See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334537755

Relationship Between Pet Attachment and Empathy Among Young Adults

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

14 6,087

2 authors:

Aliya Khalid Irum Naqvi

University of Saskatchewan Quaid-i-Azam University
6 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aliya Khalid on 18 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2016

Relationship Between Pet Attachment and Empathy Among Young

Adults

Aliya Khalid and *Irum Naqvi

National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan

Present research was intended to investigate the relationship

between pet attachment and empathy among young adults.
CENSHARE Pet Attachment Survey (Holcomb, Williams, &
Richards, 1985) was used to measure pet attachment and Multi-
Dimensional Scale of Emotional Empathy (Caruso & Mayer,
1998) was used to measure empathy. Sample which included
young adults (N = 250) within the age range of 18 to 26 years (M =
21.16; SD = 2.10), was taken from both public and private
universities. The results showed significant positive relationship
between pet attachment and empathy. Further, the result showed
women scoring higher on pet attachment and empathy as compared
to men. Pet owners spending less time with their pets showed
stronger pet attachment. Significant predicting role of pet
attachment was shown for empathy, with highest variance shown
with intimacy component of pet attachment for the empathy
dimension of feeling for others, then responsive crying, empathy
and emotional attention respectively. Lastly, significant
moderating role of gender for the effect of pet attachment on
empathy was shown, with women scoring higher than men on
empathy with increasing pet attachment.
Keywords: Empathy, pet attachment, young adults, responsive
crying, intimacy.

Pet keeping is found to be common and popular among various

societies, especially in the West (Shipman, 2010; Serpell & Paul, 2011).
When it comes to explaining pet attachment, Holcomb et al. (1985)
explained it as a close relationship between pet and owner, characterized
by establishing intimacy and enhancing bond through various activities.

Aliya Khalid, Alumnus, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University,

Islamabad, Pakistan. Email: aliyakhalidpsy@gmail.com
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Irum Naqvi, Lecturer,
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Email: irumnaqv@nip.edu.pk
PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY 67

Two components, relationship maintenance and intimacy were

highlighted for pet attachment. Relationship maintenance was interacting
physically and emotionally with the pet while intimacy was making the
bond stronger and further enhancing it physically and emotionally
(Holcomb et al., 1985).
Empathy and the role that pet attachment may play in its
development has been explored by different researchers such as Daly and
Morton (2006), and Silberstein (2013). Caruso and Mayer (1998)
explained emotional empathy as the ability of a person to understand
others’ suffering, promote positive feelings, pay attention and to be able
to understand others. They also highlighted six components of empathy
which included suffering (the ability to feel for the pain of others),
positive sharing (the ability to undergo positive feelings and emotions),
responsive crying (the use of appropriate affect in order to respond to
others’ distress), emotional attention (being attentive to others’ emotional
manifestation), feel for others (the ability to be affected by others’
emotions) and emotional contagion (personalized sensitivity to others’
emotions) (Caruso & Mayer, 1998).

Relationship between Pet Attachment and Empathy

Studies have shown a positive relationship between pet
attachment and empathy (Beck & Madresh, 2008; Daly & Morton, 2009;
Kurdek, 2009). Serpell (2004) found that individuals owning pets in
childhood were more empathetic in their later life. Daly and Morton
(2009), Paul (2000) and Silberstein (2013) also found similar results.
Higher levels of empathy have also been reported for strong pet
ownership in adulthood. Bierer (2000) and Merril (2012) reported a
positive relationship between pet attachment and empathy for adults.
Daly and Morton (2006) also found similar results.
Rothgerber and Mican (2014) highlighted the predictive role of
pet attachment and found that owning pets in childhood had predictive
value for developing empathy in adulthood. Anderson (2003) also
highlighted the predictive nature of pet attachment with regard to
empathy development in late adolescence. Furthermore, stronger
attachment may significantly predict empathy development in later life
(Hergovich et al., 2002).

