What do current demographic statistics tell us about the dog bonding experience?
A study conducted by researchers Michael J. Dotson and Eva M. Hyatt is helping us to understand the human-dog companionship coming from the human perspective. The statistical analysis referenced in this text was provided by their study. By identifying the dimensions that combine to make the defined human-canine relationship, we can better educate ourselves on the factors that result in some bonds being less strong than others. In this study, there were seven hundred and forty-nine dog owners that were given a questionnaire with questions regarding their relationship with your dog. There were a certain amount of questions for each category devised to represent an integral part of this relationship. These categories consisted of symbiotic relationship, the dog-oriented self-concept, anthropomorphic level, activity and youth, boundaries, specialty purchases and consumerism, and willingness to adapt. Their responses to each question, either “yes” or “no”, in each category were recorded and then given a specific score for each category. The higher the number in general, the “better” the score and the more bond they have with their dog.
Each of the categories, referred to as “dimensions”, measure specific areas that have been proven to affect human-dog relationships. The symbiotic relationship was measured based on the responses to questions regarding the mutually beneficial bond between person and dog. The questions were if they treat their dog like a person, if being with their dog calms them in stressful situations, if dogs improve their life, if they are happier because of their dog, if they are emotionally attached to their dog, if they enjoy caring for another living being, if their dog keeps them from feeling lonely, and if their dog makes them feel safer. The Dog-Oriented Self-Concept was ranked according to the answer to questions such as if their dog is their best friend, does spending time with your dog prevent you from spending as much time with other humans, if their dogs have helped develop better relationships with other people, if they were not willing to have a relationship with someone who would not accept their dog, and if they saw their dog as an extension of themselves. The answers to these questions reveal how important their dog is to the person’s self-concept and social self. For testing a dog owner’s anthropomorphic level, the dog owners were questioned if the following statements were true: they see dogs as more like people than wild animals, they feel like they can communicate with their dog, they see their dog as part of their family, see their dog as like a child, if they learn a lot from their dogs, and if they believe they have the same responsibilities as a parent when taking care of their dog. Overall, this dimension measures if the dog is seen as more of a person and less of an animal.
For the activity and youth category, the subjects were questioned on the following: if they can’t image a household without pets, if they feel like a kid when playing with their dog, and if their dog keeps them young, if having a dog has forced them to exercise more. If the subjects scored well on this section, they experienced increased activity levels and feeling of youth due to their dog-ownership. For the boundaries category, the subjects were questioned on whether they would allow their dog to sit on the furniture, if they like having their dog sleep in their bed, and if their dog is allowed anywhere you go in the house. This category measures the lack of limits put on the dog by the human, considering that less boundary structure made for stronger relationships. For the specialty purchases category, the subjects were asked if they purchase items online for their dog, if they are loyal to a certain dog food brand, if they purchase luxury items for their dog, if they cook meals specifically for their dog, if they travel with their dogs, if they purchase items for their dogs from catalogs, if they try to shop around for things for their dogs, if they are willing to go out of the way to find special dog products, and if price is of no object when it comes to buying their dog something he or she likes. The purpose of this category was to measure the extent to which people are willing to make an extra effort to get specific products for their dogs that they believe is beneficial in some way. And for the final category, willingness to adapt, the subjects were asked if owning a dog has affected their choice of living space, if owning a dog has changed their grocery shopping habits, if they purchase medical supplies regularly for their dog, and if owning a dog has affected their setup of their outdoor property. These questions were asked to measure the dog owner’s readiness to change their patterns of consumerism and living situations in order to accommodate their dog.
