Introduction

Dogs and cats are popular pets worldwide. A significant number of households have both dogs and cats1,2,3. It is estimated that 45% of households in the US have dogs (about 88 million) and 26% have cats (about 61 million); nearly half of US households that acquired pets during the COVID-19 pandemic obtained both dogs and cats4. Meanwhile, about 11% of all households in the UK have both5. Regarding pet ownership in Asia, dogs are preferred in India (44.8%), Thailand (48.5%), and China (38.7%), while cats (56.5%) are preferred in Indonesia owing to its large Muslim population6. In 2023, 9.1% of Japanese households owned a dog, while 8.7% owned a cat; the respective total populations of dogs and cats were about seven million and nine million7. In a 2019 survey conducted by a Japanese insurance company, 11.1% (123) of 1776 pet-owning respondents said they had both dogs and cats8.

Dogs and cats living in the same environment need to be sensitive to each other’s behaviour and establish appropriate relationships, as is the case with humans and dogs/cats. When species with distinct characteristics cohabitate, it is important to understand their relationships to protect them and prevent injuries, stress, or owner abandonment. However, while many studies have investigated human–dog and human–cat communication, relatively few have examined the relationships and interactions between cohabitating dogs and cats. Additional research is needed in this area to highlight the factors that influence their coexistence and interaction.

The body language exhibited by one animal can have a different meaning for another species. Tail wagging, for instance, is a friendly sign for dogs but a signal of nervousness or aggression for cats1,9. Nevertheless, the two species appear capable of correctly interpreting these behaviours1. Indeed, surveys of pet owners in Western countries have indicated that dogs and cats have good relationships1,2,3,10. Thomson et al.2 examined factors influencing dog–cat relationships. They found that owners’ perceptions of amicability were more influenced by ‘cat factors’ than ‘dog factors’, such as the age at which the cat was introduced to the dog and whether the cat was comfortable in the dog’s presence. Menchetti et al.11 noted that dogs and cats cohabitating in a household are perceived as having different personalities, with dogs being more sociable, protective, and reactive than cats and less nervous than them. Recent studies suggest that the early, gradual, owner-led introduction of puppies to cats is important for forming friendly relationships12. It is also noted that when owners spend more time interacting with their cat, it has positive effects on the cat’s welfare, regardless of the presence of a cohabiting dog13.

Previous studies of the relationship between cohabiting dogs and cats have mostly been conducted in Western countries, leaving their dynamics unexplored in non-Western settings, such as Asia. Human views of animals are often shaped by Western cultural norms14,15; however, data from one part of the world cannot be generalised to all cultures. Cultural differences lead to varying attitudes towards animals and their treatment16,17. For example, US university students rated animal intelligence higher than students in Japan did18, and US citizens had significantly more positive attitudes towards cats as pets than Japanese citizens19. UK university students had significantly more experience with animals in childhood than Japanese students; they also had more favourable attitudes towards pets and a greater interest in animal welfare in adulthood than Japanese students20.

Pet–owner relationships are similar to family or child–parent relationships in both Western countries and Japan21,22. People in both the UK and Japan perceive cats as less emotionally expressive than dogs21,23. In summary, although some similarities exist, attitudes towards and perceptions of pets can differ across countries; this likely influences how dogs and cats are managed, which in turn can shape the dynamics of their relationships. Cultural variations might affect the unique aspects of dog–cat interactions, while shared attitudes and perceptions could contribute to universal patterns in their coexistence.

Environmental differences might also affect dog–cat relationships. For example, Japanese houses tend to be small; the average house size in Japan is 95 m2 while that in the US is 214 m224. In addition, half of the households in Western countries that keep both dogs and cats have large dogs2, whereas the top 20 breeds in Japan are mostly small dogs (excluding mongrels)7. Small dogs and cats are typically housed indoors in Japan. Such factors could influence interspecies interactions given that smaller living spaces and closer proximity might foster more frequent interaction.

For this study, we conducted a questionnaire survey of Japanese households that keep both dogs and cats for comparison with Western countries in terms of the various factors that influence amicability between cohabiting dogs and cats. Thomson et al.2 reported that cats and dogs are generally perceived as comfortable together, with cats playing a more significant role in shaping their relationship dynamics. Therefore, our study aimed to examine how cultural and environmental factors influence interspecies relationships in Japan. The findings could serve as an important stepping-stone for future investigations of interspecies interaction and communication.

