ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 27, ISSUE 3
PP. 351–359 DIRECTLY FROM
Address for correspondence:
Mónica Teresa González
Ramírez, Universidad Autónoma
de Nuevo León,
UANL, Fac. de Psicología. Av.
Universidad S/N Ciudad
Universitaria
San Nicolás de los Garza Nuevo
León, C.P. 66451 Mexico.
E-
mail:
monygzz77@yahoo.com;
monica.gonzalezrz@uanl.edu.mx
REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2014
PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
Psychometric Properties of the
Lexington Attachment to Pets
Scale: Mexican Version
(LAPS-M)
Mónica Teresa González Ramírez, Lucía del Carmen
Quezada Berumen and René Landero Hernández,
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, UANL, Fac. de Psicología,
Mexico
Abstract The Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS) is perhaps the most
widely used instrument to assess human emotional attachments to pets and is
suitable for both dog and cat owners. However, this instrument has not been
translated into Spanish. Thus, the present study aimed to assess the psycho- metric
properties of the Mexican version of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale
(LAPS-M), which was translated into Spanish and adapted for dog own- ers. We
analyzed the internal consistency and factor structure in a conven- ience sample of
152 people; 56.6% were women and 43.4% were men, with a mean age of 32.4
years (SD = 10.9 years), who had, on average, two dogs for a period of 3.8 years.
The results indicate that the scale has excellent internal consistency in its complete
DOI: 10.2752/175303714X13903827487926
version, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96, and also in its three subscales, with
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.83 to
0.94. Factor analysis suggests a unifactorial structure is appropriate. However, the
goodness-of-fit indicated by confirmatory factor analysis statistics would likely
improve with a larger sample size. When we compared the central ten- dency
measures of the LAPS-M according to the type of relationship with the dog, we
found higher scores among people who considered dogs to be fam- ily members
than among those who considered dogs to be pets. Furthermore, people who
reported that the relationship with their dog was burdensome or stressful had lower
scores. We conclude that the Mexican version of the LAPS is adequate and that
further studies with larger sample sizes will contribute to the evidence regarding its
psychometric properties.
Anthrozoös
Keywords: attachment, human–animal bond, LAPS
In Mexico, nearly six out of 10 households (58%) report having at
❖ least one pet. By far, the most common pet in Mexican homes is the
351
dog (84%), followed by the cat (30%), birds (27%), fish
(11.5%), turtles (3.8%), and rodents (2.8%). The presence of dogs and
 Psychometric Properties of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale: Mexican Version (LAPS-M)

cats in the same house is common: 22% of households who reported having pets indicated having
both (Campos and Hernández 2011).
Staats, Wallace and Anderson (2008) suggest that owning a pet can meet basic human needs
such as the need for companionship. These authors emphasize the ability of animals to provide
protection against loneliness, to be a support in difficult times, as well as to have the ability to
maintain a level of activity in people. Sable (1995), framing his discussion in terms of the theory of
human attachment (Bowlby 1958), argues that pets provide solace and company and may even serve
as substitutes for human attachment, especially for older adults.
Dogs are often described by their owners as children, friends, mates, and confidants, which
is in keeping with Campos and Hernandez’s (2011) definition of a pet. They appear to serve as an
important source of social and emotional support. Consequently, dogs can evoke strong feelings of
attachment in their owners (Lagoni, Butler and Hetts 1994; Kurdek 2008, 2009).
Beck and Madresh (2008) state that pets are not merely substitutes for human interac- tion
but also play a specific role in providing a consistent sense of security in the relationship. This refers
to the easy access to the pet, such as when owners return home and know that their pet will be there,
and it can help ease the uncertainty of more complex relationships with human beings, making it
easier for pet owners to cope with everyday life. Recent research on the effect of pets on stress
responses suggests that the presence of a pet may be par- ticularly beneficial for reducing the
impact of stressful situations on owners (Allen 2003; Stafford 2006).
The Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS), developed by Johnson, Garrity and
Stallones (1992), is perhaps the most widely used questionnaire to assess emotional at-
tachment to pets (Douglas 2005). Even though there are at least 140 instruments used in the
human–animal interaction field, the LAPS is the most frequently cited (Wilson and Net- ting 2012).
It was developed from two attachment scales created in earlier studies by the same research
team, with the addition of elements from the Companion Animal Bonding Scale (Poresky et al.
1987), the Pet Attitude Scale (Templer et al. 1981), and the Pet Attitude Inventory (Wilson, Netting
and New 1987).
Stallones et al. (1990) initially developed the scale and analyzed its psychometric proper- ties
using data from a probability sample of 816 American adults aged 21 to 64 years. The scale had
adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75). Johnson, Garrity and Stallones (1992)
improved the scale using data from a randomly selected representative sam- ple (n = 412). The final
scale consisted of 23 items with four response options that indicate the degree of agreement or
disagreement with each item on the scale. The instrument had excellent psychometric properties
(Cronbach’s alpha: 0.94). According to the analysis of prin- cipal components, the scale has three
factors: general attachment, people substitution, and animal rights. The Cronbach’s alpha values for
these subscales were 0.90, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively” (p. 129).
Research on the human–animal bond is still developing. In addition, research on the sub- ject
Anthrozoös

