Introduction

Nowadays, pet ownership has been commonplace and is gradually becoming a global phenomenon. According to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association (PFMA) in the UK, it was estimated that 57% of UK households (16.2 million) house 38 million pets in 2023. A similar situation has also been observed in Hong Kong and mainland China, where the number of pet owners has increased rapidly1. This widespread prevalence highlights the importance of understanding how pet ownership affects our lives. Over time, the nature of the human-pet relationship has changed significantly, with the role of animals gradually evolving from utilitarian functions to companionship2. In numerous instances, pets are regarded as an integral part of many families. It is widely believed that having a pet may confer benefits to human health3.

The relationship between pet ownership and human well-being has been extensively studied4, but findings remain largely contradictory5. Some studies have found positive effects of pet ownership on well-being6,7, while others have reported no significant difference in well-being between individuals who own pets and those who do not8,9. Some have even highlighted the challenges and potential drawbacks of pet ownership10,11. How pet ownership affects human well-being is not fully understood9.

Pet ownership and human well-being

Well-being is a composite of different dimensions12, with subjective well-being being a critical indicator of an individual’s mental health and overall quality of life13. Pet ownership refers to the act of maintaining and providing care for animals such as dogs, cats, birds, fish, certain reptiles, and other small mammals within a household14. Several studies have found that pet owners report higher levels of happiness and lower levels of depression and anxiety compared to non-pet owners3,15. One of the primary ways in which pets enhance subjective well-being is suggested to be through companionship. Pets offer unconditional love and emotional support, which can be especially beneficial for individuals experiencing social isolation and loneliness. The presence of a pet can provide emotional stability and a sense of security, reducing depression and loneliness7. Pets can also act as social catalysts and facilitate human interaction16. For instance, dog parks, pet-related social events, and casual conversations sparked by dog walking can lead to new friendships and a stronger sense of community17. Moreover, the act of pet care evokes feelings of empathy, nurturing, and responsibility, which can provide a sense of purpose and enhance life satisfaction18. However, not all research findings are unequivocally positive. Some studies have reported no significant differences in well-being between pet owners and non-pet owners8,9. Other studies have pointed out the negative effects of pet ownership, which include the financial burden of pet care11 and the emotional distress caused by the loss of a pet10.

In addition to inconsistent displays of the relationship between pet ownership and human well-being, there is currently no single, empirically supported, and widely accepted theoretical framework within the field to explain how pet ownership affects human well-being19. The precise psychological mechanisms through which pet ownership may impact well-being are unclear9. One possible mechanism that has received increasing attention is the role of loneliness as a mediator of the relationship between pet ownership and human well-being.

The mediating role of loneliness

Loneliness is a complex and multifaceted emotional state characterized by a perceived deficiency in social connections20, associated with reduced subjective well-being21. Loneliness is also a significant predictor of negative health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and even mortality22,23. In this context, pets may serve as an effective strategy for managing loneliness, offering companionship and emotional support24. Prior research has demonstrated a correlation between pet ownership and decreased loneliness, in addition to an expansion of perceived social support and a general improvement in mental health25. Some studies have shown that elderly individuals with pets exhibited lower levels of loneliness compared to those without pets26,27. This reduction in loneliness, in turn, is associated with enhanced mental health and well-being. Owning a pet can also offer a consistent and non-judgmental source of interaction, which can be particularly valuable for individuals who may lack sufficient human social connections28. Additionally, interacting with pets can promote positive emotions, reduce stress, and provide a sense of purpose and routine, which may alleviate feelings of loneliness29. Individuals who own pets thus might experience less severe impacts of loneliness on their well-being compared to those without pets30.

The moderating role of living alone

People who live alone are particularly vulnerable to loneliness. This may in turn moderate the effects of pet ownership on loneliness and well-being31. Research findings have indicated that the benefits of pet ownership in reducing loneliness are more pronounced for individuals who live alone. For example, previous study found that elderly individuals living alone experienced a more substantial reduction in loneliness from pet ownership compared to those living with others26. The differential benefits of pet ownership based on living arrangements can be attributed to the varying degrees of social support available30. For individuals living alone, pets are often their primary companions. The emotional and social support provided by pets is crucial in alleviating feelings of loneliness. In contrast, people living with family or roommates may not rely as much on pets for emotional support and social interaction. The presence of human companions may fulfill these needs to a greater extent, thereby mitigating the impact of pet ownership on loneliness and making the additional impact of pets on well-being less pronounced32.

