By Gilang Cahya 
The pervasive notion that acquiring a pet invariably enhances human well-being, often dubbed the "pet effect," is facing renewed scrutiny following a comprehensive study conducted during the unprecedented isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers from ELTE Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary have published findings in Scientific Reports that cast doubt on the automatic, transformative power of the human-animal bond, particularly during times of societal upheaval. The study, which meticulously tracked individuals who acquired or lost pets amidst the stringent lockdowns of 2020, revealed a surprising lack of significant, lasting impact on their overall well-being, suggesting that the emotional benefits of pet ownership may be more nuanced and less universally applicable than commonly believed.
The Pandemic as an Unforeseen Laboratory for Human-Animal Bonds
The COVID-19 pandemic, beginning in early 2020, presented a unique and starkly isolating environment that inadvertently became a large-scale, real-world experiment on human connection and coping mechanisms. As governments worldwide imposed lockdowns, social distancing measures, and travel restrictions, individuals found themselves confined to their homes, with face-to-face interactions drastically curtailed. This period of extreme social isolation, a situation previously only hypothesized in theoretical psychological models, provided fertile ground for researchers to examine how fundamental human needs for companionship and emotional support might be met.
In this context, the role of pets in households came under particular focus. Anecdotal evidence and popular media often highlighted stories of people adopting pets to combat loneliness and anxiety during lockdowns, fueling the romanticized idea of pets as immediate panaceas for emotional distress. However, the scientific community has long grappled with quantifying the precise impact of pet ownership on human mental and emotional health. While numerous studies have suggested positive correlations between pet ownership and benefits such as reduced stress, lower blood pressure, and increased physical activity, the causality and the magnitude of these effects have remained subjects of ongoing investigation. The pandemic offered an unparalleled opportunity to observe these dynamics in a situation where external social support systems were severely limited, potentially amplifying the perceived importance of pets.
Methodology: A Longitudinal Study Amidst Unprecedented Circumstances
The research team at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, a collaboration between the MTA-ELTE ‘Momentum’ Companion Animals Research Group and a psychology team led by Zsolt Demetrovics and Róbert Urbán, capitalized on a unique data set to investigate these questions. Enikő Kubinyi, head of the research group, explained the advantage of their access to participants who were surveyed multiple times over several months during the 2020 lockdowns in Hungary.
"During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, almost three thousand people across Hungary participated three times in data collection, several months apart," Kubinyi stated. This longitudinal approach allowed the researchers to track changes in participants’ well-being over time, rather than relying on cross-sectional data that captures a single point in time. Crucially, within this large cohort, a specific subset of individuals either acquired a new pet or experienced the loss of a pet during the study period. The study identified 65 individuals who acquired a pet and 75 who lost one, providing sufficient numbers for statistical analysis of these specific events.
The data collection involved comprehensive questionnaires designed to measure various aspects of well-being, including mood, life satisfaction, calmness, cheerfulness, activity levels, and crucially, feelings of loneliness. The staggered nature of the data collection ensured that the researchers could observe immediate post-acquisition or post-loss effects, as well as any more sustained impacts that might emerge over the subsequent months. This rigorous methodology aimed to provide a more objective and evidence-based understanding of the "pet effect" than often found in popular discourse.
Unveiling the Nuances: Mixed Results and Surprising Findings
The study’s findings challenge the widely held, often romanticized, view of pet ownership as a guaranteed boost to emotional well-being. Contrary to expectations, the researchers observed a complex and often contrary pattern of results.
Upon acquiring a pet, a short-lived increase in cheerfulness was noted among some participants. However, this positive effect appeared to be transient. In the longer term, the study indicated that dog owners, specifically, exhibited a decline in calmness, life satisfaction, cheerfulness, and activity levels. This suggests that the initial excitement or novelty of a new pet might be accompanied by increased responsibilities or unforeseen challenges that can, over time, outweigh the perceived benefits for some individuals.
