Abstract
Pet ownership per se has not been reliably associated with increased human well-being and health. Furthermore, the specific psychological mechanisms and behavioral dynamics through which the presence of pets could yield higher human wellness remain under-investigated. Conducted among dog owners and their dogs, the current experiment investigates if a specific psychological factor – i.e., mindfulness – activated in the presence of one’s dog increases dog owners’ psychological well-being. The study also explores which affiliative and synchronization behaviors manifested within the human–dog dyad are associated with higher human well-being. A within-participants design was employed among 52 dog owners and their dogs. The mindfulness condition was found to have a positive impact on dog owners’ well-being. This condition also generated more affiliative and synchronization behaviors among both owners and their dogs on a majority of behaviors, with some of these behaviors (i.e., frequency the dog initiated contact with their owner; duration the owner communicated with their dog) mediating the associations between the mindfulness induction and the well-being outcomes. These findings confirm the importance of investigating the psychological and behavioral factors which, when activated and manifested within human–dog relationships, promote human wellness as well as interspecies interactivity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
-
‘They (dogs) are our only touchstone to an emotional past we have forever lost, and yet desperately need.’ Franklin1.
-
‘And we need our dogs, or at least we’re better off with them. They yank us outside of our narrowest selves. They force us to engage.’ Bruni2.
Contacts with pets are common and normative in many occidental countries, with approximately 60% of Canadians, Americans, and Australians currently living with pets3,4,5. Yet, the nature of our psychological connection with pets and other animals, and the beneficial psychological mechanisms which may be activated in the presence of pets, are just beginning to receive empirical attention6,7,8,9,10. Capturing the precise psychological factors involved in human-pet relations is important to systematically understand when and for whom these relations could yield higher vs. lower well-being. Indeed, whereas it is commonly assumed that the presence of pets is beneficial to human wellness and can even alleviate loneliness11, the scientific evidence on the capacity of pets to promote human well-being is contentious12,13. A systematic and nuanced account of how pets affect human well-being is hence of critical importance.
To approach these questions, and to rigorously capture the beneficial mechanisms involved in human-pet relations, the present study investigates if mindfulness activated in the presence of one’s pet dog can promote human well-being. Specifically, the present study tests whether experimentally inducing mindfulness in the presence of one’s dog increases the psychological well-being of dog owners. In addition, the study will explore if affiliative and synchronization behaviors manifested within the owner-dog dyad have implications for dog owners’ well-being.
Mindfulness in human-pet relations
Prior research has found that being in the presence of and interacting with pets can have stress-reducing properties14,15,16, for a review see17 and produce an increase in the ‘feel good’ hormones (i.e., oxytocin, dopamine, endorphins18,19. Attesting to the direct interdependence that exists between humans and pet dogs, research has also uncovered significant associations between humans’ and dogs’ long-term stress levels20. While these studies confirm that the presence of pets can have a physiologically relaxing effect, the specific – and potentially trainable and malleable – psychological process involved in this state of relaxation needs to be captured directly. To this aim, the current experiment tests if inducing mindfulness in the presence of one’s dog increases dog owners’ self-reported well-being.
Mindfulness refers to the ability to maintain a moment-by-moment awareness of one’s thoughts, feelings, and what is happening in the surrounding space21, with both dispositional mindfulness and mindfulness training associated with higher psychological well-being (e.g.,22,23). This mindset could become activated through the presence of one’s pet dog, given pets’ own (and often contagious) perceived capacity to be present in the here-and-now24, and to ‘ground’ us in a particularly concrete and captivating way25. Furthermore, whereas the embodied nature of human-animal interactions has been argued to be beneficial to autistic children in the context of animal-assisted therapies26, this immediacy of awareness could have well-being benefits for pet owners in the general population as well.
Emerging research is uncovering a beneficial role for mindfulness experienced within human-pet relationships using a diversity of methods. A qualitative study revealed that pets are spontaneously perceived, by their owners, as capable of promoting a state of mindfulness27. A case study further showed that pet owners can be trained to interact with their dogs in a mindful manner28. Contact with and attachment to pets also have implications for self-compassion and positive self-evaluation: In a study conducted among Canadian youth, participants who experienced intensified emotional attachment to their pets (either current or past) were less likely to judge themselves in negative ways29. As well, veterans enrolled in a 12-month therapeutic dog owner-trainer program reported significant reductions in symptoms of post-traumatic stress, perceived stress, isolation, and self-judgment, and significant increases in self-compassion30. An intervention feasibility study which integrated farm animals (goats, sheep, minipigs, horses) into a psychotherapeutic mindfulness and self-compassion-based intervention (MSCBI) program also revealed promising results: Patients in the animal-assisted MSCBI group reported greater increases in positive emotions (e.g., feeling secure, accepted, comforted, grateful) during the sessions compared to patients in the MSCBI only (no animals) group31, cf.32,33,34. This study also uncovered significant differences between these conditions in terms of motivation: While patients in the animal-assisted MSCBI group reported significantly higher increases in motivation during the sessions, they also attended more sessions.
A large survey conducted among Canadian pet owners revealed a particularly consistent role for mindfulness felt in the presence of one’s pet in predicting pet owners’ psychological well-being (e.g., higher vitality and life satisfaction, but lower loneliness and search for meaning;35); importantly, these associations held when accounting for the mindfulness felt in the presence of close human others (i.e., partner/spouse, parents, siblings, closest friend). Building on this prior work, the current study experimentally tests the causal role of mindfulness promoted in the presence of one’s dog, using a within-participants experimental design. Specifically, the current experiment investigates if inducing mindfulness in the presence of one’s pet dog increases dog owners’ psychological well-being compared to being in the mere presence of one’s dog. Doing so will allow testing if activating mindfulness in the presence of one’s dog, as a specific psychological mechanism, yields higher human well-being.
Human-dog synchronization and affiliative behaviors
To further identify the beneficial mechanisms that are at play when humans interact with their pets, the current experiment also explores the role of different behaviors taking place between dog owners and their dogs in predicting dog owners’ well-being. Specifically, we aim to capture the affiliative interactions observed between dogs and their owners during the study as well as the synchronization of their behaviors36,37,38,39,40,41, and test the possible impact of these behaviors on dog owners’ psychological well-being. Indeed, greater affiliation and human–dog synchronization imply a connection between the dog and their owner, which may also have positive implications for dog owners’ psychological well-being.
A number of affiliative behaviors have been investigated in the context of human–dog relationships, including gazing, playing, petting, and vocal communication. In terms of gazing, dogs are sensitive to human gazes and may use these behaviors as attachment signals42. Research also suggests that looking at the owner is an affiliative behavior in dogs, which indicates a desire for attention and communication42,43,44, and contributes to the development of a stronger human–dog relationship45. In terms of play, frequent play between a dog and their owner is believed to strengthen their bond46,47. As per petting, Feuerbacher and Wynne48 found that dogs were more inclined to choose petting over food when their owners provided the petting, as opposed to when strangers did, suggesting a stronger human–dog bond in such dyads. Odendaal and Meintjes18 also found that owners who engaged in petting, talking to, and playing lightly with their dogs experienced an increase in oxytocin levels, which is often referred to as the “love hormone” and is associated with bonding and positive social interactions between humans and animals (see also49).
Behavioral synchronization has been conceptualized as a social glue between dogs and humans, and is proposed to increase social cohesion50. Different types of behavioral synchronization have been captured in human–dog relations, namely: Local synchrony, when different individuals are in the same place at the same time; activity synchrony, when different individuals are doing the same activities at the same time; and temporal synchrony, when different individuals switch activities at the same time37,50. In human–human relations, affiliation is associated with a high level of synchronization51,52; furthermore, positivity resonance, which is characterized by shared positivity, mutual care and concern, and behavioral and biological synchrony between people, has been associated with higher well-being53. In human–dog relations, humans show increased affiliation for dogs who synchronize their behaviors with them (e.g., lying close to them54), while dogs show a preference for a person who synchronized their locomotor activity with theirs55. These synchronization processes are increasingly investigated in human–dog relationships (e.g.,37,50,56,57); yet, no studies to our knowledge have investigated whether affiliative and synchronization processes taking place within human–dog relations have implications for dog owners’ psychological well-being.