Pet attachment

In addition, attachment theory may be pertinent insofar as it offers a useful framework for understanding the impact of intimate relationships on an individual’s psychological functioning9. According to attachment theory, the bond between an individual and an attachment figure serves a protective and stabilizing function, enabling the individual to venture out and develop a sense of security and comfort33. This bond is characterized by behaviors such as seeking proximity, providing care, and experiencing distress when separated34. The concept of attachment theory may also apply to human-pet relationships35. Pet attachment can be defined as the emotional bond perceived by an individual toward their companion animal36. One study has suggested that pets can serve as attachment objects and indicated that humans form comparable attachment bonds with companion animals. It also highlights that mental health may be more closely linked to the degree of attachment to the pet rather than merely pet ownership itself37.

The quality of the human-pet bond, often conceptualized as pet attachment, may partly explain the null differences in well-being between pet owners and non-owners5. High levels of pet attachment are associated with greater emotional closeness and increased perceived support from the pet, which in turn enhance well-being35. Among the various dimensions of pet attachment, the interpersonal substitution dimension is particularly relevant for understanding its impact on loneliness and well-being. This dimension captures the extent to which pets serve as substitutes for human relationships, fulfilling attachment needs that might otherwise go unmet. For individuals with limited social interactions, pets can provide a sense of belonging, emotional intimacy, and unconditional acceptance, mitigating loneliness and fostering psychological resilience38. However, over-reliance on pets as surrogates for human relationships may have potential drawbacks, such as reinforcing social withdrawal or limiting opportunities for broader social engagement39.

The current study

The current study investigates the relationship between pet ownership and human well-being. We attempt to investigate the underlying mechanism through which pet ownership implicates human well-being, with a specific interest in the potential role of loneliness and living arrangement. We hypothesize that pet owners would have higher levels of well-being than non-pet owners, with loneliness as mediator. We expect that the relationship between pet ownership and well-being would be more pronounced in those who live alone. We will also evaluate whether among pet owners, pet attachment is crucial in explaining their loneliness and well-being.

Method

Participants

Participants aged 18–60 were recruited from Hong Kong and mainland China by using convenient sampling. Recruitment was conducted online through university networks, student forums, and social media platforms. Invitation messages included a link to the Qualtrics survey. All participants were ethnically Chinese. A total of 287 participants completed the questionnaires online, and 94 participants with incomplete or unreliable data (completion time < 5 min) were excluded. The final sample included 193 participants (62.7% pet owners, 37.3% non-pet owners).

This study has received ethics approval from the Faculty Human Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent was collected from all participants. All research procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, as well as relevant guidelines and regulations.

Materials

The questionnaire comprised basic demographic information collection, including gender, age, whether living with others, pet ownership, the types of pets, and the duration of pet ownership, in addition to loneliness, pet attachment (in pet owners), and well-being.

Loneliness The UCLA Loneliness Scale (UCLA)40 is an instrument comprising 20 items designed to assess an individual’s subjective feelings of loneliness. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The final score is the sum of all 20 items, resulting in a possible range from 20 to 80. A higher score on this scale indicates a greater sense of loneliness41. In this study sample, the scale had a good reliability (Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) = 0.90).

Pet attachment The Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS)42 is a 23-item scale designed to measure the emotional attachment of individuals to their pets. The items are assessed using a 4-point Likert scale, with options spanning from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The scale has three dimensions: general attachment, interpersonal substitution, and pet status43. In this study, only pet owners completed the LAPS; non-pet owners did not complete this measure. Within the pet-owner subsample, the scale had a good reliability (Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) = 0.94).

