment have been developed (see Johnson et al.,1992), they are limited in that none of them were designed with the four-feature model in mind and none of them are also relevant to humans. Conse-quently, Tancredy and Fraley’s (2006) measure was revised so that itemswere appropriate for both canine and human attachment figures. Becauseof limited work in this area, no predictions were advanced regarding howwell pet dogs, relative to humans, would exhibit each attachment feature.Consistent with past work (Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Trinke & Bartholomew,1997), however, ratings were expected to be influenced by an interactionbetween type of figure and feature of attachment.

The second purpose of this study was to examine whether differences inperceived levels of closeness to human attachment figures versus pet dogsvaried by level of attachment to pet dogs (Sample 1). Because there iswide variation in the extent to which people are attached to their pet dogs(Stallones, Johnson, Garrity, & Marx, 1989), level of attachment to petdogs was expected to moderate the size of these differences. Specifically,differences were expected to be smallest only at high levels of attachmentto pet dogs. Because no current measure of closeness exists that is relevantto both pet dogs and humans, one was developed for this study.

The third purpose of this study was to identify the correlates of globalattachment to pet dogs, operationalized as the average of the four attach-ment feature scores. Two sets of correlates were examined. The first setpertained to the dog owner and included level of involvement in the careof the dog (Sample 2), the Big Five personality factors (McCrae & Costa,1994) (Sample 3), and general attachment styles (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,1988) (Sample 4).

The level of involvement in caring for the pet dog was selected becauseit represented opportunities for attachment bonds to develop during routinecaregiving tasks. Indeed, Holcomb, Williams, and Richards (1985) foundthat primary caregivers reported more intimacy with their pets than non-primary caregivers did. The measure of involvement was developed for thisstudy. It was expected that high levels of involvement in the care of a petdog would be associated with high levels of global attachment to that dog.

According to the Big Five model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1994),the adult human personality is exhaustively described by Neuroticism (the

250 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 6: Pet dogs as attachment figures

susceptibility to psychological distress, inability to control urges, pronenessto unrealistic ideas, and inability to cope with stress); Extraversion (thedisposition toward positive emotions, sociability, and high activity); Open-ness (the proclivity toward variety, intellectual curiosity, and aestheticsensitivity); Agreeableness (the inclination toward interpersonal trust andconsideration of others); and Conscientiousness (the tendency towardpersistence, industriousness, and organization). If attachment to a pet dog isa more variable emotional experience than attachment to human figures is(Stallones et al., 1989), and if personality traits like Openness (Terracciano,McCrae, Hagemann, & Costa, 2003) and Agreeableness (Tobin, Graziano,Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000) predispose one to tap into that experience, thenboth Openness and Agreeableness should be positively related to globalattachment to a pet dog.

Work on attachment styles has focused on a generalized pattern ofrelational expectations, emotions, and behaviors that results from the inter-nalization of a particular history of attachment experiences (Milkulincer &Shaver, 2005). This pattern has two dimensions that are thought to affectspecific relationships. Attachment avoidance reflects the extent to which aperson distrusts others and maintains emotional distance and behavioralindependence from others, whereas attachment anxiety reflects concernsthat attachment figures will not be available in times of need.

Because these dimensions of attachment to humans could affect relation-ships involving pet dogs in at least three ways, no specific predictions wereadvanced. First, individuals high in avoidance or anxiety could turn to petdogs as substitutes for human attachment figures. In this instance, highanxiety and high avoidance each would be associated with high globalattachment to pet dogs. Second, individuals low in avoidance or anxietycould readily incorporate expectations about positive experiences with petdogs into their generalized models based on positive human interactions.In this case, low anxiety and low avoidance each would be associated withhigh global attachment to pet dogs. Third, emotional ties to humans and topet dogs could represent distinct processes. In this scenario, avoidance andanxiety as generalized expectations regarding relationships with humanswould be unrelated to global attachment to pet dogs.

The second set of correlates expected to be linked to global attachmentto pet dogs referenced the pet dog itself. These included the dog’s traits(Sample 2) and the extent to which the dog was perceived to fulfill basicpsychological needs (Sample 2). Gosling, Kwan, and John (2003) reportedthat energy, affection, emotional reactivity, and intelligence were stablepersonality traits in dogs. Although they also reported that the summedcomposite scores for these factors were internally consistent, they did notpresent any evidence that items tapping affection, energy, emotional reac-tivity, and intelligence conformed to the expected 4-factor structure. Further,because some of the items they selected were rather anthropomorphic (e.g.,“starts quarrels with others” for affection), their measure was revised toinclude items that were more appropriate to dogs. Assuming that attach-ment is most likely to occur to figures whose stable characteristics promotepositive interactions (Hazan & Zeifman, 1999), low levels of dogs’ emotional

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 251

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 7: Pet dogs as attachment figures

reactivity and high levels of dogs’ affection, energy, and intelligence wereeach expected to be linked to high levels of owners’ global attachment tothem.