Methods

Referring to Thomson et al.2, we created an online questionnaire using Google Forms to capture pet owners’ perspectives on the factors potentially affecting amicability between their dogs and cats. While the questionnaire items generally followed Thomson et al.2, we added or changed some items to gather more information about the owner and the relationship between their dog and cat. The online survey was outsourced to a professional research company, Cross Marketing, Inc., that collected data on behalf of the research team. The survey targeted Japanese residents aged 18 years and older who owned both dogs and cats, and was carried out during 14–24 December 2021. Participants were recruited from the company’s proprietary panel. All participants were compensated in accordance with company regulations. If participants had more than one dog and cat, they were instructed to answer for the dog–cat pair that had lived with them for the longest period. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants had to answer all questions except two open-ended items. The study was approved by the ethics committee of The University of Osaka (approval no. HB021-038). The study adhered strictly to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

The questionnaire was divided into five sections: (1) basic information about the participants, including age, gender identity, prefecture of residence, number of family members, number of dogs/cats, and how they acquired their dogs/cats; (2) basic information about the dog, including breed, size, sex, current age, age at acquisition, reproductive status, housing status, and age when introduced to the cat; (3) basic information about the cat, with the same questions as in (2), except for size; (4) information about the dog–cat relationship, including species acquired first, cohabitation period, their eating habits, the presence or absence of certain interactions (e.g. comfortableness in each other’s presence, threatening behaviour, rolling over in front of other), and the frequency of other types of interaction (e.g. playing together, spending time in the same room, sleeping together); and (5) an assessment of amicability between the dog and the cat rated on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not friendly at all) to 10 (very friendly). Full details about the questionnaire can be found in the supplementary information.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed using R version 4.4.025. For data cleaning, we manually excluded the following responses: (a) duplicate IDs (i.e. one participant answered more than once), (b) incomplete answers (In the case of that there were unanswered items except open-ended questions), (c) open-ended items (dog or cat breed) that clearly did not describe dog or cat breeds, (d) the current age of the dog or cat being 21 years or older, and (e) a mismatch between the cohabitation period and current age of the dog or cat (e.g. the dog’s age was one year while the cohabitation duration was 10 years). Data were obtained from 1981 participants, of which 777 were considered valid.

Following previous research2, we conducted stepwise linear regression separately for each section of the questionnaire to identify factors related to the level of amicability between dogs and cats. The sections were divided into (1) demographic factors, (2) the presence or absence of specific dog–cat behaviours, and (3) the frequency of specific dog–cat behaviours. For each section, we used stepwise regression with forward selection and backward elimination to iteratively add or remove variables based on their contributions to the model, ensuring the best-fitting model for predicting amicability between dogs and cats. All explanatory variables were analysed after standardisation.

For model (1), demographic factors predicting perceived amicability, we entered the following variables: dog breed, dog size, dog sex, dog current age, dog’s age at acquisition, dog reproductive status, dog housing status, age at which the dog was introduced to the cat, cat breed, cat sex, cat current age, cat’s age at acquisition, cat reproductive status, cat housing status, age at which the cat was introduced to the dog, species acquired first, cohabitation period, and the pets’ eating habits. In model (2), the presence or absence of certain dog–cat interactions predicting perceived amicability, we entered the following variables: dog’s comfort in the cat’s presence, cat’s comfort in the dog’s presence, dog has threatened the cat, cat has threatened the dog, dog has injured the cat, cat has injured the dog, dog picks up toys to show the cat, cat picks up toys to show the dog, dog rolls over in front of the cat, and cat rolls over in front of the dog. For model (3), the frequency of certain dog–cat interactions predicting perceived amicability, the following variables were entered: the frequency with which the dog is uncomfortable in the presence of the cat, the cat is uncomfortable in the presence of the dog, the dog grooms the cat, the cat grooms the dog, the dog and cat play together, the cat and dog spend time in the same room, and the dog and cat sleep together.