Pet Attachment and Empathy among Young Adults

Keeping pets promote positive attitudes of nurturance, love,
affection and concern for the welfare and it may help certain individuals
68 KHALID AND NAQVI

to cope with life transitions (Walsh, 2009). Pets may also function as
significant attachment figures (Beck & Madresh, 2008). It has also been
found that adults having such bonds may be more empathetic toward
others (Silberstein, 2013). Mueller (2014) explored a positive relationship
between pet attachment and empathy among adults. He further found that
individuals who played an active role in taking care of their pets
contributed more toward their society’s welfare.
Even though researches on pets is abundant in the Western
countries (Beck & Madresh, 2008; Daly & Morton, 2009; Mueller, 2014;
Silberstein, 2013), there has not been a single study carried out in
Pakistan on pets or pet owners, despite pets are found in our society. This
highlights the importance of studying how the presence of pets can effect
the lives of its owners.
In Pakistan, empathy has been studied with a number of different
variables such as religious orientation, sympathy and parental acceptance
and rejection (Arzeen & Hassan, 2012; Khan, Watson, & Habib, 2005).
However, it hasn’t been studied with pet attachment. In the West, pet’s
role in empathy development has been shown to be positive (Hergovich
et al., 2002). Although this notion has been supported for both children
and adults, most of the work has been done with children. Hence, the
present study will investigate pet attachment and empathy relationship
among young adults.
The current study is being carried out in an Asian country.
Regarding pet attachment, lower levels have been reported for Asian
countries when compared to Western countries (Kanamori et al., 2001;
Xiaoqiong, 2009). Furthermore, dogs are not looked upon favorably as
pets by many people (Al-Fayez et al., 2013; Knobel et al., 2008), which
is otherwise in other countries (Smolkovic, Fajfar, & Mlinaric, 2012).
Thus, the present study will measure the strength of the pet attachment
bond and resulting empathy in light of the indigenous culture.
Gender has been shown to be a significant demographic variable
when it comes to studying the moderating effect on the relationship of pet
attachment and empathy. This may be because of the different gender
roles assigned in our society, with women shown to be more
compassionate and encouraged to express emotions for other humans as
well as towards animals, in addition to have time to invest in relationship
development (Cohen, 2002). It has been shown by Toussaint and Webb
(2005) that gender may well change the direction as well as the strength
of an individual’s empathy level based on their gender roles, with women
significantly showing greater levels of empathy. Hence, this study will be
PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY 69

exploring whether the moderating effect of gender can also be found for
the present population.
If positive relationship between pet attachment and empathy is
found, it may be an implication for humane educators at the primary level
of education as incorporating pets in the system will have a significantly
positive impact on the empathy development of children. In addition,
rehabilitation programs (such as for criminals) may also benefit from
incorporating pets in their program to make up for compromised levels of
empathy by enhancing positive interactions between the individuals and
pets.

Objectives
The objectives of the present study are as follows:
1. To explore the relationship between pet attachment and empathy
among young adults.
2. To explore relationship of various demographics variables (i.e.,
gender and time spent with pet) with the pet attachment and
empathy among young adults.
3. To explore the moderating role of gender for empathy and pet
attachment among young adults.

Method
Sample
Sample for the current research comprised of young adults in the
age range of 18 to 26 years (M = 21.16; SD = 2.10). For participation in
the present research, it was required to be a pet owner and to be actively
involved in its care. Moreover, it was made mandatory that the
participants showed actively involved in taking care of just one pet at a
time for which the instrument was actually filled out. Sample consisted of
250 university students which was taken from five Universities: Bahria
Universtiy (n = 60), COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (n =
40), FAST University (n = 40), Iqra University (n = 70), and Quaid-i-
Azam University (n = 40). Participants gave their informed consent
before being part of the study. Various demographic variables such as
gender, types of pet and time spent with pet were also taken into
consideration.
Sample was comprised more of men (n = 140) as compared to
women (n = 110). For type of pet, highest frequency was found for dogs
(n = 115) , for cats (n = 97) and parrots (n = 66). For time spent with pet,
highest frequency was found for four hours or more (n = 102). For
70 KHALID AND NAQVI

duration of pet presence at home, highest frequency was reported for

three years or more (n = 95).

Assessment Measures
In addition to a demographic sheet, two instruments were used,
CENSHARE Pet Attachment Survey to assess pet attachment and Multi-
dimensional Scale of Emotional Empathy to assess empathy.

