1

“Spot the Difference”: A Critical Review of Research in the Media

Suguna Garraway

Critical Thinking and Research Methods in Psychology: Psych 2018H

Trent University

Professor: Nancie Im-Bolter

Due: November 22, 2023

 2

Murez. (2023, July 17). Pets Don’t Help Those With Severe Mental Illness Fare Better.
U.S.News. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-07-17/pets-dont-help-those-
with-severe-mental-illness-fare-better#:~:text=MONDAY%2C%20July%2017%2C
%202023%20(,aren’t%20trained%20therapy%20animals.

Shoesmith, E., Lorimer, B., Peckham, E., Walker, L., & Ratschen, E. (2023, July 14). The
influence of animal ownership on mental health for people with severe mental illness: Findings
from a UK population cohort study. Human-Animal Interactions.
https://doi.org/10.1079/hai.2023.0027

Popular Media Article

HealthDay News’ article, “Pets Don’t Help Those With Severe Mental Illness Fare Better”,

reported the results of a 2021 survey analyzing the mental health condition of 170 United

Kingdom residents, including 81 pet owners, many of whom disclosed that pet ownership

deteriorated their mental illness. Despite the purported close bonds with their pets, and claims of

feeling loved, results showed that owners didn’t experience any significant improvement

regarding their mental health. The initial study surmised that the strains of isolation during the

pandemic may have triggered the decline in mental illness which many participants endured, and

while the updated study showed a slight increase in well-being scores, the results still do not

indicate any great benefit in pet ownership to those with mental illnesses. This study raises

awareness about factors regarding psychological well-being and starts beneficial discussions that

encourage people with severe mental illnesses to seek alternative efficient coping methods.

This is quantitative research using self-reporting methods of survey, evidenced by the numerical

data provided such as the population size of the participants being 170 participants, with 81

identifying as pet owners, and 95% of whom reported the emotional connection to their pets. In
 3

this social media article, the independent variable is the mental health condition of the

participants, while the dependent variable is pet ownership because the reports how the 81 pet-

owning participants fared, in comparison to their counterparts who did not own pets.

Original Scholarly Research Article

In my opinion, the general topic is the effect that pet ownership has on the mental state of people

diagnosed with severe mental health disorders. To help those with mental illness, it is important

to know the impact that seemingly simple factors have on their mental well-being. I believe the

authors aim to determine what have factors have a positive impact on those with poor mental

health which may lead to positive breakthroughs in the field of psychology by providing

guidelines on best lifestyle practices for this sector of the population.

The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of pet ownership on mental well-being of

those with severe mental illness and the quality of the bond that exists between the owners and

their pets.

The main hypothesis is that having an animal companion is beneficial to people with mental

illnesses. To be thorough, a health and wellbeing study should examine the effect of daily

practices and lifestyle choices of those with mental illnesses such as pet ownership, to determine

their efficacy. Therefore, the purpose of the main hypothesis does follow logically from past

research which was regarding identifying and closing the gaps in health and optimizing

wellbeing.

The participants of another study regarding the gaps in mental health were invited to participate

in this study. Initially, 367 of them were selected, 37 opted out of the study after the first survey
 4

and an additional 44 participants withdrew by the end of the third survey, so the fourth survey

had a participant population of 286. 170 participants completed the final survey, 81 of whom

identified themselves as pet owners. All participants were residents of the United Kingdom, aged

18 years and over, and had a documented diagnosis of a psychotic disorder such as bipolar,

schizophrenia, or the DSM equivalent thereof. The researchers used a sampling framework based

on the demographics of gender, ethnicity, age, professional activity, socio-economic status, the

mental disorder diagnosed, etc. This sample appears to be representative of most of the

population and seems to be appropriate for the research as the missing data shown in Table 1.

Participant Characteristics was at a minimal percentage.

The type of research design that was used in the study is quantitative self-reporting surveys; this

is proven by the numerical data and statistical analysis presented in the abstract and expanded on

in the results segment.

This quantitative research using self-reporting methods of survey, is proven as such by the

numerical data compiled from surveys results and the use of linear regression models and R

statistical software in analyzing this data. The independent variable is the mental health condition

of the participants, while the dependent variable is pet ownership and its requirements.

There are 2 main variables in the study; the independent variable is the mental health condition

of all the participants and the dependent variable is the pet owners in the group, which I think

were clearly and operationally defined. Controls were made for extraneous variables such as the

participants’ levels of wellbeing, depression, and anxiety in association by repeating the linear

regression models. I feel that there was little control in place for the impact of medications for

their mental illnesses as well as the impact of the pandemic on the participants’ mental states.
 5

Two analyses are:

Table 1. Participant characteristics, page 4: shows the demographic characteristics and number of

participants within each demographic who took part in the study, specifically the number of

participants who owned pets and the types of pets they owned. More than half of the participants

owned one pet, with dogs being the most common, cats following as second common pet. The

least common was the ownership of 10 or more animals.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for total CCA scores and frequency of engagement, page 5: these

results show that most of the pet owners in the study frequently interacted with their pets and felt

that these pets were family members.

The authors identified the following limitations:

 Sample size

 Lack of variety in pets; focus was predominantly on dogs and cats

 Lack of Ethnic diversity; reported only as white and ‘nonwhite’

One original limitation would be if the participants were medicated for their mental health

disorder.

They felt using a larger sample size and comparing a larger size of pet owners and non-pet

owners would provide more variety in the results. Also, they found that the larger sample size

would provide greater diversity as the study only classified ethnicities in terms of being white or

non-white. Similarly, they felt studies using a more diverse sample of animal species should be

conducted.
 6

Expanding on the original limitation provided above, I think studies should be conducted

investigating the number of participants who are not medicated versus those who are. Further, of

the medicated participants, how many have experienced positive results from the medications

and how, if at all, has this impacted the relationship between them and their pets? Have they been

able to spend more quality time with their pets, and if so, has spending more quality time with

the pets then affected their mental health? The same can be investigated of the non-medicated

participants and then compare the results to achieve more clarity into the impact of pet

ownership.

The Comparison

I found the popular media article did not indicate the significance of the scholarly research article

and how it could be impactful. The media article’s contribution was inconsistent with the

scholarly article as it did not report most of the findings reported in the scholarly article, making

it appear downplayed and a little misleading. It did not convey the limitations indicated by the

researchers and did not discuss the various illnesses investigated.

The scholarly research article was thorough and conclusive, detailing all aspects of the research

including, but not limited to, the variety of pets and the statistical information derived from the

research. The popular media article, however, gave only a brief synopsis of the scholarly article,

neglecting to discuss the variety of animals owned, the frequency of interaction between pets and

owners, and the variation of mental illnesses investigated. All this information allows for a better

grasp of understanding of the research. The media article can mislead readers to think that pet

ownership bears no benefit at all.

 7

The popular media article identified the possible impact of the pandemic and did not mention the

other limitations that the researchers spoke of.

I found the popular media article is not an accurate reflection of the scholarly article as it does

not fully convey the results of the survey and what the analysis of said data meant for those with

severe mental illness. In failing to do so, there is a risk of creating bias against pet ownership as

fragmented reporting can mislead readers. Further, it did not relay the various limitations the

researchers discovered in the study and their suggestions for further research.

“I have read the instructions for this paper and understand that I will receive the appropriate

marks deductions for not following them”.