Results

Demographic characteristics of participants

Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic characteristics. More than half were men (56.8%), with the largest age group being 40–49 years (27.5%). The majority (37.3%) resided in the Kanto region and 78.8% lived in single-family homes. Families with three or more members were common (66.3%). Notably, 81.9% of participants did not have preschoolers in their households. A total of 82.1% owned one dog, and 66.0% owned one cat, although households with three or more pets were more frequent among cat owners than dog owners. Nearly half (49.8%) of the respondents reported acquiring dogs from pet stores, whereas the most common way to acquire cats was by taking them in from the street (32.9%).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of dog and cat owners (N = 777) participating in an online survey in Japan. Data were self-reported through a questionnaire.
Full size table

Demographic characteristics of dogs and cats

Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of dogs and cats. A larger proportion of dogs were purebreds (67.2%) than mongrels (32.8%), whereas mongrels were more common among cats (71.0%) than purebreds (29.0%). Most dogs were small (65.3%), with only a few being large (5.3%). The proportions of males and females were nearly equal for both dogs (male, 57.4%; female, 42.6%) and cats (male, 44.8%; female, 55.2%). The average age of dogs was 7.25 years (SD = 4.58); for cats, it was 6.12 years (SD = 4.43). Both species were typically acquired before six months of age (dogs: 61.9%; cats: 69.4%). Neutering was common in both dogs (66.0%) and cats (81.1%), and most were kept indoors (dogs, 76.3%; cats, 86.6%). Additionally, the most frequent age for encountering other species was less than six months for both dogs (35.9%) and cats (46.5%).

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of dogs and cats (N = 777 respondents).
Full size table

Table 3 reports the species acquired first, cohabitation period, and eating habits of the dogs and cats. Most owners (58.2%) indicated that they started keeping dogs before cats. The most common duration of cohabitation between the two species was 2–5 years (35.1%). The majority of dogs and cats ate food from separate bowls located far apart (63.6%), whereas a few (4.0%) ate food from the same bowl.

Table 3 Species acquired first, cohabitation period, and feeding styles of dogs and cats (N = 777 respondents).
Full size table

Dog–cat interactions

Figure 1 reports owners’ perceptions of the presence of dog–cat interactions. Many owners indicated that both species felt comfortable with each other (dogs: 79.8%; cats: 76.7%). A total of 32.6% of dogs had threatened a cat, and 41.6% vice versa; the proportion of dogs injuring cats was 5.5%, and 10.6% vice versa. Both dogs and cats were less likely to show a toy to another (dogs: 29.2%; cats: 22.1%), and they rolled over in front of another equally (dogs: 54.6%; cats: 55.3%).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Owners’ perceptions of dog–cat interactions in the online survey (N = 777). Dark red bars represent dogs’ behaviors towards cats, while light red bars represent cats’ behaviors towards dogs.

Full size image

Figure 2 reports owners’ assessments of the frequency of dog–cat interactions on a five-point Likert scale (‘Never’, ‘Rarely’, ‘Once in every couple of weeks to once a month’, ‘Once a week to many times a week’, ‘Every day’). Both dogs and cats were reported to rarely feel uncomfortable in the other’s presence. However, grooming each other was also uncommon. Regarding the frequency of ‘playing together’ and ‘sleeping together’, the sample was roughly split between never/rarely and at least once per week/every day. Notably, most owners indicated that their dogs and cats spent time in the same room every day.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Frequency of dog–cat interactions as reported by owners (N = 777). Participants rated the frequency of various interactions using a five-point Likert scale: Dark blue represents ‘Never’, light blue represents ‘Rarely’, dark red represents ‘Once in every couple of weeks—once a month’, light red represents ‘Once a week—many times a week’, and gray represents ‘Every day’.

Full size image

Amicability in dogs and cats

The average score for owners’ ratings of perceived dog–cat amicability was 6.64 (SD = 2.54). Most owners perceived the two species as getting along well (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Owner-rated dog–cat amicability scores on a 10-point Likert scale (N = 777). White numbers on the bars represent the number of respondents for each rating.

Full size image

Demographic factors predicting amicability

Factors that were retained in the final model included dog housing status, age at which the dog was introduced to the cat, cat reproductive status, age at which the cat was introduced to the dog, cohabitation period, and food consumption (F (7, 769) = 28.35, p < 0.01, adjusted R2 = 0.20). The variance inflation factors (VIFs) were not larger than 1.67, indicating no issues with multicollinearity (VIF < 10 is generally considered acceptable). The final model revealed that where food is eaten was the strongest predictor of amicability (the closer the eating place, the more amicable) (β = − 0.78, t = − 9.14), followed by dog housing status (dogs spending time indoors predicts greater amicability) (β = − 0.42, t = − 5.11), introducing the cat to the dog at a younger age (β = − 0.32, t = − 3.84), longer cohabitation period (β = 0.35, t = 3.32), cat is not neutered (β = − 0.20, t = − 2.37), and introducing the dog to the cat at a younger age (β = − 0.25, t = − 2.37) (Table 4).