published in Spanish is very limited (Gutiérrez, Granados and Piar 2007; González and Landero
2011). Researchers have tended not to use validated instruments (e.g., Cruz 2009; Gonzalez and
Landero 2011), which are important to this line of research. For this reason, the purpose of our study
was to translate the LAPS into Spanish and to evaluate its psychome- tric properties. This version
of the scale is called the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale– Mexican version (LAPS-M).
352
 González et

Methods
Participants
The survey was anonymously answered online via questionpro.com. A snowball sampling technique
(Goodman 1961) was used: those who had answered the survey were asked to in- vite other people
who owned dogs to respond. The link to the survey was published on the first author’s web page;
also, it was shared on Facebook. Inclusion criteria required that par- ticipants were adults who lived
in Mexico, owned at least one dog, and spoke Spanish.
Two hundred people answered the survey; however, 36 respondents dropped out before the final
question and 12 questionnaires had more than two blank answers; those questionnaires were
discarded. Therefore, a total of 152 people successfully completed the questionnaire. All of the data
were treated confidentially. The participants were 56.6% women and 43.4% men, with a mean age of
32.4 years (SD = 10.9); the participants had at least one dog, a maximum of eight dogs, and a
mean of two dogs (mode: 1). The mean age of the dog the respondents spent most of their time with
was 4.4 years (SD = 3.6), and the dog had lived with the respondent for a mean of 3.8 years (SD =
3.1). The majority (51.3%) of the dogs were male; 38.9% of the dogs were medium-sized (12–25 kg),
28.2% were small (5–12 kg), 19.5% were miniature (3–5 kg),
11.4% were large (25–40 kg), and 2% were very large (> 40 kg).
Instrument
Johnson, Garrity and Stallones (1992) developed the LAPS from other scales that assessed
attachment. They began with 42 items; their final version had 23 items. This version was
translated into Spanish using the back translation method (Hambleton 1996): a person trans- lated
the items into Spanish and another translated them back into the original language, to compare both
English versions. Also, the scale was adapted for dog owners only for this re- search project (see
Appendix 1). The response options range from total disagreement (0) to total agreement (3); items 8
and 21 must be reversed because they are written in the negative. Higher scores indicate greater
attachment.
To obtain an element of criterion validity, we asked about the relationship respondents had with
their dog. The question was: “How do you describe your relationship with your dog?” The
response options were: a family member, a pet, a guard dog, a burden, or a source of stress.
Respondents could only select one option. As we mentioned previously, to define a dog as a family
member is when it takes part in family dynamics; a pet is a companion animal; a guard dog is
when people have a dog to defend their house; a burden is when people consider the dog as
something that they did not want in their lives, and a source of stress when the relationship is a
problem.
Statistical Analysis
In the confirmatory factor analysis, we followed the threshold levels recommended by Hooper,
Coughlan and Mullen (2008): for chi-square divided by degrees of freedom ( y2/df), values less than
3; for goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normed-fit index (NFI);
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI), values greater than 0.95; while for root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), values less than 0.07.
Anthrozoös

Results
For descriptive purposes, the measures of central tendency and the standard deviations are presented
in Table 1. For the initial analysis, we estimated the internal consistency of the full scale and
353

obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96. The Cronbach’s alpha values for the three
 Psychometric Properties of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale: Mexican Version (LAPS-M)

Table 1. Measures of central tendency and standard deviations.