Well-being The General Well-being Scale (GWB)44 is an 18-item scale designed to measure an individual’s subjective sense of well-being and distress. Each item is associated with a time frame of “last month”. The initial 14 questions employ a 6-point response scale, and the remaining four questions employ a 0–10 rating scale. A lower score indicates greater distress, whereas a higher score indicates greater positive well-being. In this study sample, the scale had an acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) = 0.79).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 29.0; https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics). The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha to ensure the reliability of the scales measuring subjective well-being, loneliness, and pet attachment. A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 or higher was considered acceptable for indicating good internal consistency. Prior to conducting bivariate correlations, we assessed univariate normality of all continuous variables using Shapiro–Wilk tests, which indicated significant departures from normality for the three pet attachment subscales (all p < 0.05). Consequently, Spearman’s rho (a non-parametric correlation measure) was used to examine relationships among well-being, loneliness, and pet attachment. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare well-being and loneliness between pet owners and non-pet owners. Mediation and moderation analyses were performed using the PROCESS macro (version 4.1; https://www.processmacro.org) for SPSS to explore whether the relationship between pet ownership and well-being was mediated by loneliness and moderated by living arrangements. Mediation analysis was also performed to test the mediating role of loneliness between the interpersonal substitution dimension of pet attachment and well-being among pet owners.

A priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power (version 3.1.9.6; https://www.gpower.hhu.de)45 to determine the required sample size. For ANCOVA with three groups, assuming a medium effect size (\(f=0.25\)), \(\alpha =0.05\), and power (\(1\hspace{0.17em}-\hspace{0.17em}\beta\))\(=0.80\), the required sample size was estimated to be approximately 158. For mediation and moderation analyses using multiple regression, assuming a medium effect size (\({f}^{2}=0.15\)), \(\alpha =0.05\), and power (\(1\hspace{0.17em}-\hspace{0.17em}\beta\))\(=0.80\), the required sample size was estimated to be approximately 85. Given our final sample size (\(N=193\)), our study was adequately powered to detect medium effects.

Results

Demographical characteristics

Participant characteristics, including as age, gender, living arrangement (whether living with others or not), and pet ownership, are shown in Table 1. Among the 193 participants, 81 (42.0%) were male and 112 (58.0%) were female, 121 (62.7%) were pet owners and 72 (37.3%) were non-pet owners. In addition, among the 121 pet owners, 32 participants were currently owning pets, and 89 participants used to own pets but did not own one now. Regarding living arrangements, 90.7% of participants lived with others (not live alone) and 9.3% did not live with others (live alone). As for the types of pets, 75 participants owned dogs, 25 owned cats, and 21 chose others (turtles, rabbits, birds, etc.)

Table 1 The demographic information of participants.
Full size table

Associations to well-being

The means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables are shown in Table 2. The associations between scores for well-being, loneliness, pet attachment were tested by Spearman’s rho correlations after checking the data distribution. The results suggested that well-being was negatively correlated with loneliness (\(\rho =-0.61, p<0.01)\), and pet attachment (\(\rho =-0.20, p<0.01)\). In particular, the interpersonal substitution dimension of pet attachment but not the other dimensions, was correlated with well-being negatively (\(\rho =-0.23, p<0.05),\) and positively with loneliness (\(\rho =0.19, p<0.05)\).

Table 2 The Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of study variables.
Full size table

Effects of pet ownership and living arrangement on loneliness and well-being

One-way ANCOVA was conducted to examine the association between pet ownership and well-being, controlling for age and gender. The results suggested that there was no significant difference between pet ownership groups (never owned a pet, used to own a pet, and currently owning a pet) in well-being (\(F(2, 188)=0.64\), \(p=0.53\)). In addition, well-being did not differ significantly between groups with different types of pet ownership (dog, cat, and others) (\(F(2, 116)=1.81\), \(p=0.17\)) and different durations of pet ownership (\(F(3, 115)=1.34\), \(p=0.27\)).

Two-way ANCOVA was conducted to test the effects of pet ownership and living arrangements on loneliness, controlling for age and gender. The results suggested that there were significant differences in loneliness between pet ownership groups (\(F(2, 185)=3.70\), \(p=0.027\)), and a significant interaction effect between pet ownership and whether living with others on loneliness (\(F(2, 185)=4.63\), \(p=0.011\)). The simple main effect of pet ownership was only significant in those that were living alone (\(F(2, 185)=4.47\), \(p=0.013\)), but not in those that were living with others (\(F(2, 185)=1.05\), \(p=0.35\)). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that when living alone, the level of loneliness was significantly higher for those who never own a pet than those who own a pet now (\(p=0.03)\).