Working from self-determination theory, La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman,and Deci (2000) posited that secure attachment is based on the extent towhich the attachment figure promotes the experienced satisfaction of threepsychological needs. Autonomy concerns feelings of agency, volition, andinitiative. Competence concerns feelings of curiosity, challenge, and efficacy.And, relatedness concerns feelings of belongingness, connection, and beingcared for. Pet dogs may promote the satisfaction of needs regarding auton-omy and competence because, unlike potential human attachment figures,they are not critical, judgmental, and restrictive (Archer, 1997). Pet dogs maypromote the satisfaction of the need for relatedness due to their high levelsof responsiveness and their ability to provide unconditional affection andattention (Smith, 1983). Thus, it was expected that high levels of havingeach need satisfied by pet dogs would be linked to high levels of globalattachment to those dogs.

Method

Participants

Sample 1. Participants were 111 undergraduate students (63 female) whorated the features of human and canine attachment figures as well as thecloseness of their relationship with each of the six figures. Students in thisand all other samples received course credit for participation, lived with apet dog who was at least 1 year old, and completed surveys in small groupson a university campus. Their mean age was 19.55 years (SD = 3.91), and83% were White. The number of students rating mothers, fathers, siblings,best friends, and romantic partners was 108, 102, 101, 102, and 70, respec-tively. Of the 111 dogs rated, 77% were identified as pure breeds (with themost frequent breed being Labrador Retriever, 13%); 54% were female;and 74% were spayed or neutered. The mean age of the dogs was 5.17 years(SD = 3.77).

Sample 2. Participants were 311 undergraduate students (229 females).Members of this sample rated their dogs and provided information regard-ing caregiving, need satisfaction, and dog personality. Their mean age was18.94 years (SD = 1.57), and 76% of them were White. Of the 311 dogsrated, 65% were identified as pure breeds (with the most frequent breedbeing Labrador Retriever, 11%); 54% were female; and 68% were spayedor neutered. The mean age of the dogs was 5.23 years (SD = 3.69).

Sample 3. Participants were 203 undergraduate students (145 females) whorated their dog and provided information on their own personality. Theirmean age was 19.06 years (SD = 2.88), and 82% of them were White. Of the

252 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 8: Pet dogs as attachment figures

203 dogs rated, 70% were identified as pure breeds (with the most frequentbreed being Labrador Retriever, 11%); 54% were female; and 65% werespayed or neutered. The mean age of the dogs was 4.96 years (SD = 3.62).

Sample 4. Participants were 298 undergraduate students (192 females) whorated their dog and provided information on attachment styles. Their meanage was 19.58 years (SD = 3.04), and 65% of them were White. Of the 298dogs rated, 62% were identified as pure breeds (with the most frequentbreed being Labrador Retriever, 9%); 50% were female; and 67% werespayed or neutered. The mean age of the dogs was 5.59 years (SD = 3.88).

Measure of demographic variables

Participants from each sample provided information about their age, gender,and race. They also described the age, sex, and breed of the dog they livedwith and indicated whether this dog was spayed or neutered.

Measure of features of an attachment figure

Participants from each sample indicated how strongly they agreed (1 =strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with four statements for each of thefour features of attachment regarding their pet dog. These 16 items arepresented in the Appendix for pet dogs along with the feature each item wasintended to assess. The same items were used for each of five human figures(mother, father, sibling, best friend, and significant other) with appropriatesubstitutions made for the particular figure being rated. Items were takenor adapted from those used by Doherty and Feeney (2004), Ryan, LaGuardia, Solky-Butzel, Chirkov, and Kim (2005), Tancredy and Fraley(2006), and Trinke and Bartholomew (1997). If students had more than onepossible individual to rate within a figure category, they were asked to ratethe one to whom they felt closest.

Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that covariation among the 16items was adequately represented by four correlated latent variablesconforming to secure base, safe haven, proximity maintenance, and separ-ation distress for each attachment figure. (Details of all confirmatory factoranalyses are available from the author.) Consequently, averaged summedcomposite scores were created for each of the four attachment features foreach attachment figure.

Correlations among these scores were moderately high, mean r = .79 overall attachment figures. A global attachment score was derived by averagingthe four feature scores.

Cronbach’s alphas for the secure base, safe haven, proximity maintenance,separation distress, and global attachment scores were .89, .95, .91, .91, and.96, respectively, for pet dogs (all samples, N = 923); .91, .97, .93, .92, and .97,respectively, for mothers (sample 1, N = 108); .94, .97, .95, and .98, respec-tively, for fathers (sample 1, N = 102); .88, .95, .93, .94, and .97, respectively,for siblings (sample 1, N = 101); .91, .94, .90, .93, and .96, respectively, forbest friends (sample 1, N = 102); and .92, .96, .96, .94, and .98, respectively,for significant others (sample 1, N = 70).

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 253

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 9: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Additional evidence for the validity of the attachment scores for pet dogswas obtained from Sample 2 by correlating these scores with scores fromRyan et al.’s (2005) emotional reliance scale as well as the general attach-ment subscale from Johnson et al.’s (1992) Lexington Attachment to PetsScale. Ratings of emotional reliance involved having participants indicatehow true (1 = not at all true, 5 = very true) each of 10 items was of theirpet dog (e.g., “When I am alone or depressed, I would be willing to turn tomy dog”). The content of these items was similar to the content of the safehaven items used in this study. Indeed, a regression analysis indicated thatsafe haven accounted for more unique variance in emotional reliance thansecure base, proximity maintenance, or separation distress did, � =.37, p <.01; .11, p < .01; .01, and .08, respectively. For comparisons of regressioncoefficients involving secure base versus safe haven, proximity maintenanceversus safe haven, and separation distress versus safe haven, t(306) = –3.96,–4.80, and –4.23, respectively, p < .01. The correlation between emotionalreliance and the global attachment score was .76, p < .01.