Median Mean SD Range of Scores Skewness Kurtosis
LAPS-M 43.0 43.1 14.1 0–69 –0.631 0.362
General Attachment 22.0 21.8 7.4 0–33 –0.724 0.355
Person Substitution 11.0 10.8 4.4 0–21 –0.174 0.047
Animal Rights 10.0 10.4 3.2 0–15 –0.676 0.407
LAPS-M: Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale-Mexican Version.

Table 2. Goodness of fit indices for confirmatory factor analyses.

Model Absolute Fit Index Incremental Fit Index
y /df
2
GFI AGFI RMSEA NFI TLI CFI
Model 1 (three factors) 2.079 0.775 0.727 0.085 0.824 0.888 0.899
Model 2 (one-factor) 2.280 0.743 0.691 0.092 0.805 0.867 0.879
Model 3 (independent factors)
General Attachment 1.678 0.926 0.878 0.067 0.948 0.970 0.978
Person Substitution 3.546 0.915 0.831 0.130 0.865 0.846 0.897
Animal Rights 1.684 0.978 0.933 0.067 0.976 0.980 0.990
GFI: goodness of fit index; AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation;
NFI: normed-fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI: comparative fit index.

Table 3. Central tendency measures and standard deviations according to the type of relationship with
the dog.
Family Member Pet Guard Dog A Burden Stressful
(n = 101) (n = 37) (n = 7) (n = 2) (n = 1)
LAPS-M
Mean 48.7 36.6 24.3 13.5 9
Median 47.0 36.0 23.0 13.5
SD 9.9 13.0 12.9 7.8
General Attachment
Mean 24.9 18.1 11.7 6.0 2
Median 24.0 18.0 11.0 6.0
SD 5.1 7.1 6.7 4.2
Person Substitution
Mean 12.1 9.8 6.6 2.5 0
Median 12.0 10.0 7.0 2.5
SD 3.9 4.0 3.5 2.1
Animal Rights
Anthrozoös

Mean 11.7 8.7 6.0 5.0 7

Median 12.0 9.0 5.0 5.0
SD 2.3 2.7 3.2 1.4
LAPS-M: Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale-Mexican Version.
354
 González et

theoretical subscales were 0.94 for general attachment (11 items), 0.83 for people substitution (7
items), and 0.85 for animal rights (5 items).
A scree plot from the exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the number of factors. One
factor was the best solution, explaining 52.6% of the variance (eigenvalue: 12.1). Two fac- tors
explained 59.5% of the variance (eigenvalue: 1.6), and three factors explained 64.0% of the variance
(eigenvalue: 1.0). The distribution of the items in these three factors does not correspond completely
with the theoretical subscales; some items loaded on different subscales.
We conducted the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) according to the distribution of the items
suggested by the authors of the scale. In this model, all of the parameters were significant, but the
goodness of fit statistics indicated that the model could be improved (Table 2). A CFA con- sidering a
one-factor structure was also conducted; in this analysis, the goodness-of-fit statis- tics were close to
threshold levels. The data showed a normalized Mardia coefficient (1970, 1974) of 19, which was
below the limit of 50 suggested by Rodríguez Ayán and Ruiz (2008). Finally, independent models
for each subscale were estimated, as shown in Table 2. These models had the best goodness of fit
and achieved, or were close to, threshold levels.
Owners were asked about the type of relationship they had with their dog. The participants
selected a response from the following options: it is a family member (66.4%); it is a pet (24.3%); it is
a guard dog (4.6%); it is a burden (1.3%); it is stressful (0.7%). For this question, 2.6% of the
participants did not identify with any of the options. In Table 3, we have included measures of cen- tral
tendency on the LAPS-M for each relationship category. As Table 3 shows, the LAPS-M scores are
higher among the participants who considered their dog to be a family member.