Table 4 Stepwise regression results predicting dog–cat amicability based on demographic factors, presence or absence of specific dog–cat interactions, and frequency of their interactions (N = 777 respondents). Standardized beta coefficients (β), standard errors (SE), and t-values are reported. Variables with p-values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant. Higher β values indicate stronger associations with perceived amicability.
Full size table

Presence or absence of certain dog–cat interactions predicting amicability

The factors that appeared in the final regression model were the dog’s comfort in the cat’s presence, cat’s comfort in the dog’s presence, dog has threatened the cat, cat has threatened the dog, dog picks up toys to show the cat, dog rolls over in front of the cat, and cat rolls over in front of the dog (F (7, 769) = 116.30, p < 0.01, adjusted R2 = 0.51). The VIFs were not larger than 1.80. The final model indicated that cats’ comfortableness was the strongest predictor of amicability (β = 0.72, t = 8.36), followed by dogs’ comfortableness (β = 0.62, t = 7.37), the dog picking up toys to show the cat (β = 0.40, t = 5.56), absence of the cat threatening the dog (β = − 0.33, t = − 4.87), the cat rolling over in front of the dog (β = 0.38, t = 4.85), absence of the dog threatening the cat (β = − 0.32, t = − 4.83), and the dog rolling over in front of the cat (β = 0.18, t = 2.27) (Table 4).

Frequency of certain dog–cat interactions predicting amicability

All factors entered into the analysis appeared in the final model (F (7, 769) = 150.10, p < 0.01, adjusted R2 = 0.57). The VIFs were not larger than 2.27. The final model revealed that a greater frequency of the dog and cat playing was the strongest predictor of amicability (β = − 0.76, t = − 8.59), followed by a lower frequency of the dog feeling uncomfortable in cat’s presence (β = 0.51, t = 7.24), a greater frequency of the dog and cat spending time in the same room (β = − 0.47, t = − 6.56), a greater frequency of the dog and cat sleeping together (β = − 0.54, t = − 6.03), a lower frequency of the cat feeling uncomfortable in the dog’s presence (β = 0.39, t = 5.58), a greater frequency of the cat grooming the dog (β = − 0.28, t = − 3.07), and a greater frequency of the dog grooming the cat (β = − 0.20, t = − 2.22) (Table 4).

Discussion

We collected online survey data from Japanese residents who had both dogs and cats to investigate the factors affecting dog–cat amicability in an Eastern context, enabling comparison with the results of Thomson et al.2 in Western countries. Consistent with the findings of Thomson et al.2, most owners perceived their dogs and cats as comfortable in each other’s presence and friendly in their relationship. Despite cultural differences in attitudes towards animals, one commonality between Japan and Western countries is the perception of pets as family members21,22. Both Japanese and Western owners are likely to provide environments that promote mutual comfort and reduce conflict, reflecting their commitment to the well-being of their pets. These findings suggest that the bond between dogs and cats transcends cultural boundaries.

The results of the three models suggest that the quality of dog–cat interaction plays a more critical role in perceived amicability than the quantity of time spent together, which aligns with the findings of Thomson et al.2. While the cohabitation period and time spent in the same room were relatively strong predictors, indicating the importance of prolonged interactions, factors such as playing together and proximity to eating places emerged as the strongest predictors. These findings highlight that the quality of interactions, such as engaging in positive shared activities, is key to fostering friendly relationships.

In contrast to Thomson et al.2, who reported that cat factors were stronger predictors of amicability than dog factors, we found that amicability was influenced by both cat and dog factors. For example, dog housing status, comfort of the dog, and a lower frequency of the dog appearing uncomfortable in the presence of a cat were strong predictors of amicability in each model. In the demographic model, the age at which the cat was introduced to the dog and vice versa were both significant predictors (younger age predicted greater amicability). Previous studies have reported the importance of age at introduction for both species1, whereas others have reported that the cat’s age at introduction is particularly important2,26. Although the age at which cats were introduced to dogs was a stronger predictor than the age at which dogs were introduced to cats, our study supports the former, as both dog and cat variables remained in the final model. Introducing both species at an early age helps them learn to interpret each other’s communicative signals, leading to the development of friendly relationships1. This finding may also be explained by the concept of Kindchen schema (baby schema)27,28, which describes the protective and nurturing responses elicited by the physical appearance of young animals. Puppies and kittens often exhibit features such as large eyes, round faces, and small noses, which might trigger caregiving behaviours not only in humans but also in other animals. Such responses may foster positive initial interactions and reduce the likelihood of fear or aggression, thereby promoting the development of amicable relationships.