Ratings of general attachment involved having participants indicate howmuch they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) with each of11 items (e.g., “Owning a dog adds to my happiness”). Correlations betweenthe general attachment score and the secure base, safe haven, proximitymaintenance, and separation distress scores were .72, .74, .81, and .76,respectively, p < .01. The correlation between general attachment and theglobal attachment score was .84, p < .01.

Measure of closeness

Participants from Sample 1 indicated how strongly they agreed (1 =strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with five statements about their petdogs and each of five human attachment figures (mothers, fathers, siblings,best friends, and significant others). These items are presented for pet dogsin the Appendix. The same items were used for each human attachmentfigure with appropriate substitutions made for the target being rated. Ifstudents had more than one possible individual to rate within a figurecategory, they were asked to rate the one to whom they felt closest. Confir-matory factor analyses indicated that covariation among the five items foreach canine and human figure was adequately represented by the oneexpected latent variable. Consequently, an averaged summed compositescore was derived for each attachment figure. The Cronbach’s alphas associ-ated with this score for pet dogs, mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, andsignificant others were .95, .93, .94, .93, .93, and .95, respectively.

Measures of the correlates of attachment: Pet owners

Care for dog. Participants from Sample 2 indicated how much they agreed(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with 10 items referring to the extentto which they took care of their dog. Items are presented in the Appendix.Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that covariation among these 10items was adequately represented by the one expected latent variable.Cronbach’s alpha for the averaged summed composite score was .93.

254 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 10: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Human personality: Big Five factors. Participants from Sample 3 indicatedhow strongly they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) witheach of 60 items comprising the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa &McCrae, 1989). This measure includes 12 items apiece for Neuroticism (e.g.,“I often feel inferior to others”), Extraversion (e.g., “I like to have a lot ofpeople around me”), Openness (e.g., “I often try new and foreign foods”),Agreeableness (e.g.,“I try to be courteous to everyone I meet”), and Consci-entiousness (e.g., “I keep my belongings neat and clean”). Cronbach’salphas for the averaged summed composite score were .77 for Neuroticism,.80 for Extraversion, .68 for Openness, .75 for Agreeableness, and .84 forConscientiousness.

Attachment styles. Participants from Sample 4 completed Rowe andCarnelley’s (2005) adaptation of Brennan et al.’s (1998) 36-item Experiencesin Close Relationships Questionnaire. In the adapted measure, items orig-inally designed with romantic partners as targets were changed so that closeothers in general, rather than specific individuals, were targets. Participantsindicated how strongly they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = stronglyagree) with 18 items tapping anxiety (e.g., “I worry a lot about my relation-ships”) and 18 items tapping avoidance (e.g., “I prefer not to show peopleclose to me how I feel deep down”). Cronbach’s alpha for the summedcomposite score was .90 for both anxiety and avoidance.

Measures of the correlates of attachment: Pet dogs

Dog personality. Participants from sample 2 indicated how strongly theyagreed (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with five statements foreach of four dimensions of their dog’s personality – energy, affection,emotional reactivity, and intelligence. The 20 items are presented in theAppendix. Five items (1, 5, 7, 9, and 15) were taken from Gosling et al.(2003), and the other items were written for this study. Confirmatory factoranalyses indicated that covariation among the 20 items was adequatelyrepresented by the four expected correlated latent variables representingeach dimension. Cronbach’s alphas for the averaged summed compositescore were .88 for Energy, .87 for Affection, .74 for Emotional Reactivity,and .88 for Intelligence. The mean absolute value of the correlations amongthese scores was .24, p < .01.

Need satisfaction. Participants from Sample 2 completed La Guardia et al.’s(2000) 9-item Need Satisfaction Scale in reference to their pet dog. Partici-pants indicated how true it was (1 = not at all true, 7 = very true) that theirpet dog met needs for Autonomy (3 items, e.g., “When I am with my dog, Iam free to be who I am”), Competence (3 items, e.g., “When I am with mydog, I feel like a competent person”), and Relatedness (3 items, e.g., “WhenI am with my dog, I feel loved and cared about”). Cronbach’s alphas forthe averaged summed composite score were .68 for Autonomy, .67 forCompetence, and .70 for Relatedness.

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 255

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 11: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Results

Features of attachment figures for pet dogs versus humans

The first purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which pet dogs,relative to humans, exhibited features of attachment figures. The percentageof respondents giving pet dogs either of the two highest ratings (6 or 7)across the four features was calculated to give a qualitative sense of theoverall level of attachment to pet dogs for the entire sample. This value was22%. Corresponding values for mothers, fathers, siblings, best friends, andsignificant others were 48%, 38%, 35%, 56%, and 86%, respectively.Relevant means are presented in Table 1. It is of note that all means fordogs were above the midpoint of each scale.