CENSHARE Pet Attachment Survey. Holcomb et al. (1985)

developed this instrument in order to measure level of pet attachment. It
consists of 27 items classified into two subscales; relationship
maintenance and intimacy. The rating was done on a 4-point Likert-type
scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). Reverse scored
items are 2, 13, 19 and 20. Score ranges for the scale are: 27 to 108 for
the whole scale, 16 to 64 for relationship maintenance and 11 to 44 for
intimacy. There is no cut-off score and no score range. Higher scores
indicate higher pet attachment. Reliability of the instrument reported in
present study was α = .91, while for relationship maintenance, it was α =
.88 and for intimacy, it was α = .85.

Multi-dimensional Scale of Emotional Empathy. Caruso and

Mayer (1998) developed the scale in order to measure empathy. A 5-
point likert-type rating scale is used to rate the 30 items which ranges
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale. The scale consists
of six subscales: suffering, positive sharing, responsive crying, emotional
attention, feel for others and emotional contagion. Reverse scored items
are five that are items 4, 9, 13, 16 and 20. Score ranges for the scale are:
30 to 150 for the total scale, 8 to 40 for suffering, 5 to 25 for positive
sharing, 3 to 15 for responsive crying, 4 to 20 for emotional attention, 4
to 20 for feel for others and 2 to 10 for emotional contagion. There is no
cut-off score and no score range. Higher scores indicate higher level of
empathy. Reliability of the instrument reported in present study was α =
.92, whereas for subscales, the values were found to be: suffering ( =
.84), positive sharing ( = .77), responsive crying ( = .68), emotional
attention ( = .64), feel for others ( = .65) and emotional contagion ( =
.32).

Demographic Sheet. After reviewing the existing relevant

literature, demographics included in the study were gender, types of pets
PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY 71

and time spent with pets (Smolkovic et al., 2012; Wood, Giles-Corti, &
Bulsara, 2005).

Procedure
For the purpose of collecting data from universities, permission
was first obtained from the institutions’ respective administrations. After
permission was granted, convenience sampling technique was used to
identify potential participants. They were first asked for consent, then
provided with instructions to fill out the instruments. Further guidance
was provided in case of ambiguity. Confidentiality of responses was
assured. Then, a copy of the three instruments was provided and
participants were instructed to fill it as per their own views. Interested
students were informed through appropriate channels about the research
results.

Results
Correlation was carried out between pet attachment and empathy
to determine the nature and direction of the relationship among the
variables. It was found that pet attachment had a positive correlation with
empathy (p  .01). Both, pet attachment and empathy were positively
correlated with their respective subscales (p  .05; p  .01). On the basis
of this result, linear regression was carried out.
Linear regression analysis was carried out to determine the
predicting role that pet attachment and its subscales played for empathy.
In Table 1, it is shown that prediction on part of pet attachment,
relationship maintenance and intimacy was found to be significant for
empathy, responsive crying, emotional attention and feel for others. Pet
attachment was found to cause a variance of 4%, 6%, 2% and 7%,
relationship maintenance a variance of 3%, 5%, 1% and 5% and intimacy
a variance of 4%, 8%, 2% and 8% for empathy, responsive crying,
emotional attention and feel for others respectively.
72 KHALID AND NAQVI

Table 1
Linear Regression Analysis for Scale of Pet Attachment and its Subscales
Predicting Empathy, Suffering, Positive Sharing, Responsive Crying, Emotional
Attention, Feel for Others and Emotional Contagion (N = 250)
Predictors R R2 B  F S.E
Empathy
CPAS 0.2 0.04 0.2 .21 10.66*** 16.5
RM 0.19 0.03 0.32 .19 9.69** 16.6
I 0.19 0.04 0.45 .19 10.15** 16.6
Suffering
CPAS 0.09 0.01 0.03 .09 2.46 5.36
RM 0.11 0.01 0.06 .11 3.2 5.35
I 0.07 0 0.05 .07 1.27 5.37
Positive Sharing
CPAS 0.1 0.01 0.02 .10 2.63 3.39
RM 0.11 0.01 0.04 .12 3.39 3.38
I 0.08 0 0.03 .06 1.39 3.39
Responsive Crying
CPAS 0.26 0.06 0.05 .26 17.7*** 2.92
RM 0.22 0.05 0.07 .22 13.0*** 2.94
I 0.28 0.08 0.12 .28 21.7*** 2.89
Emotional Attention
CPAS 0.14 0.02 0.03 .13 4.92* 2.98
RM 0.13 0.01 0.04 .13 4.26* 2.99
Feel for Others
CPAS 0.26 0.07 0.05 .27 18.8*** 2.89
RM 0.23 0.05 0.07 .23 14.2*** 2.91
I 0.29 0.08 0.12 .29 22.5*** 2.87
Emotional Contagion
CPAS 0.08 0 0.01 .08 1.67 1.54
RM 0.07 0 0.01 .07 1.13 1.54
I 0.09 0.01 0.02 .09 2.13 1.54
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001; CPAS = CENSHARE Pet Attachment
Survey; RM = Relationship Maintenance; I = Intimacy.
PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY 73