The current experiment
The current experiment contributes to the literature in two ways: First, we test if promoting mindfulness in the presence of one’s dog (i.e., experimental condition) increases dog owners’ psychological well-being, compared to not inducing such mindfulness in the presence of one’s dog (i.e., control condition). Such a comparison will allow a systematic comparison of a situation where mindfulness in the presence of one’s dog is experimentally induced with a situation where one’s dog is merely present. Second, we draw on research on human–dog affiliation39,40 and behavioral synchronization37,38,41 to explore which affiliative and synchronization behaviors are associated with higher psychological well-being among dog owners. Together, pursuing these objectives should yield novel insights about which beneficial psychological processes (i.e., mindfulness) operate in human-pet relations and can be promoted, as well as into the very nature of beneficial human–dog relationships and what takes place, concretely, within these interactions (see also58).
The current experimental design and hypotheses were pre-registered via the OSF: https://osf.io/v9qwx/?view_only=d31f4b949d3040008699d4404224b4b0. A within-participants design – whereby all participants completed the experimental (mindfulness) condition and the control condition – was employed to maximise statistical power and minimise the number of dog participants, in line with the 3Rs of animal experimentation59. The order in which participants completed these two conditions was counterbalanced and randomised across participants. We chose to focus on dogs given their long history of domestication alongside humans60,61,62, and the strong affection and interactivity present in human–dog relations63. At the ethical level, well-socialized dogs are also less prone to experience stress in a laboratory setting compared to other species of pets. Furthermore, positive associations have been observed between dog ownership and higher psychological well-being in some studies (e.g.,64). A broad range of psychological well-being measures were included, in line with a holistic conception of human health and wellness65. These measures include both individual facets of well-being (e.g., positive and eudamonic emotions, vitality), but also indicators of social well-being (e.g., feelings of social connections) which have positive implications beyond the individual self. These measures had also been selected on the basis of their validity and established psychometric properties.
In terms of predictions, we expected that dog owners’ self-reported psychological well-being will be higher in the condition in which they will be encouraged to interact mindfully with their dog (i.e., experimental condition) compared to the control condition (H1a). This effect should be observed irrespective of the order in which participants are exposed to these two conditions. We also expected that dog owners’ self-determined motivations (i.e., intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) during the experimental tasks, as motivations that involve pleasure and personal choice66, will be higher in the experimental condition than in the control condition (H1b). In terms of the affiliative and synchronization variables, we expected that the more dogs and their owners display affiliative behaviors toward one another, the higher the owners’ psychological well-being should be (H2a). As well, the more dogs and their owners synchronize their behaviors, the higher the owners’ psychological well-being will be (H2b). We also expected that these affiliative and synchronization behaviors will be more frequent in the experimental condition than in the control condition (H2c). Figure 1 provides a conceptual illustration of these hypotheses and associations among the variables.
Conceptual model that guides the hypotheses tested in this study and integrates the different variables that were manipulated and assessed.
Results
Participants
Data from 52 dog owners and their pet dogs were analysed; data from 1 participant who did not follow the experimenter’s instructions throughout the session, and from 2 participants who experienced technical difficulties with the online questionnaire which caused significant delays and had to be re-opened, were excluded from the main analyses. Among dog owners, the majority were women (88.5%), while 9.6% were men and 1.9% non-binary. The majority (75.0%) were married or in a common-law relationship, did not have children (51.9%), and worked full-time (59.6%). Education levels were diverse, with 28.8% of dog owners who completed a high-school or collegial-level degree, 9.6% who completed a university certificate, 19.2% an undergraduate university degree, 34.6% a Master’s, and 3.8% a Doctoral degree. Age groups were also diverse, with 23.1% aged between 18 and 29, 25.0% aged 30 to 39, 19.3% aged 40–49, 23.1% aged 50–59, and 9.6% aged 60 and older. A majority (59.6%) had at least one other pet, and did not practice mediation (71.2%) nor yoga (67.3%). In terms of the activities that dog owners practice with their dog, a majority (59.6%) had taken obedience classes and walk their dog at least once a day (82.7%); furthermore, 42.3% practice agility, 9.6% canicross, 3.8% dog dancing, 21.2% running, 7.7% bicycling, and 88.5% play games (e.g., ball). As for their dogs, they were on average 4.65 years old (range: 1–14), weighed 24.04 kg (range: 7.50–54), and lived with their owner for 4.12 years (range: 1–14). The majority of dogs were females (57.7%) and had been adopted from breeders (59.6%).
Mixed-model analyses of variance
Mixed-model ANOVAs, presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, tested the differences across the two conditions, while also accounting for possible order effects. In these analyses, the condition (i.e., experimental vs. control condition) served as the repeated-measures independent variable (IV) and the well-being and motivation variables were the dependent variables. The order in which the two conditions were completed by participants was included as a between-participants IV in these analyses.
Manipulation check
A mixed-model ANOVA (Table 1) confirmed that the condition had a significant effect on dog owners’ self-reported mindfulness, with dog owners reporting higher mindfulness in the experimental condition compared to the control condition.
Well-being
As seen in Table 1, the condition had significant main effects on the well-being variables: dog owners reported higher well-being in the experimental than in the control condition, supporting H1a. In terms of order effects, order had one significant main effect on dog owners’ connection to their dogs, showing higher connection to one’s dog in order 2 than in order 1; this order main effect needs to be interpreted in light of the significant condition by order interaction observed on this measure. Interpretation of this interaction revealed significant effects for the condition among both order 1 (F(1, 50) = 66.66, p < 0.001) and order 2 (F(1, 50) = 22.57, p < 0.001) participants; yet, order 1 participants showed a stronger decrease (η2p = 0.571) in feeling connected to their dog from the experimental condition to the control condition compared to order 2 participants, who reported less of an increase (η2p = 0.311) in their feeling of being connected to their dog, from the control condition to the experimental condition. The significant condition by order interaction that emerged on the social connections measure revealed a similar pattern: while significant effects were observed for the condition among both order 1 (F(1, 50) = 62.07, p < 0.001) and order 2 (F(1, 50) = 21.67, p < 0.001) participants, order 1 participants showed a stronger decrease (η2p = 0.554) in social connections from the experimental condition to the control condition compared to order 2 participants, who reported less of an increase (η2p = 0.302) in their social connections, from the control condition to the experimental condition.
Motivations
As can be seen in Table 2, mixed-model ANOVAs revealed that the condition had significant main effects on all four motivations, albeit in different directions: dog owners reported higher intrinsic motivation and higher identified regulation in the experimental than in the control condition, supporting H1b, but reported higher external regulation and amotivation in the control condition than in the experimental condition.
Affiliative and synchronization behaviors
As seen in Table 3, mixed-model ANOVAs revealed that condition had significant main effects on all affiliative and synchronization behaviors. Supporting H2c, the affiliative and synchronization variables were manifested to a greater extent in the experimental condition than in the control condition, with the exception of the duration of activity synchrony, which was manifested to a higher extent in the control than in the experimental condition. One significant order effect also emerged on duration of activity synchrony, showing higher such synchrony in order 2 than in order 1.
Correlations and mediation analyses
Correlations
To explore the associations between the affiliative and synchronization behaviors and the well-being and motivation variables, and identify potentially beneficial behavioral mechanisms (mediators) in the associations between the condition and the well-being and motivation variables, correlations were first conducted, both in the experimental and in the control condition given the repeated-measures design. In the experimental condition, and as seen in Table 4, some behaviors were more consistently associated with well-being, namely: the frequency at which the dog initiated contact with their owner, which correlated positively with 5 well-being variables, and the duration that the owner communicated with their dog, which correlated positively with 6 well-being variables. Frequency at which the owner played with their dog also correlated positively with 2 well-being variables. These findings provide preliminary support for H2a. Notably, some behaviors were associated with lower well-being and self-determined motivation: the duration at which the owner looked at their dog correlated negatively with vitality and intrinsic motivation, while the duration the owner petted their dog correlated with higher external regulation.
