the animal-human bond and ethnic diversity

257Risley-Curtiss, Holley, and Wolf / The Animal–Human Bond and Ethnic DiversityCCC Code: 0037-8046/06 $3.00 ©2006 National Association of Social Workers

The Animal–Human Bond and Ethnic DiversityChristina Risley-Curtiss, Lynn C. Holley, and Shapard Wolf

Affectionate relationships with animal companions have health-enhancing effects on peopleand enrich their quality of life, and the majority of families with companion animals regard

their animals as family members. Research has also suggested that these relationships arecomplicated and vary depending on a number of factors, yet there has been almost no

exploration of ethnic diversity in relationships with companion animals. This descriptive studyexplores the relationships among race and ethnicity, beliefs about companion animals, and

ownership practices. Findings indicate that in many instances there were no statisticaldifferences by ethnicity. Nonetheless, describing oneself as white, American Indian, or both

was associated with being more likely to have companion animals. Those identifyingthemselves as of Hispanic or Spanish origin were less likely to have cats and to have their cat

or dog spayed or neutered and more likely to say they get a sense of personal safety from theirdog or cat. The implications of these findings are discussed, and suggestions for research and

practice are offered.

KEY WORDS: companion animals; ethnic diversity; human–animal bond; pet therapy; social work and pets

Keeping companion animals (that is, pets) isa universal cultural phenomenon (Brown,2002). In the United States, dogs or cats or

both are found in at least one-third of households:Approximately 64 million households have a com-panion animal, including 77.7 million cats and 65million dogs (American Pet Products Manufactur-ers Association, 2003).

An ever-increasing body of literature suggeststhat affectionate relationships with animal compan-ions have health-enhancing effects on people andenrich their quality of life (see Lago, Delaney, Miller,& Grill, 1989; Netting, Wilson, & New, 1987; Sable,1995). Research has also suggested that these rela-tionships are complex and vary depending on anumber of study population characteristics (Wil-son & Netting, 1987). It stands to reason that eth-nic and cultural differences may be among the fac-tors that either enhance or inhibit such effects andthat an understanding of the effect of ethnicity onrelationships with companion animals is essential.Unfortunately, although there is a growing body ofresearch on the animal–human bond, there appearsto be little attention paid in the broad professionalliterature to ethnic and cultural beliefs, values, andpractices regarding companion animals (Kaufman,

1999), and there is essentially none in the socialwork literature.

THE ANIMAL–HUMAN BOND ANDSOCIAL WORKThe health and well-being of companion animalsand humans have long been intertwined but haveonly recently been the subject of empirical study.Fortunately, knowledge of this relationship is grow-ing, and there is much evidence attesting to thepowerful connections between people and theiranimals, both positive and negative (Faver & Strand,2003; Netting et al., 1987; Sable, 1995). Yet theseanimal–human connections have received virtuallyno attention from social work scholars, despite thefact that, for example, abuse and cruelty to com-panion animals in families is somewhat common-place and has disturbing consequences for bothhumans and animals (see, for example, Deviney,Dickert, & Lockwood, 1998; Faver & Strand; Flynn,2000). In addition, social work and other humanservice practitioners are increasingly including ani-mals as adjuncts to treatment without social workresearch to inform and support them.

A recent Social Work Abstracts search of articlespublished since 1977 produced 25 references using

258 Social Work Volume 51 , Number 3 July 2006

the key word pet, with only 22 articles that ad-dressed people’s social relationships with animals.The key word animal drew 47 references, 33 ofwhich referred to such things as animals in sub-stance abuse or mental health research. Thus, in 27years there have been no more than about 30 iso-lated articles on animal companions and humans inthe social work literature.

