Waggoner 1

Brandon Waggoner

Professor Reynolds

English 1201-508

20 Mar. 2022

How do Pets Positively Affect the Quality of their Owner’s Health?

Animals, and more specifically pets, have become a staple in the homes of countless

people worldwide. Some people sing the praises of pets, claiming them to be the most important

companions in their lives. Others believe pets to be unnecessary and even just vessels for

disease. This juxtaposition between the opinions on pets piqued my interest, which led me to ask:

“How do pets positively affect the health of their owners?” Furthermore, do they even positively

affect the health of their owners?

The concept of a “pet” has a long and intertwined history with the story of the human

race. Domestication of animals can be dated back to at least 30,000 years ago, with dogs being

said domesticated animals (Wills). However, instead of seeking the furry companions we have

today, early domestication had much more evolutionary and survival-based reasoning.

Domestication began because early human hunter-gatherers desired a more stable food source,

thus they began manipulating the gene pool of plants and animals to benefit themselves more

(Driscoll). Dogs were the first example of a modern pet to be domesticated because hunter-

gatherers desired help hunting and defending their possessions, which domesticated dogs

excelled at (Driscoll). However, some animals took a different route to domestication. Leading

theories believe that cats were not chosen by humans for domestication, but rather utilized the

human environment to their own advantage (Driscoll). Eventually, it is theorized that humans
 Waggoner 2

grew accustomed to the presence of cats, leading to the felines further diverging from ancestral

wildcats to the pets of today (Driscoll). Eventually, pets became a mainstay of the human

experience. However, the impacts of the human-pet bond did not truly begin to be scientifically

explored until the 20th century. Research into various aspects of this human-pet bond is

continuously explored to this day, however the youthful age of the field means much is still left

to discover. The information within this passage come from two scholarly articles, meaning that

the accuracy of the information meets CRAAP guidelines. Furthermore, the two articles intend to

give a history on the concept of “pets" in human culture and appeal to a scholarly audience. This

makes the purpose of these two articles acceptable by CRAAP standards as well.

One way pets are believed to positively affect owner health is via physical health

outcomes. For example, there are general correlations found between pet ownership and lower

cholesterol and blood pressure. However, these positive physical effects are often the result of

the impacts pets have on mental health. Furthermore, there is data that shows negative

associations between pets and owner physical health. One of the principal ways in which a pet

can negatively affect the owner's health is via injury or spreading disease through an injury. One

of the most substantial examples of this is the strong negative correlation that Jaroslav Flegr and

Marek Preiss found between cats who had transmitted Toxoplasma to their owners and the

quality of life of said owners in their article “Friends with malefit. The effects of keeping dogs

and cats, sustaining animal-related injuries and Toxoplasma infection on health and quality of

life.” In this article, their purpose was to test the validity of the claim that pets have a positive

influence on owner health since many recent essays supporting that claim were using poor

sampling methods for research. They go on to state later in the same study, “Statistically, the

effects of animal-related injuries might seem to be relatively weak; however, their strength was
 Waggoner 3

comparable with the effects of four well-known risk factors, i.e., smoking, consuming alcohol,

consuming illegal drugs, and high body mass index.” (Flegr and Preiss). However, although the

information in this article is credible, the nature of this study is one of correlations only, meaning

direct causation between pet-related injury and decline in quality of life cannot be taken as

absolute fact. Additionally, pet ownership can result in the development of physical conditions in

young children. Higher frequencies of negative physical health impacts are associated with this,

such as asthma, allergy, rhinitis, and eczema. Furthermore, “Exposure to a pet in early childhood

significantly increased the risk of current wheeze, current dry cough, and diagnosed rhinitis.”

(Luo et al.). In this article Luo has a similar purpose to Flegr and Preiss, that being to test the

validity of the claim that pets have a positive influence on owner health. Furthermore, both

sources appeal to a scholarly audience due to the sophisticated language and advanced concepts

that are discussed, however Luo approaches the issue pertaining to children, while Flegr and

Preiss choose to focus more so on effects for adults.