Mediating effect of loneliness in pet ownership and human well-being

We have examined whether the mediation effect of loneliness on the association between pet ownership and well-being is moderated by living arrangement (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hypothesized moderated mediation model. The independent variable pet ownership was a categorical variable, categorized into three levels: never owned a pet, used to own a pet, and currently owning a pet. The mediator variable loneliness and the dependent variable well-being were continuous variables. The moderator variable was whether living with others.

Full size image

The results of the mediation analysis are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3. When living alone, comparing to those “never owned a pet”, for both people who “used to own a pet” and those that “currently owning a pet”, the direct effect of pet ownership on well-being was significant (used to own a pet: effect = − 26.77, 95% CI [− 44.14, − 9.40]; currently owning a pet: effect = − 11.34, 95% CI [− 22.48, − 0.19]), and the mediating effect of loneliness was also significant (used to own a pet: effect = 13.44, 95% CI [8.41, 18.75]; currently owning a pet: effect = 14.01, 95% CI [7.59, 20.72]). However, when living with others, comparing to those “never owned a pet”, for both people who “used to own a pet” and those that “currently owning a pet”, the direct effect of pet ownership on well-being, as well as the mediating effect of loneliness, was not significant. The results suggested that the direct effect of pet ownership on well-being and the mediating effect of loneliness were both significant only in people who live alone.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Moderated mediation model pathway diagram. This model hypothesizes that pet ownership may influence well-being through loneliness, and this effect is moderated by whether living with others. The arrows represent the direction of the hypothesized relationships between variables. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. * \(p<0.05\), ** \(p<0.01\).

Full size image
Table 3 Moderated mediation analysis: the mediating effect of loneliness.
Full size table

Association between pet attachment and human well-being

To explore the importance of the quality of the owner-pet relationship (i.e., pet attachment) for overall well-being than simply the presence of a pet, subsequent analyses were conducted only on the pet owners (\(N=121\)).

We first compared pet attachment and its three dimensions between current and former owners. The results indicate that pet attachment did not differ significantly between current and former owners (all p > 0.05), confirming their comparability.

We then conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses. The results are shown in Table 4. Age, gender, and whether living with others were first entered into the regression equation and together they explained 4.1% of the variance in well-being (\({R}^{2}=0.041\), \(F=1.69\), \(p=0.17\)). The three dimensions of pet attachment were then included, and it was found that an additional 5.3% of the variance in well-being was explained (\({\Delta R}^{2}=0.053\), \(\Delta F=2.23\), \(p=0.09\)). In particular, the interpersonal substitution dimension of pet attachment was the only significant statistical predictor of well-being comparing to the other dimensions (\(\beta =-0.33\), \(p=0.03)\).

Table 4 Summary of hierarchical multiple regression analyses statistically predicting well-being in pet owners (\(N=121\)).
Full size table

We finally tested a mediation model to explore the potential pathway linking interpersonal substitution dimension of pet attachment to loneliness and well-being among these pet owners, controlling for pet ownership status (current vs. former) and the other two dimensions of pet attachment (Fig. 3). Interpersonal substitution was significantly associated with loneliness (\(B=1.08, p=0.005\)), and loneliness was significantly associated with well-being (\(B=-0.85, p<0.001\)), such that loneliness completely mediated the negative effect of interpersonal substitution on human well-being (effect = − 0.92, 95% CI [− 1.66, − 0.24]).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Loneliness completely mediated interpersonal substitution and human well-being. In this mediation model, the interpersonal substitution dimension of pet attachment was the independent variable, well-being was the dependent variable, loneliness was the mediator between pet attachment and well-being, pet ownership and two other dimensions of pet attachment (general attachment and pet status) were controlled as covariates. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. * \(p<0.05\), ** \(p<0.01\).

Full size image

Discussion

Our findings showed that pet owners were less lonely than non-pet owners when they live alone, such that loneliness mediated the effects of pets on well-being, especially in those living alone. We further identified that among pet owners, interpersonal substitution of pet attachment was most prominently associated with well-being, with loneliness completely mediating the negative effect of interpersonal substitution on well-being.