Existing research has largely been conducted bythose in psychology, psychiatry, and veterinarymedicine and is often from an individualpsychopathogical perspective. In contrast, socialwork is grounded in an ecological-systems perspec-tive that requires one to view humans within thecontext of their environments and as constantly inreciprocal interaction with significant others(Hepworth, Rooney, & Larsen, 2002). Sixty-twopercent of U.S. households have reported owninga companion animal (American Pet ProductsManufacturers Association, 2003), which meansthat social workers are very likely to work withfamilies with companion animals. Furthermore,because 68 percent of Americans consider com-panion animals as family (Brookman, 1999), theinclusion of companion animals in both practiceand research should be a natural extension of so-cial workers’ work with humans and their chal-lenges, coping mechanisms, and resilience factors.Recent related research, however, has suggested thatthis inclusion may not necessarily be happening. Astudy of 203 psychologists found although 94 per-cent believed animal abuse to be connected toother behavioral disturbances, only 14 percent as-sessed for such abuse (Nelson, 2002). A study ofcross-reporting between child welfare workers andhumane society workers found that a number ofchild welfare workers thought cross-reporting wasunimportant and were resistant to including ani-mal welfare in their assessments. These child wel-fare workers also underreported concern for ani-mal well-being (Zilney & Zilney, 2005). Finally, anunpublished study by Risley-Curtiss (2004) foundthat only seven of 230 schools of social work thatresponded to a survey included much content onthe human–animal bond in their courses, and whatwas offered most often dealt with animal-assistedtherapy. Recognizing the potential impact of com-panion animals on people’s lives could significantlyaffect social workers’ abilities to help their clients.With appropriate knowledge and training, socialwork professionals are in a position to do much to

enhance the lives of both people and their com-panion animals.

LITERATURE REVIEWAs described earlier, there is a dearth of literatureon the effect of ethnic and cultural diversity on theanimal–human bond in the United States. The 2002edition of the U.S. Pet Ownership and DemographicsSourcebook, published by the American VeterinaryMedical Association, does not include ethnicity inits companion animal owner demographics. In astudy on the link between corporal punishmentand children’ cruelty to animals, Flynn (1999) inci-dentally noted that white people were somewhatmore likely to commit animal abuse than people ofcolor. Unfortunately, even with a sample about one-fifth African American, Flynn failed to take theopportunity to explore these ethnic differences inthis and other articles drawing on the same data(for example, see Flynn, 2000). As noted by Kaufman(1999): “Rarely has animal protection in general,and the violence link specifically, been discussed inthe context of a multicultural society” (p. 260).

Some ethnic differences have been found in com-panion animal ownership and attachment. Marxand colleagues (1988) examined demographics ofcompanion animal ownership among U.S. adultsages 21 to 64 and found that white people werestatistically more likely than people of color to havecompanion animals. Nonetheless, although race wasidentified as a significant factor, there was no dis-cussion or examination of this finding. In a morein-depth examination, Siegel (1995) interviewed877 urban non-Latina/Latino white, Latina/Latino,African American, Asian, and “other” adolescentsbetween the ages of 12 and 17. The author founddistinct racial or ethnic differences in companionanimal ownership and attachment. White adoles-cents were most likely to have companion animalsin their homes, followed by Latinos/Latinas andthose of Asian descent. African Americans were leastlikely to have such animals in their homes. Whiteyouths also rated their companion animals as sig-nificantly more important to them than did Latina/Latino youths, whereas African American and Asianyouths reported intermediate levels of attachmentbut were not significantly different from any othergroup. Having sole responsibility for the care of acompanion animal was also related to race and eth-nicity, with African American youths most likely tohave sole responsibility, followed by Latinas/Latinos,

259Risley-Curtiss, Holley, and Wolf / The Animal–Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity

white, and Asian youths. Brown (2002) examinedracial variations in pet attachment among 76 Afri-can American and 57 white veterinary students atone school. Among her findings was that more whitestudents had companion animals (100 percent com-pared with 86 percent); they also had a larger num-ber of such animals and were more likely to sleepwith their companion animals than were AfricanAmerican students (70 percent compared with 53percent). White students also had significantly higherscores on a pet attachment questionnaire than didAfrican Americans. For example, there were differ-ences in responses to such attachment statements as“No family is complete without a pet” and to ques-tions about taking pets to visit friends and relatives.Brown concluded that how attachment to animalsis shown may vary from culture to culture. She alsonoted that differences in housing, socioeconomicfactors, and urban–rural background may aid inexplaining the racial differences she found.

