A large survey of adults in Switzerland has found that simply owning a pet is not, by itself, associated with better physical or mental health. Researchers at the University of Basel reported the results on Wednesday in PLOS One, after analysing the responses of 2,328 adults.
What the study examined
The research team moved beyond a simple yes-or-no question about pet ownership. Instead, they assessed several aspects of people’s interactions with animals and the role animals played in daily life. Variables included whether respondents:
- owned a pet;
- had regular contact with animals;
- felt emotionally attached to an animal;
- spent time with an animal; and
- considered the animal a source of socio‑emotional support.
These measures were then compared with standard indicators of health and well‑being: physical health, psychological well‑being, loneliness, life satisfaction and perceived human social support.
Key finding: the bond matters
Overall, the researchers found little evidence that pet ownership alone was linked to improvements in the health outcomes they measured. Instead, the data suggested that it is the quality of the human–animal bond — such as emotional attachment and the time spent with an animal, and whether the animal is perceived as a source of support — that more strongly relates to measures of well‑being.
The authors place these results in the context of earlier, mixed findings. Some previous studies have linked pets with lower stress, greater physical activity and reduced loneliness, while others have found minimal or no measurable benefit. By examining how people interact with animals rather than only whether they own one, this analysis attempts to explain those inconsistencies.
Implications
For policymakers, clinicians and community groups considering animal‑assisted interventions or public messaging about mental health, the study highlights two practical points:
- Promoting pet ownership as a universal path to better health is not supported by this dataset; benefits appear conditional on the nature of the relationship.
- Programmes that strengthen the human–animal bond — for example, encouraging meaningful interaction time or supporting people to build emotionally supportive relationships with companion animals — may be more effective than initiatives that simply increase pet numbers.
These insights are relevant in South Africa, where animals often play roles in households that span companionship, security and livelihoods. Interventions that aim to use animals to support mental health should therefore consider how to foster strong, healthy bonds rather than focusing solely on ownership.
Limitations and the state of the evidence
The study is observational and based on a Swiss adult sample, which limits direct extrapolation to all populations. Observational surveys can identify associations but cannot definitively establish cause and effect. The authors also note that measures such as attachment and perceived support are subjective and may reflect underlying personal or social factors that influence both the likelihood of forming close bonds with animals and health outcomes.
Nevertheless, the work contributes to a growing literature that urges nuance. Rather than a simple 'pet effect' that automatically improves health, the evidence increasingly points to contextual factors — how people interact with animals, how much time they spend together and whether animals provide genuine emotional support.
"Rather than looking only at whether participants owned a pet, the researchers examined how people interacted with animals and what role those animals played in their everyday lives," the paper states.
| Variable assessed | Relation to health measures |
|---|---|
| Pet ownership (yes/no) | Little direct association |
| Emotional attachment / time spent | More strongly associated with better well‑being measures |
For readers considering a pet primarily for health reasons, the study advises reflection: the potential benefits may depend on the ability to form and sustain a close, supportive relationship with the animal. For researchers and funders, the findings underline the need for studies that measure relationship quality and that test interventions designed to cultivate meaningful human–animal bonds.
