Pets do not significantly benefit the emotional health of owners with severe mental illness, study shows

A new study published in the CABI journal Human-Animal Interactions suggests that companion animals – including dogs, cats, fish and birds – do not significantly benefit the emotional health of owners with severe mental illness.

Results showed that owning an animal was not significantly associated with the wellbeing, depression, anxiety or loneliness scores for owners with a range of severe mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder or psychosis.

The researchers, who followed up on an earlier survey conducted in 2021 within the same cohort to assess animal ownership and mental health during COVID-19, say their findings counteracts the commonly held view that animals are beneficial for all owners’ mental health.

Dr Emily Shoesmith, lead author and Research Fellow, Dr Elena Ratschen, Reader and Human-Animal Interaction research theme lead, and a team of scientists from the University of York surveyed 170 UK participants. Of these, 81 owned at least one animal and most perceived there to be a strong human-animal bond with their closest companion animal.

They aimed to explore, in the first study of its kind, the connection between owning an animal and mental health in individuals living with severe mental illness and whether the perceived strength of the bond between owner and animal was associated with mental health and species of the animal owned.

In the 2021 study, Dr Shoesmith and her colleagues found that animal ownership was associated with a self-reported decline in mental health which may have been due to pandemic restrictions and the challenges of looking after their animal in lockdown.

The current data was collected following the removal of COVID-19 rules and although there was a marginal increase in wellbeing scores – suggesting the pandemic context may have influenced the findings – it was not possible to compare depression and anxiety scores, as these were not collected in the 2021 study.

Dr Shoesmith said, “In the absence of COVID-19 restrictions, a possible explanation for our current findings could be that the added responsibility of animal ownership may still exacerbate other potential stressors experienced by people living with severe mental illness. This includes the cost of food, veterinary bills and uncertainty over housing.

“Our findings may also imply that animal ownership and the perceived strength of the human-animal bond is not sufficient to benefit participants wellbeing, but we also need to consider the animal’s temperament and characteristics.”

Dr Shoesmith said that this may explain why trained therapy animals, unlike companion animals, often enhance wellbeing for individuals diagnosed with mental health illnesses, as they are typically selected and taught to be friendly, obedient and have a relaxed personality trait.

“It is vital for future research to further explore the mediating factors influencing the complex relationship between humans and animals to further our knowledge of the more specific requirements of those living with severe mental illness who own animals,” Dr Ratschen added.

Despite their findings, the researchers nevertheless found near “ceiling levels” of attachment to their animals. For instance, over 95% reported that their animal provided them with companionship, a source of consistency in their life, and made them feel loved.

The researchers argue that these results may suggest that animal ownership offers similar benefits to those living with severe mental illness as those in the general population. As such, companion animals may be a vital part of the social network of people who have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness.

Dr Ratschen said, “Future research would also benefit from recruiting a larger sample size and comparing a wider variation of species identified as the animal the participant felt closest to.

“However, it is not surprising that dogs and cats were the most frequently reported animals owned by this sample, and is consistent with the numbers reported in previous mental health populations and the general population.”

The scientists stress that their findings, together with prior research, suggest that the commonly held belief that animals are beneficial for wellbeing may not be entirely true for all members of al sub-populations in all contexts.

Additional information

Main image: Credit: Pixabay.

Full paper reference

Shoesmith, Emily; Lorimer, Ben; Peckham, Emily; Walker, Lauren; Ratschen, Elena., ‘The influence of animal ownership on mental health for people with severe mental illness: Findings from a UK population cohort study,’ Human-Animal Interactions, 14 July (2023) DOI: 10.1079/hai.2023.0027

The paper can be read open access from 10:00hrs UK time 14 July, 2023, here: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/hai.2023.0027

Media enquiries

For more information and an advance copy of the paper contact:

Dr Emily Shoesmith, lead author and Research Fellow, University of York – email: emily.shoesmith@york.ac.uk

Wayne Coles, Senior PR Manager, CABI – email: w.coles@cabi.org

About Human—Animal Interactions

Human—Animal Interactions is an open access interdisciplinary journal devoted to the dissemination of research in all fields related to interactions between non-human animals and their human counterparts.

About CABI

CABI is an international not-for-profit organization that improves people’s lives by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment.

Through knowledge sharing and science, CABI helps address issues of global concern such as improving global food security and safeguarding the environment. We do this by helping farmers grow more and lose less of what they produce, combating threats to agriculture and the environment from pests and diseases, protecting biodiversity from invasive species, and improving access to agricultural and environmental scientific knowledge. Our 49-member countries guide and influence our core areas of work, which include development and research projects, scientific publishing and microbial services.

We gratefully acknowledge the core financial support from our member countries (and lead agencies) including the United Kingdom (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office), China (Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs), Australia (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research), Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Netherlands (Directorate-General for International Cooperation, and Switzerland (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). Other sources of funding include programme/project funding from development agencies, the fees paid by our member countries and profits from our publishing activities which enable CABI to support rural development and scientific research around the world.