Johnson and Meadows (2002) examined 24 com-munity-dwelling Latinas/Latinos age 50 and olderregarding their relationships with their companionanimals (dogs) and whether attachment to a com-panion animal was related to self-perceived healthand functional ability. The majority of participantsviewed their dogs as equals (54 percent) and asmembers of their family (79 percent). Sixty-sevenpercent stated that their dog was the reason theygot up in the morning, and 62 percent stated thattheir dog comforted them. Although the study re-sults did not support a relationship between animalcompanion relationship and participant’s health orfunctional ability, the authors concluded that forthese Latinos/Latinas, dogs were as important asthey have been reported to be among white peopleand that dog companions were considered, amongthese elderly Latinas/Latinos to be valued mem-bers of their families.

Finally, the nonprofessional Best Friends maga-zine recently published the first in a planned seriesof articles on the lack of people of color in theanimal welfare field (Richard, 2004). This first re-port is on African Americans and is anecdotal, butit makes an important observation regarding thelack of people of color in animal welfare work.Richard noted that “White people often believethat minority communities simply don’t care aboutanimals” (p. 14). This attitude is implied through-out the animal bond literature by the treatment ofall companion animal owners as one and by the

apparent lack of interest in studying populations ofcolor (Kaufman, 1999).

Richard (2004) and Kaufman (1999) clearly in-dicated a need for more information on the pos-sible effect of race and ethnicity in understandingpeople’s relationships with companion animals. Dopeople from various racial and ethnic groups per-ceive that they derive similar benefits from theircompanion animals? Do companion animals playsimilar roles in the lives of people from various eth-nic groups? Answers to these questions will allowsocial workers to conduct more complete, cultur-ally relevant assessments of individual and familywell-being; to better understand whether and whendifferent types of animals have the potential to as-sist individuals and families in healing from traumaor in enriching their quality of life; and to assistsocial workers in group and other facilities in as-sessing the appropriateness of incorporating ani-mal-assisted activities and therapy into their inter-ventions. Social work, as a profession, needs to jointhe ranks of other disciplines in building its knowl-edge base about animal–human connections.

THE STUDY

The SettingThe survey was conducted by a survey researchlaboratory (SRL) in a large southwestern metro-politan county. It was the pilot for a proposed on-going survey that will be carried out on an annualor semiannual basis. The survey was done by tele-phone between July 10, 2003, and August 6, 2003.A total of 587 interviews were completed.

Interviewers who carried out the survey werepaid staff of the SRL with a minimum of 30 hoursof training. Calls were made from the SRL phonebank, where shift supervisors monitored interview-ers and provided feedback for each shift on stan-dardized interviewing practices. Data were collectedusing a computer-assisted telephone interviewingsystem that administered the sample, ensured properskip sequences, and allowed only valid punches.

SamplingThe sample was drawn as a list-assisted random digitdial, using the Genesys System. The Genesys data-base contains current listings of all active area codesand central offices in the United States, along witha database of all listed telephone numbers. Thecounty area codes were specified. Within the 584working exchanges, numbers were drawn from 100

260 Social Work Volume 51 , Number 3 July 2006

blocks that had at least three listed numbers. Thisimproves the efficiency of sampling by avoiding100 blocks that have been assigned but not popu-lated with residential phones, while still giving fullprobability of inclusion to new construction, peoplewho have recently moved and are not listed, andpeople who have chosen not to be listed in tele-phone directories.

A total of 4,790 telephone numbers were called.Because the person in the household who answersthe phone is not a random distribution, the mostrecent birthday selection method (Lavrakas, Stasny,& Harpuder, 2000) was used to select a randomrespondent. This technique has the advantage ofnot requiring a detailed enumeration at the begin-ning of the interview.