Independent sample t-test was carried out in order to determine

gender differences that may exist for the two variables.

Table 2
Difference between Men and Women for Pet Attachment and Empathy (N =
250).
Men Women
95% C.I
(n = 160) (n = 140)

Variables M SD M SD t (248) p LL UL Cohen's d

PAS 62.3 12.9 72.9 19.5 4.91 .001 -14.8 -6.32 .62
RM 38.2 8.06 44.1 11.6 4.53 .001 -8.42 -3.31 .58
I 24.1 5.73 28.8 8.4 5.04 .001 -6.54 -2.86 .64
MEE 104.2 16.9 115.0 14.8 5.39 .001 -14.8 -6.86 .68
S 30.8 5.77 33.2 4.53 3.59 .001 -3.62 -1.06 .46
PS 18.4 3.37 20.0 3.24 3.74 .001 -2.41 -.75 .47
RC 7.59 2.68 10.4 2.67 8.26 .001 -3.49 -2.14 1.05
EA 13.4 3.21 14.7 2.55 3.60 .001 -2.03 -.59 .46
FO 13.1 3.11 14.6 2.61 4.15 .001 -2.21 -.79 .53
EC 6.76 1.60 7.03 1.451.34 .18 -.65 .12 .17
Note. C.I: Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit; PAS =
CENSHARE Pet Attachment Survey; RMS = Relationship Maintenance; IS = Intimacy;
MEE = Multi-dimensional scale of Emotional Empathy; S = Suffering; PS = Positive
Sharing; RC = Responsive Crying; EA = Emotional Attention; FO = Feel for Others;
EC = Emotional Contagion.

Table 2 shows that women scored higher on both, pet attachment

and empathy (and their subscales, except for emotional contagion) as
compared to men.
Gender differences were found to be significant, hence regression
analysis was carried out to explore the moderation role of gender for the
two study variables.
The below mentioned table shows that  value for the interaction
term (pet attachment x gender) was found to be significant, with variation
due to the interaction term being 15%. The  value was positive, showing
a positive direction for the prediction by the moderator.
74 KHALID AND NAQVI

Table 3
Moderation of the Effect of Pet Attachment on Empathy by Gender Within
Young Adults (N = 250)
Empathy
B S.E 
Constant 1.26 .13
PA -.40 .11 -.66***
Gender -.19 .08 -.64**
PA ' Gender .29 .15 1.39***
2
R .16***
F 15.7***
ΔR 2
.15***
Slope (t – value) = 3.03
Note. ***p < .001; **p < .01; PA = Pet Attachment.

Figure I. Moderation of the Effect of Pet Attachment on Empathy by Gender Within

Young Adults Sample.

Figure 1 shows ModGraph for the moderation by gender on the

effect of pet attachment. The slope indicated significant gender
differences for pet attachment, with men and women having almost equal
empathy for lower pet attachment but women scoring higher on empathy
for higher pet attachment. Upon computation of the significance of the
slop, it showed t = 3.03 (p < .01) for comparison groups (men and
 75
PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY

women) and t = 1.83 (p < .01) for dummy coded for gender groups, indicating that moderation was smaller for the
initial levels of pet attachment (lower and medium) but moderate for the higher level.
ANOVA was carried out on four groups (One hour or less, Two hours, Three hours and Four hours or more)
computed for time spent by a participant with a pet in number of hours.
Table 4 shows significant mean differences for pet attachment and its two subscales. After applying post-hoc analysis
(Bonferroni), higher means for pet attachment, relationship maintenance and intimacy were found for one hour or
less group as compared to the other groups.