What is truly astonishing is what we learn from the study’s results. Check out the collected data below:
These results are generally consistent with other studies, affirming its veracity. Previous research shows that in 76% of households, women are the primary caregivers for dogs, and if you look at the gender data chart, you can see that female dog owners scored higher than men in every single category. Another source of disparities is the amount of income a dog owner receives. Higher income households score higher on the consumption-related dimension which is a result of financial resources, although this is the only main difference. Interestingly, this also applied to the baby boomer generation as a whole, who overall are more financially stable than other generations. Another factor tested and verified was the marital status of the dog owner. Even though only 21.5% of singles own dogs in the United States while 36% of married couples own dogs, according to the US Pet Ownership and Demographic Sourcebook of 2002, singles scored higher on this relationship strength test. Single dog owners scored higher in the Symbiotic Relationship category and in the Boundaries category. This means that they both have more mental relationship space and more flexible physical space to dedicate to their pet instead of focusing it on their partner. More disparities are caused by the income levels of dog owners. Higher income households scored higher on the consumption-related categories which are a result of financial resources, and no other categories had any effect on income. The high income households scores also correlated with baby boomers, which perfectly fit the overall financial stability aspect of this generation. (Data analysis conclusions by Dotson)
Another variable that was verified to make a different in the dog-human relationship is age. In the data chart on age, you can see that respondents under thirty-five have higher levels of Symbiotic Relationship than other ages which means that younger dog owners bond more with their dogs. Respondents over sixty-five scored lowest on the Anthropomorphic dimension, meaning that they see their dog more as an animal and less and as someone they can communicate to and have an understanding with. This follows the societal phenomenon surrounding dog culture, which is summed up as “the increased involvement with and indulgence of dogs [which] has impacted younger folk more heavily” describes Dotson. To further verify this, the statistic that respondents over fifty are most likely to establish boundaries for their dog, resulting in less social respect and appreciation, and therefore less understanding. However the youngest group of dog owners, under the age of twenty-five, did not generally score the highest, most likely due to financial restrictions and busy lives. The respondents that scored the best overall were the dog owners between twenty-six and thirty-five. They had the greatest scores in willingness to adapt their lifestyles for their dogs while the lowest scores for this category were the dog owners over sixty-five. (Data analysis conclusions by Dotson)
While many dog owners consider their dog a child of their own, there are still many differences caused by actually owning children. Respondents without children score higher on the activity/youth category, the dog-oriented-self-concept, and in specialty purchases. This means they have more time to devote to their pets because they are more likely to fill the role as a child for them. However, this is not generally the only factor because they don’t score as high on anthropomorphism, so they do still generally see their dogs more as animal companions than as child surrogates. In addition, they did have higher boundary settings than dog-owners with children which is most likely due to the type of living situation they are in and the fact that parents usually become more lenient on the cleanliness of their homes. The last variable that this data set analyzes is the impact of level of education of the dog owner. The individuals that score highest on the Symbiotic Relationship category are the ones with some level of college education or greater. This is also the case for anthropomorphism, activity/youth, and specialty purchases. This data could help us assume that more educated individuals see their dogs as respectable and important, but the fact that responded without a high school diploma set fewer boundaries potentially inhibits that conclusion. To go on, respondents with graduate degrees have the highest score for willingness to adapt. (Data analysis conclusions by Dotson)
Overall, the conclusions we can make from this new data without making assumptions is just as beneficial to dog companionship research and understanding. One proven hypothesis is that dog owners who are less worried about what other people are doing are more bonded with their dogs and therefore score higher (Dotson). In these cases, the dog owners in a sense are more “into dogs” than “into people”. Disparities come from all kinds of identifying factors such as gender, income, age, marital status, presence of children, education, and then dog-related variable such as the type of dog and age, and the amount of quality time spent between the human and the dog (Dotson). People’s experience in their relationship with their dog, however, is independent of their social orientation. The more financial and emotional investment dog owners have in their dogs and their relationship, the higher level of happiness they experience with dog companionship. One certain way to improve scores in each category for dog owners is to just spend more quality time together with your dog, because just like in human relationships, generally the more time you get to spend with a person and learn about them, the more comfortable, open, and bonded you feel with them.
Works Cited:
Dotson, Michael J. “Understanding Dog–Human Companionship.” Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, 30 Aug. 2007,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296307002214.
Comments