Our study found no significant difference in well-being between pet ownership groups. This finding contrasts with some studies that have reported positive effects of pet ownership on human well-being7,18. However, it is consistent with the findings of some prior research that have reported no significant differences in well-being between pet owners and non-pet owners8,9. The lack of a significant difference indicates that merely owning a pet does not directly translate to enhanced well-being. On the contrary, we found significant differences in loneliness between pet ownership groups. Pet owners experienced lower loneliness compared to non-owners. At the same time, this effect was nuanced by an interaction with living arrangements. Specifically, pet ownership significantly reduced loneliness only for individuals living alone. This finding aligns with the social buffering hypothesis, which posits that social support, whether human or animal, can buffer against the negative effects of loneliness46. The interaction effect between pet ownership and living arrangements indicates that pets may fulfill a unique social role for individuals lacking human social interactions3. For those living alone, pets may provide companionship and a sense of purpose, thereby mitigating feelings of loneliness24. Conversely, for individuals living with others, the additional companionship of a pet may be less impactful on their loneliness levels. This finding highlights the importance of considering contextual factors, such as living arrangements, when examining the effects of pet ownership on loneliness. Our study calls for a more contextualized understanding of how pet ownership affects affective outcomes, emphasizing that social context can significantly alter the affective benefits associated with pet companionship.

Loneliness is known to increase stress levels, reduce life satisfaction, and contribute to various mental health problems, thereby adversely affecting overall well-being47. We found that loneliness was negatively related to well-being, aligning with certain prior research findings48,49. Our moderated mediation model further posits that pet ownership implicates well-being indirectly through loneliness, possibly suggesting that the benefits of pet ownership on well-being may be realized primarily through its ability to alleviate loneliness, especially for individuals who live alone. This moderated mediation model demonstrated how the interplay between pet ownership, loneliness, and living arrangements could influence well-being. It suggests that interventions aimed at promoting pet ownership as a means of enhancing well-being should consider the individual’s living arrangements and existing social support networks50. For example, pet ownership may be particularly beneficial for individuals who are socially isolated and living alone, whereas those with robust human social support may not experience the same benefits30.

The extent to which pets influence loneliness and well-being is also revealed to depend critically on the quality of the human-pet relationship, particularly the interpersonal substitution dimension of pet attachment. Previous research has found that loneliness can mediate the relationship between interpersonal substitution and well-being, plausibly indicating that the psychological benefits of strong pet attachment arise primarily from its ability to affect loneliness51. Previous findings suggested that higher pet attachment enhances well-being9. On the contrary, our results suggest that higher pet attachment is associated with lower well-being. Pet owners who relied more heavily on their pets as substitutes for human relationships reported higher levels of loneliness and lower well-being. This suggests that the quality of the human-pet bond must be rigorously assessed, as certain forms of attachment, especially those that emphasize interpersonal substitution, may reflect unmet social needs that cannot be fully met by the pet itself52. Not just owning a pet, but the nature and extent of the attachment formed with the pet plays a key role in the impact on well-being. While pets can partially fulfill emotional needs, over-reliance on pets as a substitute for interpersonal relationships may have unintended negative consequences39. This finding is consistent with the findings that over-reliance on pets for emotional support may unintentionally exacerbate feelings of loneliness by highlighting the absence of interpersonal relationships53. This finding also echoes with previous research that emphasizes the limitations of pets as substitutes for the various psychological and social benefits provided by interpersonal relationships54. While pets can provide comfort and companionship, they may not fully replicate the depth and reciprocity inherent in human interactions and may leave unresolved emotional gaps16. For individuals with high interpersonal substitution tendencies, fostering human relationships in addition to maintaining a healthy bond with their pets may be critical for improving overall well-being. The need for a balanced approach to pet attachment is thus critical.

Implications

The findings of this study have several implications for current and prospective pet owners. Prospective pet owners should be aware that owning a pet does not necessarily lead to improved well-being. The decision to adopt a pet should be made with careful consideration of the individual’s living arrangements, social support networks, and personal needs. For individuals living alone, pets can provide valuable companionship and reduce feelings of loneliness. However, for those living with others, the benefits of pet ownership may be less pronounced. Current pet owners should strive to foster healthy attachments with their pets. While pets can provide emotional support and companionship, it is essential to avoid excessive reliance on pets as substitutes for human interactions. Unhealthy dependency on pets may limit opportunities for broader social engagement and potentially exacerbate feelings of social isolation39. Pet owners should seek to maintain a balance between their relationships with pets and humans, ensuring that their social needs are met through diverse interactions.