In the control condition, and as seen in Table 5, some behaviors were also more consistently associated with the well-being and motivation outcomes: As was the case in the experimental condition, the frequency at which the dog initiated contact with their owner correlated positively with 3 well-being variables, and negatively with amotivation. The duration that the owner communicated with their dog correlated positively with 1 well-being variable in this condition. These findings also provide preliminary support for H2a. The duration of local synchrony correlated positively with 4 well-being variables in the control condition, providing support for H2b, whereas the frequency of local synchrony correlated positively with 1 well-being variable (i.e., the small-self) and negatively with external regulation. Finally, some behavioral variables correlated with lower well-being and self-determined motivation in the control condition: the frequency at which the owner played with their dog correlated positively with amotivation and negatively with identified regulation. As well, the duration at which the owner played with their dog correlated positively with amotivation. The duration of activity synchrony correlated negatively with 4 well-being variables.
Mediation analyses
On the basis of these correlations, 2 behavioral variables presented a particularly consistent and clear pattern of correlations with the well-being and motivation variables, in both conditions, namely: the frequency at which the dog initiated behaviors with their owner (i.e., presenting a total of 9 significant correlations) and the duration the owner communicated with their dog (i.e., presenting a total of 7 significant correlations). This pattern suggests that these behavioral variables were particularly active and beneficial in the general context of the study, and across the two conditions; these variables may also act as mediators of the associations between the experimental condition and the well-being variables.
To test for this mediating role, and more specifically, if the condition impacts on these two behavioral variables, and if these variables, in turn, predict higher psychological well-being among dog owners (in line with Fig. 1), multi-level mediation analyses, which account for the repeated-measures design of the current study, were conducted. In these models, the condition was a repeated-measures IV, the frequency at which the dog initiated contact with their owner and the duration the owner communicated with their dog were included as mediators, while the psychological well-being and motivation measures which significantly correlated with these two behavioral variables were the DVs. Order was controlled for in these analyses. This resulted in 14 mediation models being tested, 4 of which revealed significant indirect effects. Table 6 presents the findings for the 4 significant mediation models, including the direct, total, and indirect effects; the supplementary materials document reports the findings for the 10 non-significant models.
As seen in Table 6, the condition again significantly predicted the two mediators (i.e., frequency at which the dog initiated contact with their owner and duration the owner communicated with their dog) in these analyses. Tests of indirect effects first revealed a significant effect of the condition on the small-self, via the frequency at which the dog initiated contact: being in the experimental condition resulted in higher frequency at which the dog initiated contact with their owner, which, in turn, was associated positively with the small-self. Tests of indirect effects also revealed a significant effect of condition on awe, via the duration the owner communicated with their dog: being in the experimental condition resulted in greater duration the owner communicated with their dog, which, in turn, was associated with higher awe. Tests of the indirect effects further revealed a significant effect of condition on gratitude, via duration the owner communicated with their dog: being in the experimental condition resulted in higher duration the owner communicated with their dog which, in turn, was associated with higher gratitude. Moreover, tests of indirect effects revealed a significant effect of condition on vitality, via the duration the owner communicated with their dog: being in the experimental condition resulted in greater duration the owner communicated with their dog, which, in turn, was associated with higher vitality.
Discussion
While the mere presence of pets (e.g., being a pet owner or not) has been inconsistently associated with human health and well-being12,13,58, investigating the specific psychological and behavioral mechanisms through which the presence of pets may yield higher well-being among their owners (or not), and what takes place specifically within human-pet relations, appear particularly fruitful avenues of scientific enquiry. Focusing specifically on human–dog relationships, as particularly long-lasting and affectively-loaded relations60,61,63, the current experiment investigated if activating one specific psychological factor – i.e., mindfulness – in the presence of one’s pet dog increases dog owners’ psychological well-being. This experimental condition was compared to a control condition, whereby participants completed neutral tasks in the presence of their dog. For the first time to our knowledge, the study also explored which affiliative and synchronization behaviors manifested within the human–dog dyad are associated with higher human well-being. A repeated-measures design was employed to minimise the number of participants59.
In terms of the owners’ psychological well-being, and supporting H1a, we found that well-being – assessed using a diversity of indicators, in line with a holistic approach to human health and wellnesss65 – was higher in the experimental condition compared to the control condition. These findings confirm that a situation where mindfulness in the presence of one’s dog is experimentally induced and promoted yields higher well-being compared to a situation where one’s dog is present, but no interactions are encouraged between the owner and their dog. Such evidence provides support for the idea that the very nature of human–dog relationships, and what actually takes places within these interactions, is important to understanding and predicting human wellness. These findings also provide evidence for a concrete and accessible way by which human–dog relations could be structured to become more psychologically beneficial for their human owners.
In terms of the owners’ motivations, and supporting H1b, we found that the two self-determined motivations to complete the experimental tasks (i.e., intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) were higher in the experimental condition than in the control condition. In addition, the two non-self-determined motivations (i.e., external regulation and amotivation) were higher in the control condition than in the experimental condition. These findings not only bring established motivational types66 to the specific realm of human–dog relations, but they also contribute to emerging findings showing how (human) motivation to take part in interventions aimed at improving human health and well-being can be ameliorated by the presence of non-human animals (e.g.31; see also32).
In terms of the affiliative and synchronization behaviors manifested within the human–dog dyad, we first uncovered important differences between the conditions in terms of the frequencies and durations of these behaviors, with all except one partial eta square indicating statistically large effects67. While we had not expected to observe effects of these sizes, recall that the experimental (mindfulness) condition was designed such that dog owners were asked to complete 4 tasks that directly involved interacting with their dog, while the control condition involved completing neutral tasks while sitting at a computer; the experimenter was also present throughout the sessions to ensure that participants adhered to the instructions provided. While this procedure meant that the experimenter was not blind to the conditions, doing so increased experimental control. Nevertheless, these findings confirmed the interactivity created within the experimental condition, and the internal validity of the findings. Supporting H2c, we indeed found higher frequencies and also durations of the affiliative and synchronization behaviors manifested within the human–dog dyad in the experimental than in the control condition, except for one behavior: the duration of activity synchrony, which was higher in the control than in the experimental condition. In retrospect, this finding is logical given that in the control condition, owner (who was sitting to complete the neutral tasks at the computer) and dog (who was mainly sitting or lying down during that time) aligned their behaviors for long periods of time.
These affiliative and synchronization behavioral variables were then put in relation with the well-being and motivation variables. Doing so allowed to test if the actual behavioral interactions taking place between the owner and their dog also represent beneficial mechanisms which could explain why and how the experimental condition yielded higher human well-being in the current context. Providing preliminary support for H2a and H2b, correlations revealed a number of significant positive associations between these behavioral variables and the well-being and motivation variables. Two behavioral variables were positively associated with the well-being and motivation variables in a particularly consistent manner, both in the experimental and in the control condition, namely: frequency the dog initiated contact with their owner and duration the owner communicated with their dog. These two behavioral variables were hence included as mediators in repeated-measures mediation models. Frequency at which the dog initiated contact with their owner emerged as a significant mediator in the association between the condition and the self-small well-being indicator. Duration that the owner communicated with their dog emerged as a significant mediator in the associations between the condition and three well-being indicators: awe, gratitude, and vitality.
The significant mediating role observed for the frequency the dog initiated contact with their owner variable could be due to the well-being benefits (for humans) of being in contact with an active and healthy dog (e.g.,68). Furthermore, a dog initiating physical contact with their owner can be seen as a sign of affection demonstrated by the dog, with being licked and kissed by the dog associated with higher well-being69, and physical touch also playing a beneficial role for dog owners (e.g., lower blood pressure:70; cf.69). This physical touch may have also elicited the use of additional senses, enhancing participants’ state of mindfulness and their resulting well-being. The significant mediating role uncovered for the duration the owner communicated with their dog variable could be due to the frequent use of verbal commands and instructions given to dogs in the context of human–dog relationships (e.g.,71,72), with obedience activities even predicting higher owner well-being in some studies73; cf.68. Furthermore, the act of talking to one’s dog may have represented a particularly accessible and relevant way to interact with the dog in the experimental context, also given the nature of the exercises performed. And while verbal communication is fundamental to humans and used to build and maintain social rapports74, manifesting this behavior in the context of human–dog interactions may be a (human) way to express and consolidate the human–dog bond.