Because not all participants rated each human attachment figure, ratingswere analyzed with multilevel regression analyses in which attachmentfigures were nested in participants (see La Guardia et al., 2000 for anextended discussion of this method). Through the use of dummy variables,the Attachment Figure effect was represented by five variables in whichmothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and significant others were contrasted withpet dogs, respectively. Through the use of dummy variables, the AttachmentFeature effect was represented by three variables in which secure base, safehaven, and proximity maintenance were contrasted with separation distress,respectively. Interactions for Attachment Figure � Attachment Featurewere represented by 15 variables obtained by multiplying the relevant terms.

Models for the three sets of effects were evaluated hierarchically. Foreach model, a deviance statistic was computed, and the difference betweendeviance statistics from nested models was tested so that improvement inmodel fit could be assessed as variables representing the sets of effects ofinterest were added (similar to tests for the change in R2 in an ordinary leastsquares hierarchical regression). The coefficient for each of the five vari-ables representing the Attachment Figure effect was significant. The modelthat added the three variables representing the Attachment Feature effectresulted in improved fit, �2(3, N = 111) = 105.82, p < .01. More importantly,

256 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

TABLE 1Mean ratings for attachment figures by attachment feature (Sample 1)

Attachment feature

Proximity SeparationFigure Secure base Safe haven maintenance distress

Mother 6.28 5.53a, b 5.68a 5.44b

Father 5.76 5.00a 5.48 5.11a

Sibling 5.62a 4.97b 5.46a 5.04b

Best friend 6.26 6.08a 6.01a 5.61Significant other 6.54a 6.54a 6.65a 6.54a

Dog 4.96a 4.25 5.21a 4.55

Note. Range for each score = 1 to 7. Means in rows sharing the same superscript are equivalent.

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 12: Pet dogs as attachment figures

as expected, the model that added the 15 variables representing the Attach-ment Figure � Attachment Feature interaction effect also resulted inimproved fit, �2(15, N = 111) = 50.74, p < .01.

The interaction effect was interpreted in two ways. First, tests of simpleeffects were conducted in which differences among the ratings for the sixattachment figures were examined for each of the four attachment features.Second, tests of simple effects were conducted in which differences amongthe four attachment features were examined for each of the six attachmentfigures.

Using attachment feature as the moderating variable, simple effects weresignificant for secure base, safe haven, proximity maintenance, and separ-ation distress, �2(5, N = 111) = 133.41, 189.26, 94.94, and 133.95, respectively,p < .01. The attachment figure effect for each feature was interpreted bysimple contrasts in which each of the five human figures was compared topet dogs. Overall, these contrasts indicated that human figures exhibitedthe features of secure base, safe haven, and separation distress – but notproximity maintenance – better than dogs did.

Specifically, mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and significant othersexhibited the feature of secure base better than dogs did, z = 8.85, 5.38, 4.54,8.63, and 9.27, respectively, p < .01. Mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, andsignificant others exhibited the feature of safe haven better than dogs did,z = 7.31, 4.28, 4.09, 10.28, and 11.62, respectively, p < .01. And mothers,fathers, siblings, friends, and significant others exhibited the feature ofseparation distress better than dogs did, z = 5.57, 3.46, 3.06, 6.46, and 10.90,respectively, p < .01. However, although mothers, friends, and significantothers exhibited the feature of proximity maintenance better than dogs did,z = 3.15, 5.39, and 8.84, respectively, p < .01, dogs were equivalent to bothfathers and siblings on this feature.

Using attachment figure as the moderating variable, simple effects weresignificant for mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and dogs, �2(3, N = 70 to111) = 118.82, 101.15, 88.23, 81.09, and 124.14, respectively, p < .01, but notfor significant others. Pairwise comparisons (p < .05) with Bonferroniadjustments for multiple comparisons were conducted to identify the mostsalient attachment feature for each figure. For the rows in Table 1, meanssharing the same superscript are equivalent. Based on the largest means(and their equivalences to other means), the most salient attachment featurefor relationships involving mothers, fathers, and friends was secure base; forsiblings, both secure base and proximity maintenance; for significant others,secure base, safe haven, proximity maintenance, and separation distress; andfor dogs, proximity maintenance and secure base.

Differences in closeness to human figures versus pet dogs as a

function of global attachment

The second purpose of this study was to examine whether differences incloseness between each human figure and pet dogs varied by level of globalattachment to the pet dog. As in the previous analysis, ratings were analyzedwith multilevel regression analyses in which attachment figures were nested

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 257

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 13: Pet dogs as attachment figures

in participants. Through the use of dummy variables, the Attachment Figureeffect was represented by five variables in which mothers, fathers, siblings,friends, and romantic partners were contrasted with pet dogs, respectively.The global attachment score was centered at its mean. Interactions regard-ing Attachment Figure � Global Attachment were obtained by multiplyingthe relevant terms. The coefficient for each of the five variables representingthe Attachment Figure effect was significant. The model that added theglobal attachment score resulted in improved fit, �2(1, N = 111) = 53.35,p < .01, as did the model that added the five variables representing theexpected Attachment Figure � Global Attachment interaction effect, �2(5,N = 111) = 133.15, p < .01.