Another way in which pets are believed to positively affect owner health is via mental

health. For example, the companionship and comfort that pets provide are believed to provide

reduced risk for conditions like Depression and Anxiety. There are also links between pet

ownership and positive views of self-identity in pet owners. Furthermore, a study in an article

called “The Effect of Pets on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19

Lockdown in Malaysia” determined, “The results show that in comparisons with people without

animals, pet owners had significantly higher levels of mental wellbeing, in that they felt they

could cope better with adverse situations and experienced significantly more positive emotions

during the lockdown.” (Grajfoner). This study’s purpose was to find the conection between pets

and mental well-being in Covid-era Malaysia and utilizes credible information to appeal to a
 Waggoner 4

scholarly audience. Additionally, pets decrease the cortisol levels of their owners, but also

increase the release of hormones such as oxytocin (Pendry and Vandagriff). Oxytocin is one of

the famous “happy hormones” that, when released, causes humans to feel emotions such as

pleasure, love, or happiness. These hormones lead to the warding off of conditions such as

depression and anxiety. This study’s purpose was to find out if animal visitation programs are a

viable option to improve the mental well-being of college-age students. This article uses credible

and peer-reviewed information to appeal to a scholarly audience, leading to it meeting the

CRAAP standards. However, there are also some associated negative effects that pets can have

on the mental health of owners. These effects typically are correlated with physical injury from

the pet, notably Toxoplasma infection. These pet injuries and Toxoplasma infections are also

correlated with conditions such as depression and anxiety. An explanation for this correlation is

offered, “For example, a positive correlation between seriousness of sustained cat-related injuries

reported by responders and number of diagnosed mental health disorders could be explained by a

higher probability of cats to bite and scratch mentally ill people as well as by, for example,

transmission of pathogens that are (co)responsible for mental illness,” (Flegr and Preiss), but this

cannot be directly backed up by data. However, the credibility of the information that leads to

this conclusion is strong and the information is accurate, so the claim can stand on its own.

Pets are believed to positively influence their owner's health via strengthening the

immune system of said owner. Owning a pet can lead to the development of immunomodulation

within an owner, which in turn can lead to a lower risk for developing allergies. Additionally,

pets positively affect the immune strength of their owners via increasing the exposure to the

bacterium Ruminococcus and Oscillospira and various other microbes, resulting in

immunomodulation (Tun). These bacteria help to prevent harmful conditions such as obesity and
 Waggoner 5

atopy (the propensity of a child to develop conditions such as allergic rhinitis, eczema, and

asthma) in children (Tun). However, the most significant positive immune effect that pets can

have on children is the prevention of allergy development. Bill Hesselmar explores the

connection between early exposure of young children to pets and subsequent allergy

development. He determined that the likelihood of young children (7-9 years old) developing

allergies is lowered based on how many animals are in the proximity of the child throughout

their infancy (Hesselmar 1). This suggests that dogs, cats, and other pets may be a safeguard

against allergy development (Hesselmar 1). These two sources utilize credible information and

are peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles, meaning that they meet the CRAAP standards.

Furthermore, the positive benefits that pets have on their owner’s mental health and the incentive

to exercise they give their owners often leads to stronger immune system performance. In Pets

as Sentinels, Forecasters, and Promoters of Human Health, it is stated, “In addition to the

mental and physical benefits conferred by pets unto their owners, it is thought that human

exposure to animal-associated microbes can play a significant role in bolstering human health.”

(Salas Garcia et al., 245). This article appears in an anthology work of scholarly research that has

been reviewed and edited by many scholars, which leads to the credibility of this information

being extraordinarily strong. Due to this being a scholarly article the purpose does not have a

strong effect on the validity of the conclusion and the audience is a scholarly one. Contrary to

this article's claim, pets can transmit diseases, such as Toxoplasma infection (Flegr and Preiss),

that negatively affect immune health and, if exposure to young children is handled incorrectly,

increase the risk for the development of allergies.

Another way in which pets positively influence the health of owners is by increasing the

capabilities for social and emotional health. For example, pets can provide relationships and
 Waggoner 6

emotional nourishment that owners may struggle to find elsewhere. One scholar states, “Pets

were implicated in relational work through the provision of secure and intimate relationships not

available elsewhere... Pets were of enhanced salience where relationships with other network

members were limited or difficult.” (Brooks). This means that pets were able to fill in the roles

of social interaction for humans who were unable to obtain said interaction from other humans.

Additionally, pets have been shown to have a positive impact on the social health of their owners

because of the opportunity for socialization that pet ownership encourages. The most well-

known of these effects is the increased chances an owner has of meeting or talking to people

when walking their dog. Wood seeks to bring light to the impact that pets have on establishing

friendships. She explains that pets have been a key catalyst in the formation of relationships that

have provided social, emotional, and practical support (Wood 1). Furthermore, pets help to fend

off feelings of social isolation, which may be a risk for negative developments in mental health

(Wood 1). Finally, pets may play important roles in the formation of a sense of community and

the development of thriving neighborhoods (Wood 1). Due to both articles being scholarly

articles the purpose does not impede the credibility of the information leading to the conclusions

made. The authors' audiences would be fellow scholars. Furthermore, pets can be especially

impactful upon the social functioning of owners with social inhibitions, such as those with

Autism Spectrum Disorder. According to Habri, children with ASD can see improvement in

social interaction, social awareness, social motivation, and social skills with the aid of pets.