Notably, the well-being indicators impacted by the condition and by these two affiliative behaviors in the mediation models capture self-transcendent (i.e., awe, gratitude, small-self), and energizing (i.e., vitality) forms of human well-being. These well-being indicators could be particularly relevant and likely to be promoted in the context of human-animal relations. Indeed, prior work has found a positive role for contact with pets in predicting more inclusive social attitudes and concerns35, and that different activities done with dogs in particular (e.g., exercising with one’s dog, mainly walking; teaching the dog) are associated with high arousal positive states (e.g., joy, fun, excitement, activation69).
Importantly, some of the correlations observed between the affiliative and synchronization behaviors and the well-being and motivation variables were negative, which goes against H2a. First, in the experimental condition, the duration at which owners looked at their dog correlated negatively with vitality and intrinsic motivation. It should be noted that this specific behavior was manifested to a large extent in this condition (i.e., approximately 95% of the time). Manifesting even higher durations of looking at one’s dog in this context may have been indicative of a lower enjoyment of the actual tasks at hand, along with a possible lack of social connection with the experimenter also present in the room. As well, the duration the owner petted their dog correlated with higher external regulation; given that petting was most directly relevant to two of the four exercises completed during the experimental condition, higher levels observed on this variable may have indicated a certain pressure felt to complete the tasks, with petting potentially used by participants as a strategy to regulate this motivational state.
Second, in the control condition, the frequency at which the owner played with their dog variable correlated positively with amotivation and negatively with identified regulation; as well, the duration at which the owner played with their dog correlated positively with amotivation. This pattern of correlations suggests that playing with one’s dog in the context of the control condition, as a behavior which did not align with the computer tasks participants were asked to do, may have denoted a lack of self-determination and motivation to do these tasks. Finally, the duration of activity synchrony correlated negatively with 4 well-being variables, suggesting that being in synch with a dog who is continuously sitting or lying down while being asked to complete less interesting tasks at a computer may have denoted a shared inaction and induced a lack of stimulation, which hampered the dog owners’ well-being. Interestingly, the duration of local synchrony was associated positively with 4 well-being variables in the control condition. In laboratory settings, dogs have been found to exhibit higher local synchrony toward humans with whom they are affiliated to, compared to humans with whom they share a lower degree of affiliation50. In the current context as well, dogs who stayed physically close to their owner in a free manner may have denoted a stronger human–dog bond, which may have had positive implications for the owner’s well-being in this context.
Given the repeated-measures nature of the current design, the order in which participants completed the tasks was counter-balanced. We observed only few order effects in the current study, which were: an order main effect and an (condition by order) interaction effect on connection with one’s dog, and an interaction effect on social connections. When considering the specific sequence of conditions participants completed in each order, these order effects suggest that starting with the experimental condition followed by the control (i.e., which was the sequence of conditions order 1 participants experienced) may have created a contrast whereby feelings of connection may have been particularly impeded and diminished when moving from the experimental condition to the control context, hence explaining the particularly large effect size difference observed among order 1 participants on the connections variables across the two conditions. However, starting with the control condition, and than moving on to the experimental one (i.e., which was the case for order 2 participants) may not have created such a contrast nor a drop in feelings of connection; this could explain why order 2 participants showed less strong differences on the connection variables when moving from the control to the experimental conditions.
The order main effect observed on duration of activity synchrony in the mixed-model ANOVA, whereby duration of activity synchrony is higher in order 2 compared to order 1, could be explained by the fact that dogs starting with less action and interaction (i.e., in the control condition) naturally settle down more quickly on their own; they may also settle down more quickly when they later enter the experimental condition. In contrast, dogs that begin with the experimental condition, where there is more engagement, may remain more active throughout the session, such as moving around while their owners sit and observe them. Additionally, when dogs begin with the experimental condition, they may anticipate more activity when transitioning to the control condition, causing them to take longer to settle down. Whereas the use of a repeated-measures design allowed to minimise the number of participants, in line with the principle of reduction of the 3Rs, future research should be conducted using between-participants designs. Such designs would also limit possible demand characteristic effects and biases. Indeed, it is possible that the contrast between engaging in mindfulness exercises and in the neutral tasks of the control condition may have contributed to the effects observed herein.
Limitations and future research directions
A number of criteria had to be met to take part in the current study, which, while allowing for a safe participation and research environment and minimising participants’ stress, yielded results that are observable for healthy, well-behaved, and socialized dogs. To increase the generalizability of the current findings, the experimental protocol could be adapted to allow participation of a more diverse sample of dog owners and their dogs. For example, future studies could be conducted via zoom, with dog owners and their dogs taking part in the study within the confines of their own house33. While such a protocol would allow for less experimental control and internal validity compared to the current study, it would allow to test the impact of a more accessible version of the current mindfulness induction. In such studies, double-blind procedures would also be easier to implement. Future research could also be conducted in participants’ own homes. Such a procedure would allow data collection among a larger sample of dogs, some of whom may not handle the stress of a new environment as well, and ensure more experimental control compared to zoom sessions.
Future studies could also be conducted outside the laboratory by relying on more adaptable equipment (e.g., GoPro© cameras), which could also potentially capture the dogs’ perspective when interacting with their human. Relatedly, the current data could be further analysed by focusing on the dogs’ own wellness. Whereas none of the dog participants manifested high levels of stress, as per our ethogram, individual variability existed in the dogs’ behaviors, which could be specifically coded for levels of wellness (e.g., wagging tails, energy manifested during play). The interplay between the owner’s self-reported well-being and their dog’s observable well-being behaviors could then be tested, in line with a One Health approach75,76. Future studies could also test the cumulative impact of using these mindfulness strategies in everyday life on dog owners’ more enduring and dispositional levels of well-being, using experience sampling or daily diary methodologies, for example (e.g.,77,78). While our study demonstrates momentary improvements in well-being, repeated engagement in such practices may lead to more enduring and long-lasting changes in stress regulation, emotional resilience, and overall psychological well-being. Prior research has shown that regular mindfulness practice fosters lasting well-being benefits and reduces stress responses22,23. Future studies could examine whether mindfulness with a dog also amplifies these effects over time, using longitudinal designs or structured intervention studies.
Additionally, the human–dog bond may play a critical role in sustaining these benefits. Unlike solitary mindfulness exercises, practicing mindfulness with a familiar and emotionally significant companion may strengthen the owner’s attachment to their dog. Over time, this psychological connection could contribute positively to well-being and to broader feelings of social connection. Relatedly, future research could explore how to best integrate mindfulness practices with dogs into everyday life to maximize their longer-term effects88. For instance, incorporating mindfulness techniques during routine activities like dog walks, grooming, or play sessions may provide a sustainable approach to maintaining well-being beyond structured interventions. Interventions that encourage dog owners to engage in these practices regularly could provide an accessible way to promote well-being. Beyond psychological mechanisms, potential physiological effects should also be explored. Whereas prior studies have shown that positive interactions with dogs can lower cortisol levels and increase oxytocin18,19, future work could test if the current mindfulness induction also affects these physiological indicators.
In sum, this research provided a systematic investigation for the beneficial role played by mindfulness in human–dog relations and offered first glimpses into what actually goes on in human–dog relations which makes these relations beneficial to their owners. In light of the current depictions of pets as being beneficial to human wellness, the present findings bring nuances and precisions to these commonly shared assumptions. We hope that the rigorous methodological approaches employed herein, combined with the use of both self-reported and behavioral data, will continue to raise research interest in the human–dog relationship, as a long-established relation capable of eliciting strong emotional and motivational processes.
Methods
Recruitment
Procedure
Results were based on a sample of 52 dog owners and their pet dogs. Data collection took place from November 13 2023 to March 14 2024. The following recruitment strategies were used: invitation emails sent via email lists and to contacts of the research team, posts in social media, posters and pamphlets displayed and distributed in diverse locations (e.g., veterinary clinics, dog parks, pet stores, university), and direct recruitment at a large pet-related event. Participants were also encouraged to talk about the study in their own networks and to share information about the study. Participants were eligible for participation if they: were 18 years and older and lived in the greater Montréal area; owned their dog (of any breed) for at least one year; provided a letter or another document confirming a visit to a veterinarian within the last year; provided proofs of vaccination (i.e., core vaccines covering canine distemper/adenovirus (hepatitis)/parvovirus/parainfluenza; leptospirosis; Bordetella; rabies) and proofs that their dog had received preventive treatments for endoparasites (intestinal worms) and ectoparasites (fleas, ticks and heartworms). In addition, prior to taking part in the study, participants were required to certify in a pre-screening interview that their dog: had no history of aggression toward humans or other dogs; was socialized and accustomed to being in public places (e.g., busy streets, visiting friends, riding in a car or on public transportation); is obedient and relaxed in these public places; shows no distress in a new, enclosed area in the presence of their owner; does not exhibit any problematic behavior that could endanger public health and safety (e.g., jumping on people, reactivity to other dogs or people).