Table 4
Comparison between One Hour or Less, Two Hours, Three Hours and Four Hours or More on Pet Attachment (Relationship
Maintenance and Intimacy) on the Total Sample of Young Adults (N = 250)
One hour or Four hours or
Two hours Three hours
less more 95% CI
(n = 53) (n = 34)
(n = 61) (n = 102)
Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD F i-j D(i-j) SE LL UL
PAS 74.7 14.0 65.5 15.6 64.7 17.2 63.9 17.8 6.10** One hour or less > Two hours 9.27* 3.08 1.07 17.5
One hour or less > Three hours 9.99* 3.51 .65 19.3
One hour or less > Four hours or more 10.8** 2.66 3.78 17.9
RM 46.0 8.71 39.77 9.08 39.1 10.5 38.7 10.4 7.94** One hour or less > Two hours 6.28** 1.83 1.40 11.2
One hour or less > Three hours 6.96* 2.09 1.40 12.5
One hour or less > four hours or more 7.31** 1.58 3.11 11.5
I 28.7 6.17 25.68 7.11 25.6 7.24 25.1 7.95 3.21* One hour or less > four hours or more 3.53* 1.18 .39 6.66
Note. **p < .01; *p < .05; CPAS = CENSHARE Pet Attachment Survey; RM = Relationship Maintenance; I = Intimacy.
76 KHALID AND NAQVI

Discussion
Causal association between the two study variables was
investigated through means of correlation and linear regression in the
present study. A positive relationship was found between pet attachment
and empathy; significant predictive role of pet attachment was shown for
empathy (see Table 1). Rothgerber and Mican (2014) showed that pet
attachment may significantly predict the development of empathy,
whether the pet ownership was in childhood or in current state. Anderson
(2003) also found similar results. It has also been found that pet
attachment may be involved in empathy development due to non-
judgmental value, in addition to increasing positive emotions and
empathy related constructs such as altruism (Mueller, 2014; Nebbe,
2001).
Gender differences were measured for the two study variables and
it was found that women, as compared to men, scored higher on both pet
attachment and empathy (see Table 2). Similar results were also reported
by others (Lewis, Krageloh, & Shepherd, 2009; Winefield et al., 2008).
Cohen (2002) reported that when it came to relationships, men were more
critical while women were more focused on maintaining and enhancing
relationship with others as they may have more freedom from society for
expressing affection and working toward better intimate interactions.
Furthermore, women were usually more nurturing and caring, which led
to the development of higher empathy and stronger attachment bond
(Mestre et al., 2009).
Role of gender as a moderator for pet attachment and empathy
was found to be significant (see Table 3). Researches have confiremed
women as having higher pet attachment and empathy as compared to men
(Lewis et al., 2009; Winefield et al., 2008). Furthermore, it has been
shown that men and women may differ in the way that attachment bonds
were formed, with women being more nurturing, caring and attentive.
Hence, this may lead to a stronger bond on part of women (Cohen, 2002).
Moreover, women had higher compassion and expected roles of altruistic
behavior, which also contributed to the identified difference (Toussaint
& Webb, 2005).
It was found that pet attachment was higher for one hour or less
group as compared to the other groups (see Table 4). This result was
contrary to other researches, according to which spending more time with
pets resulted in a stronger attachment (Boya, Dotson, & Hyatt, 2012;
Duvall Antonacopoulos & Pychyl, 2010). However, Dotson and Hyatt
(2008) found that when more quality time was spent with the pet, the
PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY 77

attachment was found to be higher. Smolkovic et al (2012) found that

although those owners who spent more time with their pets had higher
attachment, it also depend on the value given to the relationship.

Limitations and Suggestions

The present study had certain limitations. The young adults
sample mostly came from private universities, which might have resulted
in the sample not being representative of the general population. Future
studies should include an equal sample from public universities. Another
limitation was the inclusion of pet owners only in the sample, which did
not leave any ground for comparison of the study variables with non-
owners. Further studies could include a sample of non-owners and
compare the two groups for any differences found for various related
variables. Moreover, even though the highest frequency among types of
pet was reported for dogs and cats, many other types of pet were also
reported. Hence, these other pets may also be investigated and reported in
future researches in order to get an idea of the types of pet popular in the
present culture.