The Attachment Figure � Global Attachment interaction was interpretedby tests of simple effects in which differences in closeness between humanand canine attachment figures were examined at low (–1 SD), average, andhigh (+1 SD) levels of global attachment. Relevant unstandardized regres-sion coefficients are presented in Table 2. Because each coefficient repre-sents a difference between the target human figure and the pet dog, apositive value indicates that the closeness score for the human figure waslarger than that for the pet dog, and a negative value indicates that thecloseness score for the pet dog was larger than that for the human figure.

As shown in Table 2, at low levels of global attachment, ratings of close-ness were higher for each human figure than they were for the pet dog. Ataverage levels of global attachment, ratings of closeness again were higherfor each human figure, although differences were smaller than those for lowattachment. At high levels of attachment, however, closeness ratings formothers, siblings, best friends, and significant others were equal to those forpet dogs, and closeness ratings for fathers were lower than those for pet dogs.

Correlates of attachment to pet dogs

The final purpose of this study was to identify the correlates of global attach-ment to pet dogs. Two sets of variables were of interest, one focusing on

258 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

TABLE 2Unstandardized regression coefficients for differences in closeness between

human attachment figures and pet dogs by level of global attachment to pet dog

Level of global attachment to pet dog

Human figure Low Average High

Mother 2.27* 1.04* –0.18Father 1.72* 0.60* –0.51*Sibling 1.83* 0.74* –0.35Best friend 2.22* 0.96* –0.29Significant other 2.88* 1.45* 0.02

Note. A positive value indicates that the human figure was rated more highly than the pet dog was,and a negative value indicates that the human figure was rated less highly than the pet dog was.*p < .01.

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 14: Pet dogs as attachment figures

characteristics of the pet owners and the other focusing on characteristicsof the pet dogs. Regarding characteristics of owners, as expected, high levelsof care for the dog, high levels of openness, and high levels of agreeable-ness each were linked to high global attachment, respective rs = .63, .20,and .18, p < .01. Unexpectedly, high levels of conscientiousness also werelinked to high global attachment, r = .21, p < .01. When the Big Five traitswere considered together, they accounted for 11% of the variance in globalattachment, F(5, 197) = 4.92, p < .01, with only Openness contributingunique information, � =.18, p < .01. In support of the view that generalrepresentations of interactions with human are independent of attachmentsto pets dogs, anxiety and avoidance each were unrelated to global attach-ment, respective rs = .11 and .04, p > .05.

Regarding characteristics of dogs, for dog traits, as expected, high levelsof energy, affection, and intelligence each were linked to high global attach-ment, respective rs = .34, .22, and .31, p < .01. Unexpectedly, emotional reac-tivity was unrelated to global attachment, r = –.01, p > .05. When the fourdog traits were considered together, they accounted for 19% of the variancein global attachment, F(4, 306) = 17.81, p < .01, with only energy and intel-ligence contributing unique information, � = .26 and .24, respectively, p <.01. For psychological needs, as predicted, high levels of satisfaction for needsregarding autonomy, competence, and relatedness each were linked to highglobal attachment, respective rs = .43, .48, and .68, p < .01. When the threeneeds were considered together, they accounted for 46% of the variance inglobal attachment, F(3, 307) = 87.36, p < .01, with only relatedness contribu-ting unique information, � = .63, p < .01.

Discussion

Although there has been considerable scholarly interest in attachment topet dogs (Archer, 1997), most of the available work has not been based ona clearly articulated model of what constitutes an attachment figure. Further,available measures have not allowed comparisons to be made betweencanine and human attachment figures. The current study redressed theselimitations by assessing attachment to pet dogs within the context ofAinsworth’s (1991) four-feature model with measures appropriate for bothdogs and humans. In brief, the four-feature model posits that attachmentfigures should be dependable sources of comfort (secure base), be sought outin times of distress (safe haven), have their physical presence provide enjoy-ment (proximity maintenance), and have their physical absence engendersome distress (separation distress). Based on previous work (Doherty &Feeney, 2004; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997), the human figures selected forstudy were mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and significant others.

Extant measures derived from the four-feature model were easily modifiedto accommodate the inclusion of pet dogs, and new or revised measuresof closeness, care for the pet dog, and dog personality were developed.In support of the validity of the measures, confirmatory factor analyses

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 259

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 15: Pet dogs as attachment figures

supported the proposed factor structure of each measure, and scores fromthe measure of attachment features for pet dogs were moderately positivelycorrelated with independent assessments of both emotional reliance andgeneral attachment. Discussion of the findings is organized around thethree purposes of the study.

Features of attachment figures for pet dogs versus humans

The first purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which pet dogs,relative to humans from the five relationship types of concern, exhibited thefour features of attachment. Findings for human figures were consistent withthose previously derived from college students (e.g., La Guardia et al., 2000;Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997) in showing that whereas mothers, significantothers, and friends placed relatively high in attachment hierarchies, fathersand siblings placed relatively low in them. Although, for the total sample,dogs tended to be rated lower than human figures were on attachmentfeatures, means for each attachment feature for them were nonethelessabove the midpoint of the scale, and 22% of the sample gave their dogs thetwo highest possible ratings across the four features.