Limitations

While this study provides valuable insights into the relationships between pet ownership and well-being, several limitations should be acknowledged.

First, the study was based on self-report measures, which may be susceptible to reporting inaccuracies and social desirability bias55. Self-report questionnaires were used because they are a practical and widely used method for collecting subjective data on well-being, loneliness, and pet attachment, allowing participants to provide personal insights that are not easily observed56. To minimize bias, we ensured anonymity and encouraged honest responses, but future studies could incorporate objective measures or third-party reports to supplement self-report data.

Second, well-being is a multifaceted construct that encompasses various dimensions12. Using a single scale to measure well-being may not fully capture the complexity of this construct. This study focuses on subjective well-being, which includes individuals’ self-reported assessments of their own life satisfaction. This emphasis was chosen because subjective well-being is an important aspect of overall well-being and is directly influenced by personal experiences and perceptions, making it particularly important for understanding the impact of pet ownership. Future research should consider using multiple measures to capture the various aspects of well-being.

Third, this study primarily focused on individuals aged 18 to 60, the adult population that is most likely to own pets and experience the associated impacts on well-being, and excluding other age groups for a more controlled and targeted investigation. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the need for diversity and larger samples in future studies to increase the generalizability of findings. Future studies could explore a wider age range to capture more comprehensive demographics.

In addition, the relatively small sample of individuals living alone may restrict the generalizability of the moderated mediation findings. Therefore, caution is needed when interpreting this finding. Despite that it provides important initial evidence that targeting this vulnerable sample is crucial. To address this, we conducted an additional simple-main-effect ANCOVA specifically within the living-alone subgroup. Despite the limited sample size, the effect of pet ownership on loneliness remained statistically significant, and post-hoc power analysis indicated sufficient statistical power (observed power = 0.82). These findings provide supportive evidence that the observed moderation effect is not solely an artifact of small sample size.

Furthermore, to capture both lasting and current effects of human–pet relationships, we defined “pet owner” to include participants who currently own a pet (n = 32) and those who have owned a pet in the past (n = 89), for a total of 121 individuals (62.7% of the sample). Although our overall sample (N = 193) provided sufficient power for medium‐sized effects, the limited size of the current‐owner subgroup may influence the interpretation of ownership‐specific findings. To address unequal group sizes, we randomly selected 32 “used to own a pet” participants to match the “currently own a pet” subsample (n = 32) and re-ran the moderated mediation model. All key interaction and indirect effects remained significant and consistent in direction, indicating our findings are robust to group‐size imbalance. However, this matched analysis reduces overall power. Future research with larger and more balanced samples—or targeted recruitment of current pet owners—will be essential to further explore the distinct impact of pet ownership status on loneliness and well‐being.

Moreover, the cultural context of our sample should be considered when interpreting the findings. All participants were ethnically Chinese and recruited from Hong Kong and mainland China, which provides valuable insight into the pet–human relationship in East Asian societies. While our study contributes to the literature by incorporating an East Asian cultural lens, it also presents a limitation: the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other cultural contexts remains uncertain. Future research is encouraged to replicate these results in diverse cultural settings to examine potential cultural influences.

Last but not least, this study was a cross-sectional design providing only a snapshot of the current relationship. We have tested the reversed mediation model but the findings were insignificant, suggesting that such model is less likely to hold. Nevertheless, caution should be warranted when interpreting our findings, and future research are encouraged to build on these findings and employ longitudinal designs to examine the temporal relationships and potential causal pathways between pet ownership, loneliness, and well-being.

Conclusion

This study unravels how pet ownership implicates human well-being, emphasizing the critical role of loneliness, living arrangements, and pet attachment. While pet ownership itself is not directly associated with well-being, it may have an effect on well-being due to its implication on loneliness, especially in those who live alone. The finding highlights the importance of considering contextual and individual factors, such as living arrangements and existing social support networks, when examining the health benefits of pet ownership. This study also emphasizes the important role of the interpersonal substitution dimension of pet attachment in loneliness feeling and thus well-being for pet owners, suggesting that interventions should focus on promoting healthy emotional bonds with pets and balancing these relationships with social interactions. Overall, this study contributes to a more contextual and attachment-oriented understanding of how pet ownership is related to human well-being, facilitating future development of targeted interventions that leverage the potential benefits of pet ownership in promoting well-being in diverse populations.