Discussion
The LAPS is a widely used scale (Douglas 2005); nevertheless, few studies have explored its
psychometric properties and there have been no translations or adaptations of it into other lan-
guages. When comparing the internal consistency of our scale with the original version by
Johnson, Garrity and Stallones (1992), we found similar Cronbach’s alpha values; similar to these
researchers, we determined that general attachment was the subscale with the great- est internal
consistency. The reliability of the instrument is higher when the three subscales are included, as
would be expected. In any case, all of the alpha values indicate excellent in- ternal consistency.
Regarding the factorial structure, the distribution of the items within the three factors did not
correspond completely with the theoretical subscales. Our results were similar to those in the study
of the original version of the scale by Johnson, Garrity and Stallones (1992). In that study, the
eigenvalue of factor 1 was 9.6 (in our study, 12.1); the second factor was 1.5 (in our study, 1.6); and
the third factor was 1.2 (in our study, 1.0). Thus, based on the original version, it is likely that the
scale is unidimensional, although the authors proposed three dimensions.
In the confirmatory factor analysis, we found CFI, TLI, and RMSEA values similar to those ob-
tained in Zaparanick’s study (2008) (0.86, 0.84, and 0.06, respectively, in Zaparanick’s study; 0.89,
0.88, and 0.08, respectively, in our study). These values are within acceptable limits, but they indicate
that the model could be improved. We obtained the best fit when we assessed each subscale
independently, which can be explained by the sample size. Thus, with a larger sample size, we would
Anthrozoös

expect a better fit for the one-factor solution and for the three-factor solution.
The comparison of scores according to the type of relationship with the dog indicates that people
who consider their dogs to be family members have the greatest attachment to them. These data
support the criterion validity of the instrument.
355
 Psychometric Properties of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale: Mexican Version (LAPS-M)

An important limitation of the study is that the LAPS-M was adapted for dog owners only.
Future research could include comparing the results for dogs and for cats as was done in the original
study of LAPS.
We conclude that the LAPS-M is an adequate instrument for assessing attachment and that it
would be beneficial to continue research on this topic to produce additional evidence about its
validity and reliability.

References
Allen, K. 2003. Are pets a healthy pleasure? The influence of pets on blood pressure. Current Directions in
Psychological Science 12: 236–239.
Beck, L. and Madresh, E. A. 2008. Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment theory to
relationships with pets. Anthrozoös 21: 43–56.
Bowlby, J. 1958. The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 39: 350–373.
Campos, R. and Hernández, A. M. 2011. México: las mascotas en nuestros hogares. Encuesta nacional en viviendas.
México, D.F: Consulta Mitofsky.
Cruz, C. 2009. Mascotas: ¿Amigos medicinales? Alternativas en psicología 20: 48–57.
Douglas, D. 2005. Benefits to pets from the human–animal bond: A study of pet owner behaviors and their
relation to attachment. PhD thesis, Wichita State University, USA. http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/
bitstream/handle/10057/651/d05007.pdf. Accessed on February 17, 2012.
González, M. T. and Landero, R. 2011. Diferencias en Estrés Percibido, Salud Mental y Física de acuerdo al Tipo de
Relación Humano-Perro. Revista Colombiana de Psicología 20: 75–86.
Goodman, L. A. 1961. Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32: 148–170. doi:10.1214/
aoms/1177705148.
Gutiérrez, G., Granados, D. and Piar, N. 2007. Interacciones humano–animal: Características e implicaciones para el
bienestar de los humanos. Revista Colombiana de Psicología 16: 163–184.
Hambleton, R. K. 1996. Adaptación de tests para su uso en diferentes idiomas y culturas: Fuentes de error, posibles
soluciones y directrices prácticas. In Psicometría, 203–238, ed. J. Muñiz. Madrid: Universitas.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. R. 2008. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for determining model
fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6: 53–60.
Johnson, T., Garrity, T. and Stallones, L. 1992. Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale
(LAPS). Anthrozoös 5: 160–175.
Kurdek, L. A. 2008. Pet dogs as attachment figures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25: 247–
266.
Kurdek, L. A. 2009. Young adults’ attachment to pet dogs: Findings from open-ended methods. Anthrozoös
22: 359–369.
Lagoni, L., Butler, C. and Hetts, S. 1994. The Human–Animal Bond and Grief. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders
Company.
Mardia, K. V . 1970. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. BioKmetrika 57: 519–
530.
Mardia, K. V . 1974. Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and
robustness studies. Sankhya, Series B 36: 115–128.
Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Mosier, J. E. and Samuelson, M. L. 1987. The companion animal bonding scale: Internal
reliability and construct validity. Psychological Reports 60: 743–746.
Rodríguez Ayán, M. N. and Ruiz, M. A. 2008. Atenuación de la asimetría y de la curtosis de las puntuaciones
observadas mediante transformaciones de variables: Incidencia sobre la estructura factorial. Psicológica 29: 205–
227.
Anthrozoös