Extending previous work which showed that differences among humanattachment figures depended on attachment feature (Doherty & Feeney,2004; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997), differences between pet dogs andhumans varied by attachment feature. Each of the five human attachmentfigures exhibited the features of secure base, safe haven, and separationdistress better than dogs did. However, although mothers, friends, andsignificant others exhibited the feature of proximity maintenance betterthan dogs did, dogs were equivalent to both fathers and siblings on thisfeature. Future work is needed to address whether this finding reflects anelevation of pet dogs whose company is typically well regarded (Allen etal., 2002; Prato-Previde et al., 2006) or a devaluation of fathers and siblingswho typically place low in the attachment hierarchies of college students(La Guardia et al., 2000; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997).

Humans and pet dogs also varied in the most salient feature of attach-ment. With regard to human figures, secure base was the most salient featurefor mothers, fathers, and friends; both secure base and proximity mainten-ance were the most salient features for siblings; and all four features wereequally prominent for significant others. These findings are similar to thoseobtained by Doherty and Feeney (2004) with the exception that theseauthors found that proximity maintenance was the most salient feature forfriends. This discrepancy could be due to the fact that Doherty and Feeneyused rankings rather than ratings as well as a more age-diverse sample thanthe one used in the present study.

With regard to dogs, proximity maintenance and secure base were the mostsalient features. The finding regarding proximity maintenance aligns withother evidence that pet owners greatly enjoy the physical presence of theirdogs (Allen et al., 2002; Prato-Previde et al., 2006). The finding regardingsecurity base is new to this study. Because proximity maintenance is afeature of both caregiving and attachment bonds whereas secure base is

260 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 16: Pet dogs as attachment figures

a feature of only attachment bonds (Bell & Richard, 2000), the currentfindings provide evidence that pet owners establish attachment bonds withtheir dogs, albeit ones limited to specific features of attachment figures.

One of the most pressing needs for further work is to study communitysamples of dog owners. Such samples would allow one to address attach-ment to a pet dog which the owner specifically selected and trained. Ofadditional interest would be examining whether the overall percentage ofsuch owners who were strongly attached to their pet dogs varies acrossowners’ developmental levels. For example, the estimate of 22% derivedfrom the current study might differ for older samples for whom children(Doherty & Feeney, 2004) and siblings (Spitze & Trent, 2006) are especiallysalient attachment figures.

Additional work on the psychometric front could address the relativemerits of using rankings and ratings. Values for ratings will likely be higherthan those for rankings because rankings are done on a relative scale inwhich nominations are mutually exclusive, no allowances are made for tiedrankings, and the scale distance between rankings is not determined. Incontrast, ratings are done on an absolute scale, equivalent ratings can begiven to different figures, and distances between values on the Likert scalecan assumed to be the same. The relative sensitivity of scores derived fromrankings and ratings also could be assessed by linking them to behavioralmeasures of owners’ attachment to their pet dogs (e.g., Prato-Previde et al.,2006).

Differences in closeness to human figures versus pet dogs as a

function of global attachment

Given the substantial variability in the extent to which people are attachedto their pet dogs (Stallones et al., 1989), differences in the perceived close-ness of relationships with humans versus those with pet dogs were expectedto vary by level of global attachment to the pet dog. Indeed, analyses indi-cated that the smallest differences in ratings of closeness between humanattachment figures and pet dogs occurred for those who reported highlevels of global attachment to their dogs. For these individuals, closeness topets dogs was equal to closeness for mothers, siblings, best friends, andsignificant others and was higher than that for fathers. Thus, for a subset ofowners, pet dogs enjoy a very privileged status in their emotional lives.

Future work with owners with strong attachments to their pets dogs coulduse daily diary methods to examine the circumstances under which pet dogsmight be preferred attachment figures over some human figures and equiv-alent attachment figures for other human figures. Given findings from thisstudy that secure base was a prominent attachment feature of pet dogs,these methods might have participants indicate which human or animal isturned to in times of vulnerability and the extent to which that figure wasregarded as a reliable source of support. Given current clinical interest insocial isolation (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006), future workalso could examine whether strong attachments to pet dogs buffer any ofthe negative effects associated with loneliness and depression.

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 261

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 17: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Correlates of attachment to pet dogs

The final purpose of this study was to assess correlations between globalattachment to pet dogs and variables relevant to both the human and thepet dog. Because global attachment moderated differences in closenessbetween canine and human figures, having a descriptive profile of peoplewho are strongly attached to their pet dog might provide some clues as towhich people are inclined to confer favored status on their pet dogs. Eachset of variables is discussed in turn.

With regard to characteristics of the dog owners, as expected, high levelsof caregiving were associated with high levels of global attachment. Because,as already noted, pet owners develop both caregiving and attachment bondswith their dogs, it is possible that high levels of caregiving provide oppor-tunities for attachment bonds to develop much as sensitive and responsivecaregiving provides a context for secure attachments to develop for dyadsinvolving parents and infants (Ainsworth, 1991). Over time, links betweencaregiving and attachment might become reciprocal. For example, althoughthe activities involved in the array of caregiving might initially provideopportunities for owners to become attached to their pet dogs, that attach-ment itself may then later provide one motivation for sustaining those care-giving activities.