Thomson et al.2 highlighted cat housing status as a significant factor influencing the relationship between cats and dogs. By contrast, the present study identified dog housing status as a more important factor. This difference may reflect cultural and environmental variations, particularly the prevalence of indoor housing for dogs and cats in Japan. In particular, Japan’s Ministry of the Environment recommends keeping cats indoors, which might minimise variability in cat housing status. Cats are also more commonly kept indoors in countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, primarily owing to safety and related concerns29. However, in many rural and suburban areas of Europe, cats are often allowed to roam outdoors29. Therefore, cat housing status is likely to have more influence on the model in these Western contexts than in Japan. Cultural practices regarding outdoor access for cats vary are thus a key consideration when testing our model in other countries or regions.

While we found that both cat and dog factors influenced the level of amicability, our model did not include whether the dog or cat was introduced to the household first. Feuerstein and Terkel1, however, reported that adopting a cat before a dog is conducive to establishing an amicable relationship. This suggests that in Japan, the role of cat factors might not be as significant as in Western contexts. The differences between Japanese and Western views of pets and animals might explain this. Atherton and Moore30 noted that companion animals are anthropomorphised in Japan and are treated as human children rather than animals. Through such anthropomorphism, it is possible that cats are regarded as a ‘protected static presence’ and dogs a ‘sociable presence’. In such an environment, the cat’s behaviour is less likely to be the decisive factor in establishing a relationship, and the dog may be more likely to take the lead in the relationship with the cat. Furthermore, lower sociability in Japanese cats might require the dog to lead in relationship building. Japanese cats are less socialised towards humans than US cats; in behavioural tests, Japanese cats spend a smaller proportion of time in proximity to people than US cats19. Cats with low sociability may maintain their distance and adopt passive attitudes towards other animals, including dogs. Consequently, the dog’s attempts to establish a relationship with the cat intensify, and the dog’s behaviour is considered an important factor in their amicability.

Alternatively, dog breed characteristics and rearing environments in Japan might explain why dog factors are emphasised. In Japan, many small dogs and Shiba Inu are housed indoors. Half of the dogs in Western households with both dogs and cats are large dogs2; in our survey, however, more than 90% were small- or medium-sized dogs. We asked about breed in an open-ended question; Shiba Inu (13.4%) was the most common, followed by Chihuahuas (12.0%), Miniature Dachshunds (9.1%), and Toy Poodles (8.9%) (excluding mongrels/mixes and those who did not know or did not answer). Previous research has indicated differences in personality according to breed (but see Morrill et al.31. Comparative studies across breeds using a candidate gene approach have found a potential link between the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene and personality traits associated with aggression. Breeds with the longer-type allele of DRD4 (e.g. Shiba Inu) are more aggressive and less sociable32,33,34. In general, small dogs are more aggressive towards humans35. Ley et al.36 found a positive correlation between small body size (weight and height), nervousness (anxiety-related behaviour), and an unsociable personality. Small dogs and toy breeds (e.g. Chihuahuas and Dachshunds) scored higher for aggression and anxiety while larger dogs such as Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers scored lower for these behaviours37. In addition, small dogs are more likely to exhibit attachment to their owners and attention-seeking behaviours37. Thus, breeds with high aggression and anxiety tendencies are more likely to exhibit guarded and aggressive behaviours when in contact with cats. This is reflected in the higher proportion of dogs having threatened or injured cats in our study than in Thomson et al.2. Thus, owners might carefully observe dogs and cats that are often in the house together and manage their interactions to prevent conflict. Consequently, dog-related factors are considered as important as cat-related factors in determining the quality of the dog–cat relationship.