Sample size
The sample size of 52 dog owners and their dogs is based on a power analysis conducted with G*Power 3.1.9.779 for ANOVAs with two repeated measures, using an eta square of 0.04 (equivalent to f = 0.20), as it is the recommended minimum effect size representing a practically significant effect for social science data80, a power of 0.80, and an alpha of 0.05. The default correlation of 0.50 between the two measurements was used in this power analysis given that we expected some stability across the measurements of psychological well-being over the course of this 90-min experiment.
Ethical considerations
Informed consent was obtained from all dog owners taking part in the study, who were fully debriefed about the study’s precise objectives at the end of the study and could then reconfirm their consent to have their data included in the analyses; dog owners also consented to their dog taking part in the study. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee involving Human Participants of the Université du Québec à Montréal (CIEREH: certificate number 2024-6149) to cover for human participation in this study. The study was also approved by the Institutional Committee for the Protection of Animals (CIPA: project number 2024-6140, form number F20-labo-16114) of the University of Québec in Montréal to cover for the dogs’ participation in this study. The study was conducted in line with the guidelines of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy for the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans and the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). The guidelines from the IAHAIO White paper81 which were applicable to the current experimental context were also followed. The study is reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org). Participants received $40CAN for completing the study as well as a toy for their dog (approximate value of $15-$20CAN).
The dogs’ behaviors were monitored by the experimenter throughout the session for any signs of stress, discomfort, or problematic behaviors. Furthermore, a specific ethogram was employed to systematically assess the dog’s anxiety and stress signals (see the supplementary materials document); this ethogram was completed by the experimenter approximately 10 min after entering the experimental room, so as to allow time to adapt to the surroundings. The ethogram involved noting, for 2 min and at 5-s intervals82, the presence or absence of stress-related behaviors83,84,85. None of the dogs showed significant stress in this study according to the pre-determined criteria (i.e., displaying at least 3 different stress signals at 50% or more of the observation points, or one severe stress reaction).
Experimental and control conditions
Each of the two conditions of the study involved completing 4 exercises of 5 min each. While half of the participants (n = 26) were exposed to the experimental (mindfulness) condition first, followed by the control condition (order 1), the other half (n = 26) were exposed to the control condition first, followed by the experimental condition (order 2). During their visit to the lab, both the owner and their dog were present in a testing room accompanied by the researcher. Each session lasted a total of approximately 90 min.
In the experimental (mindfulness) condition, participants were first exposed to a brief introduction to the practice of mindfulness86,87,88, which was specifically adapted to take advantage of the presence of their dog and to facilitate entry into this practice. In this condition, participants were invited to fully focus on their dog. They were encouraged to observe, interact, smell, and touch their dog, while paying attention to all the sensations and emotions present88. Specifically, in Exercise 1, participants were invited to mindfully use their different senses (i.e., seeing, hearing, touching, smelling) when interacting with their dog, in line with the 5 senses raisin exercise88; see also31. In Exercise 2, participants played two games with their dog (i.e., the dog had to return a bowl to eat a dog treat; playing with the toy offered to take part in the study), in line with an informal mindfulness practice integrated in everyday activities88. In Exercise 3, participants focused on their breathing and that of their dog, in line with mindful breathing exercises31,88; they were also encouraged to synchronize their breaths with those of their dog. In Exercise 4, participants were invited to participate in a loving-kindness meditation with their dog88. The supplementary information document presents the script employed in this condition (translated from French).
In the control condition, the dog was also present in the room with the owner who was instructed to focus mainly on the tasks on the computer and to interact with the dog as they would if they were working from home. While the owner was allowed to interact with their dog if the dog caused disruptions to the equipment in the room or generated excessive noise through barking, notably, the dogs never directly interfered with the equipment and rarely caused disturbances, apart from barking in reaction to noises in the hallway. The exercises performed in the control condition were chosen for their neutrality in terms of emotional arousal and their non-interactive nature. Specifically, in Exercise 1, participants were invited to watch a video about a bridge and to answer questions about this video. In Exercise 2, participants played a memory game, whereas in Exercise 3, they were asked to look at pictures of unknown persons and answer questions about them89. Exercise 4 involved recopying by hand on a sheet of paper a text about a historical neighborhood. A 5-min break took place between these two sets of exercises so as to create a separation between the two conditions, and to allow the dog to go outside for a brief walk and to toilet.
Room set-up
The testing room of approximately 10m2 was equipped with two videocameras (ZOOM Q8 Handy Video Recorder model), one desk and chair for the dog owner, a laptop (Dynabook Portégé model X3-W-J, Intel evo Core i7 processor) to complete the questionnaires, a small sofa, one chair for the experimenter, and a filing cabinet for storage. A bowl of fresh water was accessible to the dog during the entire session. To increase experimental realism, the room included different decorations (i.e., artificial plants, neutral wall decoration, dried flowers, table runner, table lamp). The general lighting in the room was typical of a work office. The supplementary materials document includes pictures of the experimental room.
Videorecordings and behavioral analyses
All of the sessions were videotaped with two ZOOM Q8 Handy Video Recorder cameras. The videos of the two cameras were then merged using the Adobe Premiere Pro 2024 program and then analyzed offline using Solomon coder Beta 19.08.02 (Copyright © 2019 András Péter, http://solomoncoder.com/). The videos coded were in .mp4 format. The Salomon coder software has been used in prior ethological research conducted with dogs (e.g.,90,91,92. The behaviors and types of interactions observed between the dog and their owner which were measured and coded are presented in the supplementary information document, which also includes departures from the pre-registration. These behaviors were coded specifically when participants took part in the two sets of 4 exercises of 5 min each that comprised each condition.
The affiliative behaviors manifested by the dog included39,40, see also49,91,93: initiation of physical contact by the dog with their owner, the dog looking at their owner, and the dog’s vocal communication toward their owner. The affiliative behaviors manifested by the owner included: initiation of physical contact by the owner with their dog, the owner looking at their dog, the owner petting their dog, the owner’s verbal communication toward their dog, the owner calling their dog, the owner playing with their dog, and the owner giving a command to their dog. Synchronization behaviors included36,37,38,41: local synchronization (whereby both members of the dyad are within one dog body length of each other), activity synchronization (where both individuals in the dyad engaged in the same behavior or activity; e.g., resting, playing, bonding), and temporal synchronization (when one member of the dyad changes their behavior or activity, the other member of the dyad also changes their behavior within the following 5 s). Only frequencies (but not durations) are reported for behaviors that were short in duration (i.e., point events), namely: physical contact initiated by the dog with their owner; dog’s vocal communication toward their owner; physical contact initiated by the owner with their dog; the owner calling their dog; the owner giving a command to their dog; temporal synchronization. Durations (representing percentages of the total length of the condition for each participant) were also available for the other behavioral variables. Percentages of duration were specifically used to account for the differences in the total duration time across the sessions and for this variability.
All videos were coded by one main coder, while a second coder coded 20% (n = 10) randomly-chosen videos in order to calculate inter-observer reliability. Initial inter-rater coding revealed 5 variables which presented low inter-rater reliability in terms of their intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Researchers commonly consider that adequate agreement is achieved when the average ICCs values are above 0.7094,95; see also96. Furthermore, ICC values less than 0.50, between 0.50 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.90, and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively97. Specifically, the dog looking at their owner variable, which is recognized in ethological research as being difficult to measure98, presented low inter-rater reliability (both in term of frequency: 0.62, and duration: 0.48). Given the importance of this affiliative behavior in the human–dog relationship (e.g.,19,45), the 10 videos were reverified or re-coded by the main coder by aligning more directly with the definition and conceptualization of this behavior provided in the pre-registration. This resulted in satisfactory reliabilities for both the duration (0.88) and the frequency (0.75) variables.