Sable, P. 1995. Pets, attachment, and well-being across the life cycle. Social Work 40: 334–341.
Staats, S., Wallace, H. and Anderson, T. 2008. Reasons for companion animal guardianship (pet ownership) from two
populations. Society & Animals 16: 279–291.
Stafford, K. 2006. The Welfare of Dogs. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Stallones, L., Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F. and Marx, M. B. 1990. Quality of attachment to companion animals among
U.S. adults, 21 to 64 years of age. Anthrozoös 3: 171–176.
356
 González et

Templer, D., Salter, C., Dickey, S. and Baldwin, R. 1981. The construction of a pet attitude scale. Psychological Record
31: 343–348.
Wilson, C. C. and Netting, F. E. 2012. The status of instrument development in the human–animal interaction field.
Anthrozoös 25: 11–55.
Wilson, C. C., Netting, F. E. and New, J. C. Jr. 1987. Pet Attitude Inventory. Anthrozoös 1: 76–84. Zaparanick, T. L.
2008. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Tennessee, USA. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/359. Accessed on March 17, 2012.

Anthrozoös
357
 Psychometric Properties of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale: Mexican Version (LAPS-M)

Appendix 1.
The Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS) and the Mexican version, LAPS-M.
LAPS
Instructions: Please take a few minutes to fill in this questionnaire based on the animal you have lived with the longest. Answer
using the follow criteria: Strongly disagree = 0; Somewhat disagree = 1; Somewhat agree = 2; Strongly agree = 3.
LAPS-M

Instrucciones: Responde este cuestionario tomando en cuenta al perro con el que más tiempo tienes.
Con- testa usando las siguientes opciones: Totalmente en desacuerdo = 0; En desacuerdo = 1; De

acuerdo = 2; Totalmente de acuerdo = 3.

1. My pet means more to me than any of my friends
1. Mi perro significa más para mí que cualquiera de mis amigos
2. Quite often I confide in my pet
2. Muy frecuentemente confío en mi perro
3. I believe that pets should have the same rights and privileges as family members
3. Creo que los perros deben tener los mismos derechos y privilegios como miembros de la familia
4. I believe my pet is my best friend
4. Creo que mi perro es mi mejor amigo
5. Quite often, my feelings towards people are affected by how they react to my pet
5. Es muy frecuente que mis sentimientos hacia la gente se vean afectados por como ellos
reaccionan hacia mi perro
6. I love my pet because he/she is more loyal to me than most of the people in my life
6. Quiero a mi perro porque es más leal conmigo que la mayoría de la gente en mi vida
7. I enjoy showing other people pictures of my pet
7. Disfruto mostrarle fotos de mi perro a la gente
8. I think my pet is just a pet
8. Pienso que mi perro es solo una mascota
9. I love my pet because it never judges me
9. Quiero a mi perro porque nunca me juzga
10. My pet knows when I’m feeling bad
10. Mi perro sabe cuando me siento mal
11. I often talk to other people about my pet
11. Muy seguido hablo de mi perro con otras personas
12. My pet understands me
12. Mi perro me entiende
13. I believe that loving my pet helps me stay healthy
13. Pienso que el afecto que siento hacia mi perro me ayuda a estar saludable
14. Pets deserve as much respect as humans do
Anthrozoös

14. Los perros merecen tanto respeto como los humanos

15. My pet and I have a very close relationship
15. Mi perro y yo tenemos una relación muy cercana
16. I would do almost anything to take care of my pet
358

16. Haría casi cualquier cosa por el cuidado de mi perro

 González et

17. I play with my pet quite often

17. Juego con mi perro muy seguido
18. I consider my pet to be a great companion
18. Considero que mi perro es una magnifica compañía
19. My pet makes me feel happy
19. Mi perro me hace sentir feliz
20. I feel that my pet is a part of my family
20. Siento que mi perro es parte de la familia
21. I am not very attached to my pet
21. No estoy muy apegado a mi perro
22. Owning a pet adds to my happiness
22. Tener un perro contribuye a mi felicidad
23. I consider my pet to be a friend
23. Considero a mi perro un amigo
Items 8 and 21 have to be reversed before addition.
General attachment: items 10, 11, 13, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23.
People substitution: items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9.
Animal rights: items 3, 8, 14, 16, 20.

Los ítems 8 y 21 deben invertirse antes de sumar.

Apego: ítems 10, 11, 13, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23.
Sustitución de gente: ítems 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9.
Derechos de los animales: ítems 3, 8, 14, 16, 20.

Anthrozoös
359