Implications
This study will lay foundation for other researches to be
conducted with pets in order to better understand their impact on our
lives. Moreover, a comparison between the levels on empathy for pet
owners and non-pet owners will give a clearer perspective on the role of
pet attachment in developing an individual’s empathy. Although the
present study didn’t show any significant difference for time spent with
pet and its effect on pet attachment, it will be helpful to get a measure of
the quality of the time spent with a pet in future researches to identify its
potential role in influencing the relationship.

Conclusion
The present research may well be the first to investigate pet
attachment in Pakistan. Although this study has made a significant
contribution in this area, there is a need for further investigation with
regard to the present study variables and other related variables of
interest. Pets are found to be a part of many people’s lives in the
indigenous society and hence, it is important to understand the role that
they may be playing. Although dogs have been reported as being less
favored by Muslims (Knobel et al., 2008), findings of the present study
showed contradictory results, with dogs being reported as pets by highest
78 KHALID AND NAQVI

frequency of participants. Hence, further studies may be needed for in-

depth investigation.

References
Al-Fayez, G., Awadalla, A., Templer, D. I., & Arikawa, H. (2003).
Companion animal attitude and its family pattern in Kuwait.
Society and Animals, 11, 17-28.
Anderson, P.K. (2003). A bird in the house: An anthropological
perspective on companion parrots. Society and Animals, 11(4),
398-418.
Andreassen, G., Stenvold, L. C., & Rudmin, F. W. (2013). My dog is my
best friend: health benefits of emotional attachment to a pet dog.
Psychology and Society, 5(2), 6-23.
Arzeen, S., & Hassan, B. (2012). Perception of parental acceptance and
rejection in emotionally empathic and non-empathic adolescents.
Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(2), 60-69.
Retrieved from: http://www.gcu.edu.pk/fulltextjour/pjscs/ 2012
july/10.pdf.
Beck, L., & Madresh, E. (2008). Romantic partners and four legged
friends: An extension of attachment theory to relationships with
pets. Anthrozoos, 21, 43-56.
Bierer, R. E. (2000). The relationship between pet bonding, self-esteem,
and empathy in preadolescents (Unpublished doctoral thesis).
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved
from: https://habricentral.org /citations/view/28805.
Boya, U. O., Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2012). Dimensions of the
dog–human relationship: A segmentation approach. Journal of
Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 20, 133–
143. doi:10.1057/jt.2012.8.
Caruso, D. R., & Mayer, J. D. (1998). A measure of emotional empathy
for adolescents and adults. Unpublished manuscript, University
of New Hampshire, Durnham, United States. Retrieved from:
http://unh.edu/emotional/ empathy%20Article%202000.doc.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S. P. (2002). Can pets function as family members? Western
Journal of Nursing Research, 24, 621–638.
Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2006). An investigation of human–animal
interactions and empathy as related to pet preference, ownership,
PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY 79

attachment, and attitudes in children, Anthrozoos, 19, 113-127.

Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/ 089279306785593801.
Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2009). Empathic differences in adults as a
function of childhood and adult pet ownership and pet type.
Anthrozoos, 22, 371-382. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/
10.2752/089279309X12538695316383.
Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. Y. J., & Tse, H. H. M.
(2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level
negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine
organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 571-585.
Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2008). Understanding dog--‐human
companionship. Journal of Business Research, 61, 457-466.
Duvall Antonacopoulos, N. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2010). An examination
of the potential role of pet ownership, human social support and
pet attachment in the psychological health of individuals living
alone. Anthrozoos, 23(1), 37-54. Retrieved from: http://www.
psychologytoday.com/blog/don’t delay/201002/ living-alone-can-
canine-companionship-help-beat-loneliness.
Hergovich, A., Monshi, B., Semmler, G. & Zieglmayer, V. (2002). The
effects of the presence of a dog in the classroom. Anthrozoos, 15,
37-50.
Holcomb, R., Williams, R., & Richards, P. (1985). The elements of
attachment: Relationship maintenance and intimacy. Journal of
the Delta Society, 2, 28-34.
Kanamori, S., Kawashima, T., Kuwabara, M., & Macer, D. (2001).
Attitudes towards animals & animal loving week among Japanese
young adults. Eubios Journal of Asian and International
Bioethics, 11, 82-84. Retrieved from: http://www.eubios.
info/EJ113/EJ113H.htm
Khan, Z. H., Watson, P. J., & Habib, F. (2005). Muslim attitudes toward
religion, religious orientation and empathy among Pakistanis.
Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 8(1), 49-61. Doi:
10.1080/13674670410001666606.
Knobel, D. L., Laurenson, M. K., Kazwala, R. R., Boden, L. A., &
Cleaveland, S. (2008). A cross-sectional study of factors
associated with dog ownership in Tanzania. Bio Medical Central
Veterinary Research, 4, 1-10. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-4-5.
Kurdek, L. A. (2009). Pet dogs as attachment figures for adult owners.
Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 439-446.
80 KHALID AND NAQVI