The following three variables with low reliability are not reported, however: (1) Frequency the owner initiated physical contact with their dog (0.18): The low reliability observed for this variable could be due to its infrequent occurrence; furthermore, the duration of direct owner-dog interaction is already captured by the variable whereby the owner pets their dog. (2) Frequency of the owner looking at their dog (0.41): Interruptions in looking behaviors posed challenges during coding as looks were intermittent; only the duration is hence reported for this variable. (3) Temporal synchronization (0.65): This variable is not reported given that its low inter-rater reliability may also be due to its infrequent occurrence and the stringent 5-s delay requirement while coding. Moreover, it will be possible to use the activity synchrony and the local synchrony variables to capture the dynamics and the rhythm of the owner-dog interactions. For the variables reported and analysed, ICCs were above 0.90, except for the frequency the dog looks at their owner (0.75) and the duration the dog looks at their owner (0.88) variables mentioned above, as well as the frequency of the dog’s vocal communication toward their owner variable (0.71).
Questionnaire measures
Prior to the manipulations, participants completed a first online questionnaire assessing sociodemographic information, and information about their dog and their other pets. Participants also provided information about how often they practice yoga and meditation. After completing each set of 4 exercises, participants completed another questionnaire online; this questionnaire was hence completed twice (i.e., at the end of each of the two conditions). This questionnaire assessed participants’ psychological well-being while performing these last 4 exercises using diverse and fine-grained well-being indicators and emotional states, which also have implications for social well-being and prosociality65,65,99,100 as well as their motivation to perform these exercises. All measures used had been translated from English to French using a back-to-back translation procedure (e.g.,101). Prior to assessing well-being and motivation, and as a manipulation check, the questionnaire included 4 items from the CAMS-R102 to assess self-reported mindfulness (αs = 0.65 and 0.57, in the experimental and control condition, respectively). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each item applied to how they felt during the last series of exercises they had completed (e.g., ‘It was easy for me to keep track of my thoughts and feelings’), using a 1 (not at all) to 4 (completely) scale.
In terms of psychological well-being, participants rated the extent to which they felt different emotions in the last series of exercises, including 4 positive emotions (e.g., enthusiasm: (αs = 0.68 and 0.69, in the experimental and control condition, respectively) adapted from the PANAS103,104, 4 self-transcendent emotions (e.g., compassion;105,106: αs = 0.81 and 0.80, in the experimental and control condition, respectively), and 3 eudaimonic emotions (e.g., autonomy;107: αs = 0.69 and 0.75, in the experimental and control condition, respectively ; 1 = not at all/very little to 5 = extremely). Participants also completed a 10-item measure adapted from the Dispositional Positive Emotions Scales (DPES;105), which assessed 3 positive emotional states (i.e., awe: ‘I felt awe’: αs = 0.75 and 0.70, in the experimental and control condition, respectively; joy: 'I felt bursts of joy’: αs = 0.90 and 0.91, in the experimental and control condition, respectively; contentment: ‘I felt contented’: αs = 0.86 and 0.86, in the experimental and control condition, respectively; 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Three items from the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6:108) were also adapted to assess gratitude (e.g., ‘I was grateful for the situation’: αs = 0.79 and 0.85, for the experimental and control condition, respectively; 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The small-self, which refers to a relatively diminished sense of self vis-à-vis something deemed more vast than the individual, and which captures a facet of social well-being given its positive implications for social connectedness and prosocial behaviors (e.g., increased generosity), was assessed with 5 items adapted from Piff et al.99; e.g., ‘I felt the presence of something greater than myself: αs = 0.97 and 0.96, in the experimental and control condition, respectively; 1 = not true at all to 7 = very true). Two items from the Daily Meaning Scale were also adapted to assess meaning109; e.g., ‘To what extent did you feel your life has meaning?’; αs = 0.96 and 0.99, in the experimental and control condition, respectively; 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely). Vitality was assessed with 4 items from Ryan and Frederick110; e.g., ‘I felt alive and vital’: αs = 0.83 and 0.84, in the experimental and control condition, respectively; 1 = does not correspond at all to 7 = corresponds exactly). Three items from Malone, Pillow, and Osman111 were adapted to assess social connections with people (e.g., ‘I felt accepted by others’: αs = 0.78 and 0.88, in the experimental and control condition, respectively) and 1 item assessed connection with one’s dog (‘I felt connected to my dog’; 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Motivation to complete the last series of exercises was assessed by adapting the Situational Motivation Measure112. This 16-item measure assesses intrinsic motivation (e.g., ‘Because these exercises were fun’: αs = 0.78 and 0.93, in the experimental and control condition, respectively), identified regulation (e.g., ‘Because I believe these exercises are important for me’: αs = 0.75 and 0.81, in the experimental and control condition, respectively), external regulation (e.g., ‘Because I felt that I had to do them’: αs = 0.77 and 0.78, for the experimental and control condition, respectively), and amotivation (e.g., ‘There may be good reasons to do these exercises, but personally I don’t see any’: αs = 0.68 and 0.75, in the experimental and control condition, respectively ; 1 = not at all to 7 = exactly).
The supplementary materials document presents the online questionnaires used in this study (translated from French; the original materials used for this study are available upon request). These questionnaires also included additional measures that assessed psychological connection with animals in general (i.e., social identification with animals:8) and the dog-owner relationship (i.e., dog-owner interaction; perceived emotional closeness; perceived costs; MDORS:113), as well as perceptions of the dog’s emotion during the experimental and the control condition. Given the particularly low reliabilities observed for the negative emotions measure assessed using 4 items from the PANAS (i.e., guilt, sadness, anger, nervousness;103,104; αs = 0.52 and 0.00, for the experimental and control condition, respectively), results involving this well-being variable are not reported.
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) and MPlus (Version 8; Muthen & Muthen). Table 1 presents the results of the mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) conducted to compare dog owners’ self-reported mindfulness and psychological well-being across the experimental and control conditions and the two orders. Table 2 presents the results of the mixed-model ANOVAs conducted to compare dog owners’ self-determined and non self-determined motivations across the experimental and control conditions and the two orders. Table 3 presents the results of the mixed-model ANOVAs conducted to compare the affiliative and synchronization behaviors across the experimental and control conditions and the two orders. Table 4 presents the correlations observed between the well-being, motivations, and affiliative and synchronization behaviors in the experimental condition, whereas Table 5 presents the correlations observed between the well-being, motivations, and affiliative and synchronization behaviors in the control condition. Table 6 reports the direct, indirect, and total effects observed when predicting the well-being variables for the significant mediation models.
Data availability
The data and codes that support the findings presented in this manuscript can be accessed, for verification purposes only, via the following link: https://osf.io/ufb45/?view_only=5d6155127a64447eb9aa74b4a44a7e7f. Researchers who have an Open Science Framework account can access the data and codes for this study.
References
Franklin, J. The wolf in the Parlor: How the Dog came to share your brain. (St. Martin’s Griffin, 2010).
Bruni, F. Dogs will fix our broken democracy. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/opinion/dogs-democracy.html (2019).
2020 Canadian Pet Population Figures Released. Canadian Animal Health Institute https://cahi-icsa.ca/news/2020-canadian-pet-population-figures-released (2021).
AVMA pet ownership and demographics sourcebook, 2017–2018 Edition. AVMA. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/AVMA-Pet-Demographics-Executive-Summary.pdf (2018).
How many pets are there in Australia? RSPCA Knowledgebase. https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/how-many-pets-are-there-in-australia/#:~:text=There%20are%20over%2029%20million,with%20pets%20by%20pet%20type (2020).
Amiot, C. E. & Bastian, B. Feeling solidarity toward animals: Assessing a relevant dimension of social identification with animals. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000199 (2017).
Amiot, C. E. & Bastian, B. What is beneficial in our relationships with pets? Exploring the psychological factors involved in human–pet relations and their associations with human wellbeing. Anthrozoös 36, 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2023.2210437 (2023).
Amiot, C. E., Sukhanova, K. & Bastian, B. Social identification with animals: Unpacking our psychological connection with other animals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118, 991–1017. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000199 (2020).
Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. J. Res. Pers. 45, 345357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001 (2011).
Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. Pets as safe havens and secure bases: The moderating role of pet attachment orientations. J. Res. Pers. 46, 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.005 (2012).