Perhaps the most surprising outcome of the research was the finding concerning pet loss. The study indicated that the loss of a pet did not leave a statistically significant mark on the overall well-being of the former owners. This finding is particularly noteworthy given the profound grief and emotional distress that pet loss is often associated with in both popular culture and clinical settings.
Ádám Miklósi, who initiated the data collection specifically on companion animals, emphasized the unique nature of their sample. "We rarely have access to data that documents spontaneous pet acquisition from people unbiased in their attitude toward pet ownership. Usually, pet lovers are identified and studied when the decision to adopt an animal is already settled." He further posited that, "at least during stressful periods, the average person, who may not be the primary caregiver but simply shares a household with the pet, is not significantly affected by the pet’s loss, nor is their well-being a strong predictor of the decision to acquire one." This suggests that for individuals who are not deeply invested in the human-animal bond from the outset, the presence or absence of a pet might not be a primary driver of their emotional state.
Judit Mokos, a data scientist and one of the paper’s lead authors, highlighted another unexpected result: the absence of any impact on respondents’ loneliness. "What surprised me most,’ Mokos stated, ‘was that a new pet in the household had no effect on the respondents’ loneliness. Dog adoption is often promoted as a solution for elderly and/or lonely people. Shelters and pet food companies promote adoption as a means of alleviating loneliness. However, our research suggests that dogs do not provide a real solution to loneliness; rather, they make the new owners more anxious." This finding directly contradicts common promotional narratives surrounding pet adoption, suggesting that the perceived benefits in combating loneliness may be overstated or not universally experienced. The observation that new pets might, in fact, increase anxiety for some owners warrants further investigation into the underlying mechanisms, which could include increased financial strain, lifestyle adjustments, or concerns about the animal’s welfare.
Implications and Broader Context
The implications of these findings are far-reaching and challenge deeply ingrained societal beliefs about the universal benefits of pet ownership. Enikő Kubinyi concluded, "Based on the data, most people, living together with a companion animal, do not seem to experience any long-term ‘pet effect’, nor do they bond strongly with their animal." She offered potential explanations for this phenomenon, suggesting that "the dynamics of the pandemic have led many to make impulsive choices against their long-term interest." This points to the possibility that some pet acquisitions during the pandemic may have been driven by immediate emotional needs or external pressures rather than a considered decision based on long-term compatibility and commitment.
Kubinyi also acknowledged that there might be specific demographics for whom pets do provide significant benefits. She noted that "only certain groups — like devoted animal lovers or older adults living alone — truly benefit from pets in stressful times." This caveat suggests that the "pet effect" is not a monolithic phenomenon but rather a spectrum, with individual psychological profiles, existing social support networks, and the nature of the human-animal relationship playing crucial roles in determining the outcome. For individuals already predisposed to forming strong emotional bonds with animals, or for those facing severe social isolation without other human connections, the presence of a pet might indeed be a critical source of comfort and support.
The study’s findings also raise important questions for animal welfare organizations and the pet industry. While promoting adoption is a vital endeavor, the research suggests that the narrative of pets as automatic solutions for complex human issues like loneliness may require a more nuanced approach. Overstating the benefits could lead to unrealistic expectations and potentially contribute to relinquishment if those expectations are not met. A more accurate portrayal of pet ownership, acknowledging both its joys and its responsibilities, might lead to more sustainable and fulfilling relationships for both humans and animals.
The period of COVID-19 lockdowns, while difficult, provided an unprecedented opportunity to study human behavior and well-being under extreme conditions. This research, by moving beyond anecdotal evidence and popular assumptions, contributes a critical empirical perspective to the ongoing discourse on the human-animal bond. It underscores the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry in understanding complex human experiences, suggesting that the emotional impact of our animal companions is far more varied and individual than often assumed, and certainly not a guaranteed pathway to universal happiness. The study serves as a reminder that while pets can enrich lives, the depth and nature of that enrichment are contingent upon a multitude of individual and contextual factors.