As expected, the Big Five personality traits of Openness and Agreeable-ness also were linked to global attachment. Unexpectedly, Conscientiousnesswas linked to global attachment as well. When the Big Five traits wereconsidered together, however, only Openness accounted for unique variabil-ity in global attachment. That persons high on Openness would be stronglyattached to their pet dogs is consistent with other evidence that personshigh on this trait experience a wide range of emotions and are especiallyadroit at discriminating among affective states (Terracciano et al., 2003).

Finally, the finding that both anxiety and avoidance, as general attachmentstyles, were unrelated to global attachment suggests that people stronglyattached to their pet dogs do not turn to pet dogs as substitutes for failedinteractions with humans and that their strong bond with their pet dog isnot generalized from positive experiences in their relationships with otherpeople. In keeping with the distinction between global and relationship-specific working models (Collins, Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2004), futurework might link ratings of anxiety and avoidance with regard to specificcanine and human attachment figures to ratings of the attachment featuresof those same figures as one way of identifying aspects of specific workingmodels of human and canine attachment figures.

With regard to characteristics of the dog themselves, as expected, highlevels of the dog traits of affection, energy, and intelligence were eachlinked to high levels of global attachment. Because emotional reactivitywas not linked to global attachment, negative traits of pet dogs do not seemto inhibit attachment. When the three dog traits were considered together,only energy and intelligence accounted for unique variability in globalattachment. The fact that affection did not contribute unique informationto global attachment (an affective process) is puzzling and deserves furtherstudy. Nonetheless, dogs high in energy and intelligence are likely to

262 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 18: Pet dogs as attachment figures

promote positive interactions with their caregivers, setting the context forattachment bonds to develop. Future work might examine links betweendog traits and specific dog behaviors (Jones & Gosling, 2005) in order toidentify what factors drive the attachment experience between owners andtheir pet dogs.

Consistent with the tenets of self-determination theory (La Guardia etal., 2000), the extent to which pet dogs met needs regarding autonomy,competence, and relatedness was positively related to global attachment.When the three needs were considered together, however, only relatednessaccounted for unique variability in global attachment. This finding isintriguing because relatedness also has been found to be the strongestpredictor of relational outcomes involving humans (Ryan et al., 2005).Perhaps one reason why pet dogs compared favorably to fathers and siblingson the attachment feature of proximity maintenance is that they readilymeet needs for relatedness by being uncritical and unconditional providersof acceptance and affection. Examining longitudinal links between the needvariables and global attachment could provide information on the directionof plausible unique causal links involving relatedness in particular.

Limitations and Conclusion

The current study has at least five limitations. First, because all participantswere college students, it is unclear whether the findings obtained here gener-alize to samples that are more diverse with regard to both developmentalstatus and educational background. Second, although for some students,involvement in care of the pet dog was fairly high, other students likelyrated a family dog that they may not have personally selected and trained.Third, level of self-reported attachment to pet dogs could have biased otherself-report measures of pet dogs (e.g., personality traits and need satis-faction). Fourth, because students who rated multiple attachment figures didso by rating these figures in a standard rather than a randomized manner,order effects could have affected the ratings. Finally, although the recipro-cal nature of bonds between pet owners and their dogs was acknowledged,the attachment of pet dogs on human owners was not studied.

Despite these limitations, the current study advances the study of human-pet interactions within an attachment context in at least four ways. First, itintroduces psychometrically sound measures that can be used for bothhuman and animal attachment figures. Second, it indicates that pet dogs arerated favorably on each feature of attachment but are especially likely toexhibit the attachment features of secure base and proximity maintenance.Third, it provides evidence that, for those with high levels of global attach-ment to their pet dogs, the perceived level of closeness to those dogs isindistinguishable from that to most human figures. Finally, underscoring thenotion that attachment is a dynamic interpersonal process, it validatesthe notion that persons strongly attached to their pet dogs can be charac-terized in terms of individual differences variables relevant to both themand their pet dogs.

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 263

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 19: Pet dogs as attachment figures

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle.In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the lifecycle(pp. 33–51). New York: Routledge.

Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1988). Pets, families, and the life course. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 50, 543–552.

Allen, K., Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presenceof pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64,727–739.

American Veterinary Medical Association. (2002). U.S. pet ownership & demographics source-book. Schaumburg, IL: Author.

Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 237–259.Archer, J., & Winchester, G. (1994). Bereavement following death of a pet. British Journal of

Psychology, 85, 259–271.Bell, D. C., & Richard, A. J. (2000). Caregiving: The forgotten element in attachment. Psycho-

logical Inquiry, 11, 69–83.Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attach-

ment: An integrated overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theoryand close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford.

Carmack, J. (1985). The effects on family members and functioning after death of a pet.Marriage and Family Reviews, 8, 149–161.

Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attach-ment: New developments and emerging themes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),Adult attachment: Theory research, and clinical implications (pp. 196–239). New York:Guilford.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

Doherty, N. A., & Feeney, J. A. (2004). The composition of attachment networks throughoutthe adult years. Personal Relationships, 11, 469–488.