Bradshaw, J. The animals among us: How pets make us human (Basic Books, 2017).
Herzog, H. The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis?. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372141141522 (2011).
Amiot, C. E. & Bastian, B. Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychol. Bull. 141, 6–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038147 (2015).
Beetz, A. et al. The effect of a real dog, toy dog and friendly person on insecurely attached children during a stressful task: An exploratory study. Anthrozoös 24, 349–368. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303711x13159027359746 (2011).
Barker, S. B., Knisely, J. S., McCain, N. L., Schubert, C. M. & Pandurangi, A. K. Exploratory study of stress-buffering response patterns from interaction with a therapy dog. Anthrozoös 23, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12627079939341 (2010).
Kline, J. A. et al. Randomized trial of therapy dogs versus deliberative coloring (art therapy) to reduce stress in emergency medicine providers. Acad. Emerg. Med. 27, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13939 (2020).
Teo, J. T., Johnstone, S. J., Römer, S. S. & Thomas, S. J. Psychophysiological mechanisms underlying the potential health benefits of human-dog interactions: A systematic literature review. Int. J. of Psychophysiology 180, 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.07.007 (2022).
Odendaal, J. S. J. & Meintjes, R. A. Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Vet. J. 165, 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-X (2003).
Nagasawa, M. et al. Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds. Science 348, 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261022 (2015).
Sundman, A.-S. et al. Long-term stress levels are synchronized in dogs and their owners. Sci. Rep. 9, 7391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43851-x (2019).
Kabat-Zinn, J. Coming to our senses: Healing ourselves and the world through mindfulness (Hyperion, 2006).
Brown, K. W. & Ryan, R. M. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 (2003).
Querstret, D., Morison, L., Dickinson, S., Cropley, M. & John, M. Mindfulness-based stress reduction and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for psychological health and well-being in nonclinical samples: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Stress Manag. 27, 394–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000165 (2020).
Chard, P. S. The healing earth: Nature’s medicine for the troubled soul (Northword Press, 1994).
McConnell, P. B. The other end of the leash: Why we do what we do around dogs (Ballantine Books, 2009).
O’Haire, M. E. Research on animal-assisted intervention and autism spectrum disorder, 2012–2015. Appl. Dev. Sci. 21, 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2016.1243988 (2017).
Hawkins, R. D., Hawkins, E. L. & Tip, L. “I can’t give up when I have them to care for”: People’s experiences of pets and their mental health. Anthrozoös 34, 543562. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1914434 (2021).
Jackson-Grossblat, A., Carbonell, N. & Waite, D. The therapeutic effects upon dog owners who interact with their dogs in a mindful way. J. Humanist. Psychol. 56, 144–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167814559390 (2016).
Bosacki, S., Tardif-Williams, C. Y. & Roma, R. P. S. Children’s and adolescents’ pet attachment, empathy, and compassionate responding to self and others. Adolescents 2, 493–507. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents2040039 (2022).
Bergen-Cico, D. et al. Dog ownership and training reduces post-traumatic stress symptoms and increases self-compassion among veterans: Results of a longitudinal control study. J. Altern. Compl. Med. 24, 1166–1175. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2018.0179 (2018).
Künzi, P., Ackert, M., Hund-Georgiadis, M. & Hediger, K. Effects of animal-assisted psychotherapy incorporating mindfulness and self-compassion in neurorehabilitation: A randomized controlled feasibility trial. Sci. Rep. 12, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14584-1 (2022).
Henry, C. L. & Crowley, S. L. The psychological and physiological effects of using a therapy dog in mindfulness training. Anthrozoös 28, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1052272 (2015).
Kogan, L. R. & Bussolari, C. Exploring the potential impact of a virtual body scan meditation exercise conducted with pet dogs on recipients and facilitators. Front. Psychol. 12, 698075. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.698075 (2021).
Oliva, J. L. & Green, T. R. Dog tales: Mindful dog interactions evoke similar experiences to dog assisted mindfulness meditations. Animals 11, 2104. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072104 (2021).
Amiot, C. E., Gagné, C. & Bastian, B. Exploring the role of our contacts with pets in broadening concerns for animals, nature, and fellow humans: A representative study. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43680-z (2023).
Duranton, C. Local synchrony as a tool to estimate affiliation in dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 36, 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.10.007 (2020).
Duranton, C., Bedossa, T. & Gaunet, F. Interspecific behavioural synchronization: Dogs exhibit locomotor synchrony with humans. Sci. Rep. 7, 12384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12577-z (2017).
Duranton, C. & Gaunet, F. Canis sensitivus: Affiliation and dogs’ sensitivity to others’ behavior as the basis for synchronization with humans?. J. Vet. Behav. 10, 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2015.08.008 (2015).
Gácsi, M. et al. Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: Selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006584 (2009).
McGreevy, P. D., Starling, M., Branson, N. L., Cobb, M. L. & Calnon, D. An overview of the dog–human dyad and ethograms within it. J. Vet. Behav. 7, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.06.001 (2012).
Wanser, S. H., MacDonald, M. & Udell, M. A. Dog–human behavioral synchronization: Family dogs synchronize their behavior with child family members. Anim. Cogn. 24, 747–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01454-4 (2021).
Ohkita, M., Nagasawa, M., Kazutaka, M. & Kikusui, T. Owners’ direct gazes increase dogs’ attention-getting behaviors. Behav. Process. 125, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.02.013 (2016).
Miklósi, A., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J. & Csányi, V. Intentional behavior in dog–human communication: An experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim, Cog. 3, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710000072 (2000).
Gaunet, F. Sensitivity and adjustments of domestic dogs to social agents: Knowledge from the scientific field. J. Vet. Behav. 7, e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2012.09.020 (2012).
Nagasawa, M., Kikusui, T., Onaka, T. & Ohta, M. Dog’s gaze at its owner increases owner’s urinary oxytocin during social interaction. Horm. Behav. 55, 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.12.002 (2009).
Bradshaw, J. W. S., Pullen, A. J. & Rooney, N. J. Why do adult dogs “play”?. Behav. Process. 110, 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.023 (2015).
Rooney, N. & Bradshaw, J. Canine welfare science: An antidote to sentiment and myth in Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior: The Scientific Study Of Canis Familiaris 241–274 (Springer, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53994-7_11.
Feuerbacher, E. N. & Wynne, C. D. L. Shut up and pet me! Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer petting to vocal praise in concurrent and single-alternative choice procedures. Behav. Process. 110, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.019 (2015).
MacLean, E. L. et al. Effects of affiliative human-animal interaction on dog salivary and plasma oxytocin and vasopressin. Front. Psychol. 8, 1606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01606 (2017).
Duranton, C. & Gaunet, F. Behavioral synchronization and affiliation: Dogs exhibit human-like skills. Learn. Behav. 46, 364–373. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-018-0323-4 (2018).
Cheng, C. M. & Chartrand, T. L. Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as a nonconscious affiliation strategy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 1170–1179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1170 (2003).
Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M. & Chartrand, T. L. The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. J. Nonverbal Behav. 27, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025389814290 (2003).
Major, B. C., Le Nguyen, K. D., Lundberg, K. B. & Fredrickson, B. L. Well-being correlates of perceived positivity resonance: Evidence from trait and episode-level assessments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 1631–1647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218771324 (2018).
Protopopova, S. & Wynne, C. D. L. Adopter-dog interactions at the shelter: Behavioral and contextual predictors of adoption. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 157, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.007 (2014).
Duranton, C., Bedossa, T. & Gaunet, F. Pet dogs exhibit social preference for people who synchronize with them: What does it tell us about the evolution of behavioral synchronization?. Anim. Cog. 22, 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01241-w (2019).
Duranton, C., Courby-Betremieux, C. & Gaunet, F. One- and two-month-old dog puppies exhibit behavioural synchronization with humans independently of familiarity. Animals 12, 3356. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12233356 (2022).
Höglin, A. et al. Long-term stress in dogs is related to the human–dog relationship and personality traits. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88201-y (2021).
Gee, N. R., Rodriguez, K. E., Fine, A. H. & Trammell, J. P. Dogs supporting human health and well-being: A biopsychosocial approach. Front. Vet. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.630465 (2021).
Three Rs. Canadian Council on Animal Care. https://ccac.ca/en/three-rs/ (n.d.).
Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C. & Tomasello, M. The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298, 1634–1636. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072702 (2002).
Topál, J., Gergely, G., Erdohegyi, A., Csibra, G. & Miklosi, A. Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325, 1269–1272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176960 (2009).
Chambers, J., Quinlan, M. B., Evans, A. & Quinlan, R. J. Dog-human coevolution: Cross-cultural analysis of multiple hypotheses. J. Ethnobiol. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.4.414 (2020).
Wynne, C. D. L. Dog is love: Why and how your dog loves you (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019).
Amiot, C. E., Gagné, C. & Bastian, B. Pet ownership and psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Rep. 12, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10019-z (2022).
Constitution. World Health Organization https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution (n.d.).
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness, https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806 (Guilford Press, 2017).
Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988).
Barcelos, A. et al. Dog owner mental health is associated with dog behavioural problems, dog care and dog-facilitated social interaction: A prospective cohort study. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48731-z (2023).
Barcelos, A. M., Kargas, N., Maltby, J., Hall, S. & Mills, D. S. A framework for understanding how activities associated with dog ownership relate to human well-being. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68446-9 (2020).
Vormbrock, J. K. & Grossberg, J. M. Cardiovascular effects of human-pet dog interactions. J. Behav. Med. 11, 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00844843 (1988).
Mitchell, R. W. Americans’ talk to dogs: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 34, 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi34-2_2 (2001).
Mitchell, R. W. & Edmonson, E. Functions of repetitive talk to dogs during play: Control, conversation, or planning?. Soc. Anim. 7, 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853099x00167 (1999).
Napier, A. D., Bennett, P. C. & Howell, T. J. The effects of an online-guided, at-home dog training session on owner anxiety, mood, and general self-efficacy during COVID-19. Hum. Anim. Interact. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1079/hai.2021.0011 (2021).
Krauss, R. M. The psychology of verbal communication. Int. Encycl. Social Behav. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01815-5 (2002).
Leconstant, C. & Spitz, E. Integrative model of human-animal interactions: A one health–one welfare systemic approach to studying HAI. Front. Vet. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.656833 (2022).
Mackenzie, J. S. & Jeggo, M. The one health approach-why is it so important?. Trop. Med. Infect. 4, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed4020088 (2019).
Bennett, P. C., Trigg, J. L., Godber, T. & Brown, C. An experience sampling approach to investigating associations between pet presence and indicators of psychological wellbeing and mood in older australians. Anthrozoös 28, 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1052266 (2015).
Janssens, M. et al. The pet-effect in daily life: An experience sampling study on emotional wellbeing in pet owners. Anthrozoös 33, 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1771061 (2020).
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A.-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 31: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149(2009) (2009).
Ferguson, C. J. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Psychol. Res. Pract. 40, 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808 (2009).
Jegatheesan, B. et al. IAHAIO White Paper. The IAHAIO definitions for animal assisted intervention and guidelines for wellness of animals involved in AAI. https://iahaio.org/best-practice/white-paper-on-animal-assisted-interventions/ (2018).
Darmaillacq, A.-S. & Lévy, F. Éthologie Animale: Une Approche Biologique du Comportement (2ème Édition) (De Boeck Supérieur, 2019).
Beerda, B., Schilder, M. B. H., van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M., de Vries, H. W. & Mol, J. A. Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 58, 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(97)00145-7 (1998).
Beerda, B., Schilder, M. B. H., van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M., de Vries, H. W. & Mol, J. A. Behavioural and hormonal indicators of enduring environmental stress in dogs. Anim. Welfare. 9, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600022247 (2000).
Ng, Z. Y. et al. The effect of dog–human interaction on cortisol and behavior in registered animal-assisted activity dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 159, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.07.009 (2014).
Heppner, W. L. et al. Mindfulness as a means of reducing aggressive behavior: Dispositional and situational evidence. Aggress. Behav. 34, 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20258 (2008).
Schofield, T. P., Creswell, J. & Denson, T. F. Brief mindfulness induction reduces inattentional blindness. Conscious. Cogn. 37, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.08.007 (2015).
Kabat-Zinn, J. Full Catastrophe Living, Revised Edition: How to cope with stress pain, and illness using mindfulness meditation (Hachette UK, 2013).
Hutcherson, C. A., Seppala, E. M. & Gross, J. J. Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion 8, 720–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013237 (2008).
Abdail, J. & Miklósi, A. Selection for specific behavioural traits does not influence preference of chasing motion and visual strategy in dogs. Sc Reports 12, 2370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06382-6 (2022).
Cimarelli, G., Marshall-Pescini, S., Range, F. & Virányi, Z. Pet dogs’ relationships vary rather individually than according to partner’s species. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40164-x (2019).
Quervel-Chaumette, M., Faerber, V., Faragó, T., Marshall-Pescini, S. & Range, F. Investigating empathy-like responding to conspecifics’ distress in pet dogs. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152920 (2016).
Cavalli, C., Dzik, V., Carballo, F. & Bentosela, M. Post-conflict affiliative behaviors towards humans in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Int. J. Comp. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.46867/ijcp.2016.29.00.03 (2016).
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M. & Michels, L. C. The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say?. Organ. Res. Methods 9, 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919 (2006).
Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P. B., Loughry, M. L. & Ohland, M. W. Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs. Organ. Res. Methods 18, 704–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115582090 (2015).
Walker, T. J. et al. Validity and reliability of measures to assess constructs from the inner setting domain of the consolidated framework for implementation research in a pediatric clinic network implementing HPV programs. BMC Health Serv. Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4021-5 (2019).
Koo, T. K. & Li, M. Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 15, 15563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 (2016).
Wilson, V., Bethell, E. & Nawroth, C. The use of gaze to study cognition: Limitations, solutions, and applications to animal welfare. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1147278 (2023).
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M. & Keltner, D. Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108, 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000018 (2015).
Monroy, M. & Keltner, D. Awe as a pathway to mental and physical health. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221094856 (2023).
Van de Vijver, F. & Leung, K. Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research 2nd edn, 154–183 (Cambridge University Press, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415188.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J. & Laurenceau, J.-P. Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 29, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8 (2007).
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 (1988).
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Watson/Watson.html (1999).
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D. & John, O. P. Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. J. Posit. Psychol. 1, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500510833 (2006).
Stellar, J. E. et al. Self-transcendent emotions and their social functions: Compassion, gratitude, and awe bind us to others through prosociality. Emot. Rev. 9, 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916684557 (2017).
Ryff, C. D. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 (1989).
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A. & Tsang, J. A. The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112 (2002).
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B. & Oishi, S. Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activity and well-being. J. Res. Pers. 42, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.004 (2008).
Ryan, R. M. & Frederick, C. On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 65, 529–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x (1997).
Malone, G. P., Pillow, D. R. & Osman, A. The general belongingness scale (GBS): Assessing achieved belongingness. Pers Individ Dif. 52, 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027 (2012).
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J. & Blanchard, C. On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motiv. Emotion 24, 175–213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250 (2000).
Dwyer, F., Bennett, P. C. & Coleman, G. J. Development of the Monash dog owner relationship scale (MDORS). Anthrozoös 19, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415592 (2006).
Acknowledgements
We thank Hugues Leduc for his statistical advice as well as the following groups for their help in facilitating data collection: Organisers of the SNAC in Montréal (Salon National des Animaux de Compagnie), Guides Canins Inc., and Institut de formation en comportement animal (IFCA-AZCA). We thank Noémi Baron and Laurie Litalien for their precious help in recruiting participants for this study, and Noémi Baron for merging the videos.
Funding
This research was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 435-2020-0812, and the Fund for Research on Health—Québec, 268393.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C.E.A., M.Q.-C, and B.B. contributed to the design of the study, and elaboration of the research questions and hypotheses. C.E.A, C.G., and M.Q.-C. conducted the statistical analyses. M.Q.-C. acted as the first coder, while C.E.A. coded 20% of the videos. M.Q.-C. and C.E.A. served as experimenters. All authors contributed to interpretation of the findings and to writing the manuscript; all authors read and approved the submitted version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Amiot, C.E., Quervel-Chaumette, M., Gagné, C. et al. An experimental study focusing on mindfulness to capture how our contacts with dogs can promote human well-being. Sci Rep 15, 23202 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00872-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-00872-z