Lewis, A., Krageloh, C. U., & Shepherd, D. (2009). Pet ownership and
health-rated quality of life in New Zealand. Electronic Journal of
Applied Psychology, 5, 96-101.
McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., &
Colleen, E. M. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive
consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 1239–1252.
Merrill, S. M. (2012). Individual differences and pet ownership status:
distinguishing among different types of pet owners and non-
owners. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses
Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Frias, M. D., & Tur, A. M. (2009). Are
women more empathic than men? A longitudinal study in
adolescence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 76-83.
Mueller, M. K. (2014). Is human-animal interaction linked to positive
youth development? Initial answers. Applied Developmental
Science, 18, 5-16.
Nebbe, L. (2001). The elementary school counselor and the HCAB. In P.
Salloto (Ed.), Pet assisted therapy: A loving intervention and an
emerging profession: leading to a friendlier, healthier, and more
peaceful world (pp. 122 – 130). Norton, MA: D. J. Publications.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Olckers, C., Buys, M. A., & Grobler, S. (2010). Confirmatory factor
analysis of the Multi-dimensional Emotional Empathy Scale in
the South African context. South African Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 36(1), 1-8. Doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i1.856.
Paul, E. S. (2000). Love of pets and love of people. In A. L. Podberscek,
E. S. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us:
Exploring the relationships between people and pets (pp. 168-
186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothgerber, H, & Mican, F. (2014). Childhood pet ownership, attachment
to pets, and subsequent meat avoidance. The mediating role of
empathy toward animals. Appetite, 79, 11-7. doi:
10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.032.
Santos, J. R. A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the
reliability scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2). Retrieved from:
http://joe.org/joe/1999 april/tt3.html.
Serpell, J. A., & Paul, E. S. (2011). Pets in the family: An evolutionary
perspective. In C. A. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The
 PET ATTACHMENT AND EMPATHY 81

Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 298-

309). New York: Oxford University Press.
Serpell, J.A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes towards animals
and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 145-151.
Shipman, P. (2010). The animal connection and human evolution.
Current Anthropology, 51, 519-538.
Silberstein, L. K. (2013). Human-Directed Empathy and Childhood
History of Pet Ownership and Attachment. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com /docview/1437661557.
Smolkovic, I., Fajfar, M., & Mlinaric, V. (2012). Attachment to pets and
interpersonal relationships. Journal of European Psychology
Students, 3, 15-23. doi: dx.doi.org/10.5334/jeps.ao.
Toussaint, L., & Webb, J. R. (2005). Gender differences in the
relationship between empathy and forgiveness. Journal of Social
Psychology, 145(6), 673-685. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.145.6.673-686.
Walsh, F. (2009). Human-Animal bonds II: the role of pets in family
systems and family therapy. Family Process, 48(4), 481-499.
Winefield, H. R., Black, A., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2008). Health effects of
ownership of and attachment to companion animals, in an older
population. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(4),
303-310. doi: 10.1080/10705 500802365532.
Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., & Bulsara, M. (2005). The pet connection:
Pets as a conduit for social capital? Social Science and Medicine,
61, 1159–1173. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed. 2005.01.017.
Xiaoqiong, H. (2008). The culture shock that asian students experience in
immersion education. Changing English: Studies in Culture and
Education (15)1, 101-105. doi: 10.1080/13586840701825378.

Received August 11, 2015

Revisions received May 20, 2016

View publication stats