Gosling, S. D., Kwan, V. S. Y., & John, O. P. (2003). A dog’s got personality: A cross-speciescomparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 85, 1161–1169.

Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments: Evaluating the evidence. InJ. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 336–354). New York: Guilford.

Holcomb, R., Williams, R. C., & Richards, P. S. (1985). The elements of attachment: Relation-ship maintenance and intimacy. Journal of the Delta Society, 2, 28–33.

Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1992). Psychometric evaluation of the LexingtonAttachment to Pets Scale. Anthrozoös, 5, 160–175.

Jones, A. C., & Gosling, S. D. (2005). Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familaris):A review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 95, 1–53.

Katcher, A. H., Friedmann, E., Goodman, M., & Goodman, L. (1983). Men, women, and dogs.Californian Veterinarian, 2, 14–16.

La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variationin security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, needfulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations and evaluations.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 173–175.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America:Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71,353–375.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships:Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events.Personal Relationships, 12, 149–168.

264 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 20: Pet dogs as attachment figures

Prato-Previde, E., Fallani, G., & Valsecchi, P. (2006). Gender differences in owners interactingwith pet dogs: An observational study. Ethology, 112, 64–73.

Rowe, A. C., & Carnelley, K. B. (2005). Preliminary support for the use of a hierarchicalmapping technique to examine attachment networks. Personal Relationships, 12, 499–519.

Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J., Chirkov, V., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the inter-personal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships, andcultures. Personal Relationships, 12, 145–163.

Siegel, J. M. (1990). Stressful live events and use of physician services among the elderly: Themoderating role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,1081–1086.

Smith, S. L. (1983). Interactions between pet dogs and family members: An ethological study.In H. Katcher & A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with companion animals(pp. 29–36). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Spitze, G., & Trent, K. (2006). Gender differences in adult sibling relations in two-childfamilies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 977–992.

Stallones, L. (1994). Pet loss and mental health. Anthrozoös, 7, 43–54.Stallones, L., Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Marx, M. B. (1989). Quality of attachment to

companion animals among U.S. adults 21 to 64 years of age. Anthrozoös, 3, 171–176.Tancredy, C. M., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). The nature of adult twin relationships: An attachment-

theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 78–93.Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Hagemann, D., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Individual difference

variables, affective differentiation, and the structures of affect. Journal of Personality, 71,669–703.

Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotionalexperience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79, 656–669.

Topál, J., Miklósi,A., Csányi,V., & Dóka,A. (1998). Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis famil-iaris): A new application of Ainsworth’s (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Compara-tive Psychology, 112, 219–229.

Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in youngadulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603–625.

APPENDIX

Items for measures developed for this study

Attachment functions

Secure base: 1. I can count on my dog to be there for me. 5. I can dependon my dog to care about me no matter what. 9. I can count on my dog’strustworthiness. 13. I can count on my dog for comfort.

Separation distress: 2. I miss my dog when I am away from him or her. 6.I don’t like to be away from my dog for extended periods of time. 10. If Iam away from my dog, I think about him or her. 14. I would be upset if Ihad to be away from my dog for a long while.

Safe haven: 3. When I am feeling bad and need a boost, I turn to my dogto help me feel better. 7. When I am disappointed, I turn to my dog to helpme feel better. 11. When something bad happens to me, I turn to my dog

Kurdek: Pet dogs as attachment figures 265

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Page 21: Pet dogs as attachment figures

to help me feel better. 15. When I am upset, I turn to my dog to help mefeel better.

Proximity maintenance: 4. It is important that I see my dog regularly. 8. Ilike having regular contact with my dog. 12. I like having my dog near me.16. I like when my dog is with me.

Closeness

1. I feel close to my dog. 2. I have an emotional tie to my dog. 3. I have aspecial bond with my dog. 4. I feel attached to my dog. 5. My dog holdsa special place in my heart.

Care for dog

1. I am the one most likely to take care of my dog’s needs. 2. I am the onemost likely to make sure my dog has fresh water. 3. I am the one most likelyto feed my dog. 4. I am the one most likely to give my dog medicines whenthey are needed. 5. I am the one most likely to take my dog to the veteri-narian. 6. I am the one most likely to take my dog for walks. 7. I am theone most likely to give my dog a bath. 8. I am the one most likely to brushmy dog’s coat. 9. I am the one most likely to play with my dog. 10. I am theone most likely to notice when my dog is not feeling well.

Dog personality

My dog . . .

Energy: 1. Is outgoing. 5. Is full of energy for his or her age. 9. Shows a lotof enthusiasm. 13. Is active for his or her age. 17. Is lively and high-spirited.

Affection: 2. Is readily liked by most people. 6. Is friendly. 10. Warms up tostrangers quickly. 14. Has a sweet and likable disposition. 18. Is warm andapproachable.

Emotional reactivity: 3. Takes a long time to relax after being upset. 7. Istense. 11. Is afraid of lots of things. 15. Gets nervous easily. 19. Has troubleadapting to new things.

Intelligence: 4. Is easily trained. 8. Is quick to learn new tricks. 12. Remem-bers things easily. 16. Learns commands quickly. 20. Is intelligent.

266 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25(2)

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 11, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from