Another reason for the emphasis on dog factors is that Japan has few private shelters and dogs are often obtained from pet stores. American shelters invariably offer animals for adoption, whereas most Japanese government shelters do not38. Dogs sold in pet shops or born in commercial breeding establishments have reported aggression (towards owners and family members), fear reactions (towards strangers, other dogs, stimuli on walks), separation anxiety, and attention-seeking behaviour in adulthood compared with dogs from other sources, especially non-commercial breeders (for a review, see McMillan39. In the case of these characteristics, a dog’s aggressive and self-protective reactions may be a barrier to building an amicable relationship. Owners may be aware of these potential issues and take additional care in managing their dogs’ behaviour to prevent conflicts. This heightened attention and management might explain why dog-related factors have emerged as significant predictors of amicability.

We should note that this study has some limitations. First, the survey did not ask how dogs and cats behave in specific situations, such as how they react when placed in the same cage or how they behave when only one is fed. Detailed behavioural data on the relationship between dogs and cats are unavailable because of a lack of evaluation of these specific behaviours. A qualitative evaluation of such behaviour may provide an objective measure of amicability.

Second, as this study was based on a questionnaire survey, it only included owners’ subjective evaluations. Owners have a pet-enhancement bias in which they evaluate their own pets’ personality traits more favourably than those of other pets40. They might therefore evaluate the relationship between dogs and cats as better than it actually is. It is possible that the respondents exaggerated their responses to events that left a particularly strong impression or emotion, or that the behaviour of the dog and cat immediately prior to the survey influenced their responses. Additionally, our survey was directly modeled on the questions used by Thomson et al.2, which had notable design limitations. With no clear definitions or explanations for terms such as ‘amicable’, ‘uncomfortable’, and ‘threatened’, the same questions may have been differently interpreted by respondents, raising concerns about the validity of the responses and of the findings derived from their analysis. Future studies could address this issue by providing more detailed descriptions of behaviours using an ethogram. Another solution could be to use open-ended questions to capture nuanced experiences. Conducting qualitative thematic content analysis of responses to these questions could provide deeper insights into the complexities of dog–cat relationships. It is also necessary to experimentally examine how dogs perceive cats, and vice versa. Lõoke et al.41 found that even dogs living with cats failed to recognise cats in a crossmodal violation-of-expectancy task. A new research topic could be investigating the interactions between different species that are closely related to the environment in which they live with humans.

Third, the survey was conducted in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Japan, remote work during COVID-19 resulted in increased interaction between humans and pets, leading to increases in pets’ stress behaviour42. In China, the pandemic and medium or strict levels of lockdown were found to significantly influence pet owners’ perceived stress, lack of control, and confidence for themselves, leading to an increase in the negative aspects of their bond with pets43. Some changes might have also occurred in dog–cat relationships. For example, a dog stressed by prolonged contact with its owner might become more aggressive than usual towards the cat, making the cat more wary and therefore less friendly. However, owners may have intervened more frequently in dog–cat interactions and maintained a reasonable distance, which may have made the relationship more stable. Conducting the same survey now, post-COVID-19, may yield different results.

Fourth, it should be noted that some standardized coefficients were small, albeit statistically significant, and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Replication studies are necessary to confirm the robustness and generalizability of these results.

Although our findings should be interpreted as initial insights rather than definitive conclusions, this study contributes to the field by providing one of the first empirical investigations of the relationship between dogs and cats in Japanese households, highlighting the importance of cultural and environmental factors in shaping their interactions. These findings lay the groundwork for future research by identifying key predictors of amicability that can inform both scientific understanding and practical application. From a practical perspective, the results suggest that the early introduction of dogs and cats, fostering positive interactions such as play and shared spaces, and observing comfort levels can enhance their relationships and overall welfare. These insights could help pet owners and professionals, such as veterinarians and animal behaviourists, better manage multispecies households and promote harmonious cohabitation.

Conclusion

This study investigated the factors affecting Japanese pet owners’ perceptions of the amicability of cohabiting dogs and cats, using a cross-sectional survey modeled after Thomson et al.2 to explore the possibility of comparison with Western contexts. Similar to previous studies1,2,3,10, we found that dogs and cats can live amicably in the same home, and a younger age of introduction to other species is a strong predictor of amicability. Different from previous studies, however, the ‘dog factor’ was found to have as much influence on amicability as the ‘cat factor’. Further research is needed to gain additional insights into how dog–cat relationships differ between cultures and how the findings can be used to improve the welfare of dogs and cats. Such work could include conducting similar studies in other Asian countries with cultures and environments different from those of Western countries and Japan, such as India44 and Thailand14, where free-range dogs are more commonly found. Such research could provide new insights into the dynamics of dog–cat relationships and further contribute to the improvement of animal welfare.