Each number was called a minimum of 10 times,filling a grid of morning, afternoon, evening, week-end, and weekday. If no contact was made after 10calls (all results were continuous busy signals or ringswith no answer), no further attempts were made. Ifany of the 10 attempts resulted in an indication thatthe number might have been a residential house-hold, calls continued up to a maximum of 20 at-tempts. Once a residential household was reachedand a respondent chosen, no artificial limit was seton the number of callbacks. A total of 20,037 phonecalls were made over the course of the project tothe 4,790 sample numbers.

The response rate was calculated using the Ameri-can Association for Public Opinion Research(AAPOR) Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions ofCase Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (AAPOR,2004). Using Response Rate 3, which estimatesthe proportion of cases of unknown eligibility thatare actually eligible, the response rate was 33.4 per-cent. Although this response rate is lower than wemight like, there is some recent evidence that lowerrates may not harm data quality as much as feared.For example, Keeter and colleagues (2000) foundvery few differences in responses between a five-day phone survey with a 36 percent response rateand an eight-week study with a 60.6 percent re-sponse rate.

MeasuresThe data for this study were a subset of the datafrom a larger survey that consisted of 121 ques-tions covering a variety of topics, including howparticipants liked their environment, their viewson international adoption, and demographics such

as gender, ethnicity, and income. The independentdemographic variables used in our subset of datawere racial/ethnic identities measured dichoto-mously. To avoid forcing multiethnic participantsto choose only one racial or ethnic identity, raceor ethnicity was measured in a series of separatecategorical variables. Participants were asked if theywere of Hispanic/Spanish origin (yes/no) and ifthey described themselves as white (yes/no), black/African American (yes/no), American Indian (yes/no), Asian (yes/no), or Pacific Islander (yes/no).Note that although the survey used the terms His-panic/Spanish origin and American Indian, we areaware of important critiques of these terms andtherefore prefer the terms Latina/Latino and indig-enous peoples.

The dependent variables were selected from the37 questions that asked specifically about pet own-ership and care and beliefs regarding pets. Althoughwe prefer the use of the more equitable term “com-panion animal,” we recognize that common usagecontinues to be pet. Therefore, the word pet wasused in the survey. Having a pet was measured as adichotomous variable (yes/no). What kind of petrespondents had was measured in a series of di-chotomous variables (yes/no) that covered eighttypes: cat, dog, fish, horse, rabbit, turtle, small ro-dent, and bird. All those having pets were askedwhether they agreed or disagreed with the state-ments “It’s okay to declaw cats” and “My pet is amember of my family.” Those with dogs, cats, orboth were also asked what their pet offered them,such as unconditional love (yes/no) or sense ofpersonal safety (yes/no), as well as questions re-garding care of their animal (for example, “Is yourdog/cat spayed or neutered” [yes/no]). Finally allparticipants (with and without pets) were askedwhether they agreed with belief statements such as“Animals do not feel pain” and “Animals can feelsadness, fear, happiness, and love.”

AnalysesData analyses rely on descriptive statistics such asfrequencies, chi-square tests, and forward stepwiseregression. All the dependent variables were cat-egorical, with most, but not all, measured dichoto-mously. Ethnicity, the independent variable, wasmeasured as multiple dichotomous variables (His-panic/Spanish origin, white, black/African Ameri-can, American Indian, Asian and Pacific Islander).Therefore we used chi-square to test for statistical

261Risley-Curtiss, Holley, and Wolf / The Animal–Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity

significance between the multicategorical depen-dent variables and the dichotomous independentvariables. Forward stepwise logistic regression wasused to examine the relationship between variousethnic identities and dichotomous dependent vari-ables. Forward stepwise regression starts with onlythe constant in the equation (that is, no variables).At each step, the variable with the smallest signifi-cance level for the score statistic below the chosencutoff value (.05) is entered into the model.