Service pets also have a significantly positive effect on the health of their owners. Service

pets are animals that have been trained to help a disabled person, often serving as a pet too.

Service animals help owners with a wide variety of functions, whether it be guiding a blind

person, alerting deaf people of important noises (alarms, sirens, etc...), aiding mobility tasks
 Waggoner 7

(putting on clothes, carrying items, pushing buttons, etc...), and medical emergency alert dogs

(allergies, seizures, etc...) (ADA). Furthermore, although literature studying the correlation

between service pets and quality of health is limited, there is evidence to suggest that service

animals may be more impactful than simple physical functions. In a review of the literature on

this correlation, scholars have made the case that although one may think that assistance dogs

exist only for physical health benefits, numerous studies have noted improvements in quality of

life, social health, and psychological health in service pets' owners (Rodriguez 24). However,

statistical limitations and poor reporting of effects prevent this conclusion from being completely

definite. Although this is true, the credibility of the information and the fact that both sources are

peer-reviewed scholarly articles, the information is not negligible.

Additionally, pets have also been shown to have positive effects on the process of

reforming and integrating people back into societal functions, specifically prisoners and

criminals. There is evidence to suggest that prison inmates often suffer from conditions such as

depression, anxiety, or loss of sympathy (Villafaina-Domínguez). Furthermore, additional

research has shown that dog-based prisoner therapy could improve things such as mental well-

being, emotional stability, ability to understand others’ emotions, or intellectual performance

(Villafaina- Domínguez). These improvements might lead to a reduction in prisoners re-

offending and lower the likelihood of prisoners being violent (Villafaina- Domínguez). This

would mean that not only do pets, specifically dogs, improve positive skills and aspects of health

for recovering convicts, but also suggests that pets may have a reforming effect on these

prisoners because the pets can reduce the risk of recidivism (the tendency of a criminal to re-

offend). For example, groups such as Leader Dogs for the Blind often only have one out of every

eight or nine prisoners re-offend (Alvernia). This is very different from the national rate, which
 Waggoner 8

sees one out of every two prisoners re-offend (Alvernia). What this group does is allow prisoners

to train service dogs, which serves a dual positive of helping both the animal and the prisoner

(Alvernia). This is because the inmate receives the benefits of the pet integration method, while

the pet is trained and becomes available for adoption (Alvernia). Both sources intend to inform

on the impact of animal rehabilitation on prisoners. Furthermore, both are scholarly sources,

which means the cited information meets the CRAAP guidelines.

There are also a few counterarguments that can be used against the negative effects that I

have posed thus far. For example, often pet “attacks” result in little or no harm to an individual at

all. For example, one of the most cited dangerous pet-related injuries is a dog bite. However, the

Canine Journal lists the following facts on their website about dog bites; approximately four out

of every five dog bites either cause a minor injury or no injury at all (Canine Journal).

Furthermore, only approximately 0.000009% of dog bites result in death. (Canine Journal). This

website does take a pro-dog position, however because the information I am citing is factual it

cannot be hindered by a slightly biased purpose. Additionally, the factuality allows the

information to meet the CRAAP guidelines. Additionally, pet attacks are often caused by

provocation, or the pet being startled (Notari). For example, it is explained that no certain breeds

of dogs have been found to be common offenders towards humans or other dogs (Notari).

However, there have been noted trends of dog bites being defensive in nature when humans are

the victims and offensive in nature when other dogs are the victims (Notari). This source is a

scholarly article, so the information is reliable, and the purpose does not interfere with the

information. This means that this source meets the CRAAP standards.

There are a few common misconceptions about the link between pets and owner health.

For example, some people believe that pets and humans cannot transmit diseases to one another.
 Waggoner 9

This is false, human contact with animals and pets results in millions of infections each year.

Another misconception is that the new micro bacteria that pets introduce to a household

increases the risk of disease spreading. While this is possible, it is also very possible that the new

diverse micro bacteria will strengthen the immune health of the owners and prevent things such

as pet allergies.

I believe that the most logical answer to my research question is that pets positively affect

owner health through physical activity, mental health outcomes, strengthening owner immune

function, and companionship and emotional nourishment. However, I will need to concede

negative effects that relate to all these areas too, especially physical health. I do think I will

continue researching, though, because I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility for

evidence to suggest that pets have no correlational effect on owner health. This would mean that

the positives and negative balance out, leading the general impact of pets on owner health to be

null. I would especially like to dive deeper into the subject areas of immune strength and social

health concerning pet ownership. I am especially intrigued about the effects that pet ownership

has on owners who suffer conditions that inhibit social function. I also think I should do some

research into service dogs because they have a strong impact on the functionality of their owners.

