IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i23p12382-d687505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theoretical Foundations to the Impact of Dog-Related Activities on Human Hedonic Well-Being, Life Satisfaction and Eudaimonic Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Maria Barcelos

    (School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK)

  • Niko Kargas

    (School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK)

  • John Maltby

    (Department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK)

  • Sophie Hall

    (School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK)

  • Phil Assheton

    (Department of Statistics, StatsAdvice.com, Ltd., 10551 Berlin, Germany)

  • Daniel S. Mills

    (School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK)

Abstract

Cross-sectional comparisons of well-being between dog owners and non-owners commonly generate inconsistent results. Focusing on the uniqueness of the relationship might help address this issue and provide a stronger foundation for dog-related psychotherapeutic interventions. This study aims to evaluate the impact of dog-related activities (e.g., exercising the dog) on owner hedonic well-being, life satisfaction and eudaimonic well-being. It was also hypothesised that psychological closeness to the dog would affect these well-being outcomes. For this study, 1030 dog owners aged over 18 years old answered an online questionnaire about the impact of 15 groups of dog-related activities on their well-being. Ordinal regressions were used to estimate the mean response (and its uncertainty) for each outcome, while conditioning for psychological closeness to the dog and controlling for several key covariates. Tactile interactions and dog playing were significantly more beneficial than other activities for hedonic well-being, and dog training and dog presence for eudaimonic well-being. In contrast, dog health issues and behavioural problems were linked to decrements in these well-being outcomes. Higher psychological closeness to the dog predicted greater improvement in well-being in positive dog-related activities. Our quantitative study validates the general findings of previous qualitative work and lays the groundwork for future longitudinal studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Maria Barcelos & Niko Kargas & John Maltby & Sophie Hall & Phil Assheton & Daniel S. Mills, 2021. "Theoretical Foundations to the Impact of Dog-Related Activities on Human Hedonic Well-Being, Life Satisfaction and Eudaimonic Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:23:p:12382-:d:687505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12382/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12382/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaniv Kanat-Maymon & Shira Wolfson & Rinat Cohen & Guy Roth, 2021. "The Benefits of Giving as well as Receiving Need Support in Human–Pet Relations," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1441-1457, March.
    2. Lufanna Lai & Robert Cummins & Anna Lau, 2013. "Cross-Cultural Difference in Subjective Wellbeing: Cultural Response Bias as an Explanation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 607-619, November.
    3. Cavanaugh, Lisa A. & Leonard, Hillary A. & Scammon, Debra L., 2008. "A tail of two personalities: How canine companions shape relationships and well-being," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 469-479, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicole R. Pallotta, 2019. "Chattel or Child: The Liminal Status of Companion Animals in Society and Law," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-44, May.
    2. Robert A. Cummins, 2018. "Subjective Wellbeing as a Social Indicator," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 879-891, February.
    3. Yee Ngoo & Nai Tey & Eu Tan, 2015. "Determinants of Life Satisfaction in Asia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 141-156, October.
    4. Kirk, Colleen P., 2019. "Dogs have masters, cats have staff: Consumers' psychological ownership and their economic valuation of pets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 306-318.
    5. Samson Tse & Emily WS Tsoi & Bridget Hamilton & Mary O’Hagan & Geoff Shepherd & Mike Slade & Rob Whitley & Melissa Petrakis, 2016. "Uses of strength-based interventions for people with serious mental illness: A critical review," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 62(3), pages 281-291, May.
    6. Haiping Xu & Chuqiao Zhang & Yawen Huang, 2023. "Social trust, social capital, and subjective well-being of rural residents: micro-empirical evidence based on the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Rötzmeier-Keuper, Julia & Hendricks (née Lerch), Jennifer & Wünderlich, Nancy V. & Schmitz, Gertrud, 2018. "Triadic relationships in the context of services for animal companions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 295-303.
    8. Oliver Nahkur & Ferran Casas, 2021. "Fit and Cross-Country Comparability of Children’s Worlds Psychological Well-Being Scale Using 12-Year-Olds Samples," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(6), pages 2211-2247, December.
    9. Danish, Muhammad Hassan & Nawaz, Shahzada Muhammad Naeem, 2022. "Does institutional trust and governance matter for multidimensional well-being? Insights from Pakistan," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    10. José E. Ramos-Ruiz & Minerva Aguilar-Rivero & Jaime Aja-Valle & Lucía Castaño-Prieto, 2024. "An Analysis of the Demand for Tourist Accommodation to Travel with Dogs in Spain," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Jennifer E. Symonds & Seaneen Sloan & Michelle Kearns & Dympna Devine & Ciaran Sugrue & Sachita Suryanaryan & Daniel Capistrano & Elena Samonova, 2022. "Developing a Social Evolutionary Measure of Child and Adolescent Hedonic and Eudaimonic Wellbeing in Rural Sierra Leone," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1433-1467, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:23:p:12382-:d:687505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.