New Study Sheds Light on Pet Owners

Daphne Reid
by Daphne Reid
View Biography
 

South Bend, Indiana (Aug 18th, 2010)

According to a new academic study, the way pets are treated by their family might depend on where they live.

New Study Sheds Light on Pet Owners

A study by David Blouin, assistant professor of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Indiana University South Bend, found that people who think of animals as children tend to have a city background. However, no matter where someone lives, having children often changes the owners' thoughts on their pets - with Blouin postulating that owners who think of their animals as children often change their mind when they have human children.

"To think of pets as just another animal is not uncommon in rural areas, which makes sense given the utilitarian relationships people in rural areas are more likely to have with a range of different animals - from farm to wild animals. If you have kids, you have less time to spend with your pets. That's part of it, but not the whole story. People who think of their pets as their children often re-evaluate this thought when they have human children of their own," said Blouin.

The study, carried out in Indiana and presented at the American Sociological Association 2010 Annual Meeting, found that 93% of dog owners and 77% of cat owners took their pets to the veterinarian at least once a year. The study also found that 81% of dog owners and 67.5% of cat owners spent two or more hours daily with their pets, with only 2% of both dog and cat owners spending time with their pets less than once a day.

During interviews, the main concern of pet owners was their pets' health, and the often the associated costs that accompanied illness. Skin allergies, Crohn's disease and diabetes contributed to the diseases most likely to cause stress as a result of cost.

This news story is independently sourced and PetPeoplesPlace.com does not specifically endorse products or services offered by any company referenced in this article, or benefit from any association with any companies referenced.

This news story is available to members for reprint - Reprint This Article.
Add Your Comment
Related Resources
Readers' Comments (Newest to Oldest)
Australia
petscenemag
Message Me!
Add to Friends
Junior Member
Added on Sept 21st, 2010
Having lived in both rural country areas and city locations I have found that while in general the findings of this study may be some what true. I beleive that the relationship an owner has with a working animal is very different. The relationship is not that of a substitute "Child", but rather one of great mutual respect and admiration. There is no less love for the animal, it is just a very different kind of relationship and a very special relationship built on trust. Those who have used working dogs or rescue dogs will know exactly what I am saying :)
   
I may be the exception to this study, But I had dogs prior to children, then dogs after children, and working dogs. My working dogs were part of the family and much loved - but they were not seen as my added children, but loyal companions and trusted friends who I could count on. My little inside Bulldogs however came after my son and are just like additional children in our family, my son even refers to them as his brothers.
Michigan
lizjoe217
Message Me!
Add to Friends
Junior Member
Added on Sept 4th, 2010
As far as cats and/or dogs no longer being considered as 'children' after an actual child is born... I don't believe parents believe their pets to be any less important than they once used to be, as opposed to them losing a spot, or two, as far as rank is concerned. Of course, a human child's needs are somewhat more demanding than that of an animal's (I'm sure some will disagree with me on this one!). However, there are new parents who take the time out to 'introduce' their beloved animal to the 'new arrival' to let them KNOW that: A) the little one is here to stay. B) they have to 'get along' with them. and C) as with an older sibling, that they are no less loved 'just because' there's a baby in the house.. and, if they're good, they can be "mommy's little helper".
   
In addition, I'm a firm believer that it's a very good idea to raise children with animals, and vice-versa. It teaches children, and parents alike, patience, love, responsibility, and there's always someone to play with, who never disagrees, makes fun-of, or says "I don't want to play the games that you do!!! I get to choose!!!". The list is endless. Actually, I'd rather my tot play with the family dog than a bully down the block, who happens to be the only child, who is also my kid's age, on the street!!!
California
annzhvara
Message Me!
Add to Friends
Junior Member
Added on Aug 23rd, 2010
Having pets is a big responsibility. If you are planning to procreate, perhaps you should reconsider adopting a pet or buying a pet. If you already have a pet, then assimilating it into the family with new kids is also part of your responsibility. Dumping them at the humane society would beg the question, what kind of parent will you be? Self centered, callous etc. Just because people can have children doesnt mean they should. And if you decide to do so, then be responsible for your pets. Dont like my opinion? Too bad. I have a PHD and three children a loving husband and a great menagerie of pets. All are family.
Canada
margopego
Message Me!
Add to Friends
Junior Member
Added on Aug 18th, 2010
I agree with the findings of this study, at least the part about the setting in which a person was raised greatly determines how she views animals.
   
My parents were both raised in rural areas & had a great deal to do with farms. They love animals to this day & we had pets growing up. However, they viewed them as animals & not children. We always treated our pets well & they thrived in our care. They knew that they were greatly loved, but they were not children.
   
Raised in this setting, I couldn't help but be an animal lover, too. I've lived in urban or suburban communities most of my life, but I still see animals as animals.
   
I'm 40 & never been married, & I have no children of my own. I have a cat, who's greatly loved & upon whom much love & affection is showered. Yes, I do view myself as a bit of a "cat mama." However, when it comes right down to it, he is a cat, an animal, not my child. I would not go to extraordinary measures to save him, although I would do what I could to help him if it meant that he still had a decent quality of life. However, I wouldn't keep him alive just for the sake of keeping him alive. That'd be cruel to him.
   
The reason I mention this is because there's a group in between as well. We view our animals as substitute children, to a point, but we also know that they're animals, plain & simple, & aren't a true substitute for human children.
New York
Dogmama
Message Me!
Add to Friends
Junior Member
Added on Aug 18th, 2010
From my volunteer work at the ASPCA shelter, and from the postings that I have seen on Craigslist, I can concur that pet owners who initially consider their pets as "children" and who eventually have children, tend to move their pets lower on their hierarchy of priorities, eventually relegating them to the status of "animal". Unfortunately, these pets receive less attention, and if resources become limited, the pet suffers from neglect to being abandoned or surrendered to a shelter.