RESULTS

Sample DescriptionThe majority of the 587 participants identifiedthemselves as white, not Hispanic (78.4 percent;n = 460) and female (60.1 percent; n = 353) (see

Table 1, Total Study Sample column) with a meanage of 46 years (SD = 16.5; range = 18–92). An-other 12.3 percent identified themselves as of His-panic/Spanish origin. Of these 72 participants, 35identified as Mexican American, 14 as Mexican,three as Puerto Rican, two as Cuban, and 13 as“other”; five did not categorize their Hispanic/Spanish origin. Almost 75 percent of participantshad some education beyond high school, with 40.4percent having attended technical or trade schoolor some college; 21.1 percent having graduated froma four-year college, and 16.1 percent having at-tended or completed graduate school. Almost 63percent of the sample were married or living to-gether as married, and 61.9 percent were workingfor pay. The median annual household income

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of County Population,Sample Participants, and Pet Owners, 18 Years and Older

Study Sample:County Total Only Those

Population Study Sample with Pets(N = 2,244,146) (N = 587) (N = 368)

Characteristic % n % n % n

Gender n = 2,244,146 n = 585 n = 366

Female 50.5 1,132,745 60.1 353 60.6 223

Male 49.5 1,111,401 39.7 232 39.1 143

Race or ethnicity n = 2,244,146 n = 587 n = 368

White, not Hispanic 71.0 1,593,872 78.4 460 82.1 302

Hispanic, any race 20.8 466,312 12.3 72 11.1 41

American Indian, not Hispanic 1.4 30,317 4.9 29 6.3 23

Other race and mixed race 6.9 153,645 8.5 50 5.4 20

Age n = 2,244,146 n = 572 n = 362

18–24 14.0 313,365 9.3 53 8.3 30

25–34 21.8 488,329 19.0 109 20.7 75

35–44 21.2 475,907 21.5 123 23.2 84

45–54 16.3 366,464 20.5 117 24.6 89

55–64 10.7 241,102 13.1 75 14.1 51

65 & over 16.0 358,979 16.6 95 9.1 33

Household income n = 1,133,048 n = 514 n = 329

Less than $10,000 6.8 77,072 6.2 32 3.0 10

$10,000–$49,999 48.0 544,576 42.2 217 40.7 134

$50,000–$99,999 31.9 361,254 40.3 207 43.2 142

$100,000 or more 13.3 150,146 11.3 58 13.1 43

Educational attainment n = 2,246,838 n = 584 n = 367

Did not complete high school 19.5 438,609 3.9 23 3.3 12

High school diploma or GED 23.5 528,340 18.5 108 19.1 70

Some college/technical school/associate’s degree 33.8 759,548 40.4 236 40.6 149

Note: GED = general equivalency diploma. The ns for race or ethnicity add up to more than 587 because participants could identify themselves as more than one race orethnicity.

262 Social Work Volume 51 , Number 3 July 2006

ranged from $50,000 to less than $60,000, and al-most 60 percent made between $30,000 and$79,999 annually. The average household size was2.76 (SD = 1.4; range = 1–8), with 16 percent ofparticipants living alone and 54.8 percent livingwith one or two other people.

The study sample differs somewhat from thecounty population from which it was drawn. Thestudy sample included more women than in thegeneral population and fewer people between theages of 18 and 24 (Table 1). However, 59.3 percentof the county population and 61.1 percent of thestudy sample were 25 to 54 years old. The studysample was similar to the county on income in thelower and highest income categories but differedsomewhat in the $50,000–$99,000 category, withmore of the study sample falling in this category.The study sample was also a better-educated group,with high school nongraduates underrepresented.Finally, Latinas/Latinos were underrepresented andindigenous peoples were overrepresented in thesample population.

Companion Animal Ownership and CareAlmost 63 percent (n = 368) of the participants hadpets at the time of the survey. Dogs were the mostcommon pet by a wide range, with 79.1 percent ofparticipants with animals having dogs, 21.2 percenthaving fish (see Table 2). Slightly more than 13 per-cent had both cats and dogs.

The majority of participants with companionanimals again were white, not Hispanic (77.2 per-cent), female (60.6 percent), married or living to-

gether as married (65.8 percent), and working forpay (67.3 percent). Similar to the entire sample,their mean age was 44 years old (range = 18–92;SD = 14.6), 77.6 percent had some kind of educa-tion beyond high school, and medium income was$50,000 to less than $60,000 annually.