If I keep my current tentative answer to my research question, I think it would be beneficial to

find more evidence of positive physical health outcomes related to pet ownership.
 Waggoner 10

Works Cited

Brooks, Helen, et al. Ontological security and connectivity provided by pets: a study in the self-

management of the everyday lives of people diagnosed with a long-term mental health

condition. BMC Psychiatry, vol. 16, no. 409, 9 Dec. 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1111-3. Accessed 19 Mar. 2022.

“Dog Bite Statistics (How Likely Are You to Get Bit?).” Canine Journal, 2 Mar. 2022,

https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Driscoll, Carlos A., et al. “From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of

domestication.” PNAS, vol. 106, no. 1, 16 June 2009,

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901586106. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Flegr, Jaroslav, and Marek Preiss. "Friends with malefit. The effects of keeping dogs and cats,

sustaining animal-related injuries and Toxoplasma infection on health and quality of

life." PLoS ONE, vol. 14, no. 11, 22 Nov. 2019, p. e0221988. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A606539787/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=5693706d. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.

 Waggoner 11

Grajfoner, Dasha et al. “The Effect of Pets on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing during

COVID-19 Lockdown in Malaysia.” Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, vol.

11, no. 9, 14 Sep. 2021, doi:10.3390/ani11092689. Accessed 20 Mar. 2022.

Hesselmar, Bill, et al. “Pet-Keeping in Early Life Reduces the Risk of Allergy in a Dose-

Dependent Fashion.” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 12, Dec. 2018, pp. 1–13. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208472. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

“How Dog Training Is Affecting Prison Rehabilitation.” Alvernia Online, Alvernia University, 4

Apr. 2019, https://online.alvernia.edu/articles/how-dog-training-is-affecting-prison-

rehabilitation/#:~:text=Improving%20Prison%20Rehabilitation,turn%2C%20enhance

%20inmates'%20lives. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Luo, Shugang, et al. “Pet Keeping in Childhood and Asthma and Allergy among Children in

Tianjin Area, China.” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 5, May 2018, pp. 1–9. Academic Seach

Complete, EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197274. Accessed 6 Mar.

2022.

Notari, Lorella et al. “A Retrospective Analysis of Dog-Dog and Dog-Human Cases of

Aggression in Northern Italy.” Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, vol. 10, no.

9, 16 Sep. 2020, doi:10.3390/ani10091662. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Pastorinho, M R, and Ana C. A. Sousa. Pets As Sentinels, Forecasters and Promoters of Human

Health. Springer, 2020. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.

Pendry, Patricia, and Jaymie L. Vandagriff. “Animal Visitation Program (AVP) Reduces

Cortisol Levels of University Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” AERA Open.

April 2019. doi:10.1177/2332858419852592. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

 Waggoner 12

Rodriguez, Kerri E., et al. “The Effects of Assistance Dogs on Psychosocial Health and

Wellbeing: A Systematic Literature Review.” PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 12, Dec. 2020, pp.

1–28. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243302. Accessed 26 Mar.

2022.

Salas Garcia, Mariana C., et al. “Pets as a Novel Microbiome-Based Therapy.” Springer

International Publishing, 2020. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30734-9.

Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

“Service Animals.” ADA National Network, ADA, 15 Mar. 2011,

https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

The Human Animal Bond Research Institute. HABRI, 5 Mar. 2020, https://habri.org/. Accessed

27 Feb. 2022.

Tun, Hein M. et al. “Exposure to household furry pets influences the gut microbiota of infant at

3-4 months following various birth scenarios.” BMC, vol. 5, no. 40, 6 Apr. 2017.

doi:10.1186/s40168-017-0254-x. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Villafaina-Domínguez, Beatriz et al. “Effects of Dog-Based Animal-Assisted Interventions in

Prison Population: A Systematic Review.” Animals : an open access journal from MDPI,

vol. 10, no. 11. 16 Nov. 2020. doi:10.3390/ani10112129. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Wills, Matthew. “The Invention of Pets - JSTOR DAILY.” JSTOR Daily, 28 Jan. 2017,

https://daily.jstor.org/the-invention-of-pets/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Wood, Lisa, et al. “The Pet Factor - Companion Animals as a Conduit for Getting to Know

People, Friendship Formation and Social Support.” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 4, Apr. 2015,
 Waggoner 13

pp. 1–17. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122085. Accessed 26 Mar.

2022.