In regard to the care of their animals, the mostcommon residence of cats and dogs was both in-side and outside (55.7 percent), followed by insideonly/never going outside (35.2 percent). Slightlymore than 85 percent (n = 300) said that their dogor cat was spayed or neutered, and 78.3 percent saidthey had a veterinarian for their dog or cat. Themost common reason for not spaying or neuteringthe dog or cat was “planning to breed it “ (18 per-cent) followed by “It is not old enough” (12 per-cent). Three participants said they could not affordit, and four did not believe that it is right to spay orneuter animals. Slightly less than 30 percent (n =103) obtained their dog or cat from family or friends,20.5 percent got their dog or cat from a breeder,and 21.3 percent got their dog or cat from somesort of shelter. About 11 percent said they obtainedtheir animals from an “other” source. We are unsurewhat those other sources were. Finally, more than97 percent of all pet owners agreed with the state-ment “My pet is a member of my family.”

Ethnic Differences RegardingCompanion AnimalsCompanion Animal Ownership. Participants whoidentified themselves as American Indian were mostlikely to have companion animals (73.5 percent;

Table 2: Types and Frequencies of Companion Animals by Ethnicity (n = 368)Hispanic/ White,Spanish not American African PacificOrigin Hispanic Indian American Asian Islander

Type of Animal n % (n = 41) (n = 302) (n = 25) (n = 9) (n = 6) (n = 2)

Cat 61 16.6 5 55 3 0 2 0

Dog 214 58.2 29 180 14 9 4 2

Bird 46 12.5 11 37 5 0 2 0

Rabbit 3 0.8 0 3 1 0 0 0

Fish 78 21.2 12 65 10 0 1 0

Small animals (rats, etc.) 25 6.8 2 22 4 0 0 0

Horse 15 4.1 1 13 2 0 0 0

Turtle 14 3.8 4 13 1 0 0 0

Note: The ns for race or ethnicity add up to more than 368 because participants could identify themselves as more than one race or ethnicity. Percentages add up to morethan 100 because participants could have more than one type of pet.

Pet Ownerswith ThisAnimal

263Risley-Curtiss, Holley, and Wolf / The Animal–Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity

n = 25/34), followed by white people (65 percent;n = 319/491), people of Hispanic/Spanish heri-tage (56.9 percent; n = 41/72), African Americans(40.9 percent; n = 9/22), Pacific Islanders (40 per-cent; n = 2/5), and Asians (37.5 percent; n = 6/16).Logistic regression analysis was done with the sixethnicity variables entered as independent variablesand pet ownership (yes/no) as the dependent vari-able. The overall regression model was significant,with a model chi-square of 8.07 (p = .004). Twovariables met the entry criteria: describing oneselfas white or as American Indian. Describing oneselfas white entered first. The odds of those identifyingthemselves as white having pets increased by 48percent compared with those not describing them-selves as white. After controlling for those identify-ing as white, the odds of those identifying them-selves as American Indian having pets increased by58 percent compared with those who did not soidentify themselves.

To explore whether there is a significant rela-tionship between specific types of companion ani-mals and ethnic identity or identities, we ran a se-ries of eight logistic regressions. For each equation,all six race and ethnicity variables were entered asindependent variables and one type of companionanimal was entered as the dichotomous dependentvariable (that is, cat, dog, bird, rabbit, turtle, fish,horse, or small animals such as mice, rats, and ham-sters). These analyses revealed that identifying one-self as being of Hispanic/Spanish origin significantlyreduced the odds of having cats by 59 percent(model χ2 = 14.261, p = .01) and of having birds by68 percent (model χ2 = 7.23, p = .007). Describingoneself as American Indian increased the odds ofhaving fish by 65 percent (model χ2 = 5.34, p =.02). No other significant relationships were foundbetween racial or ethnic group membership andtype of companion animals.

Care of Companion Animals. Four questions wereasked of those with a cat, dog, or both regarding thecare of these animals: (1) whether their cat or dogwas spayed or neutered; (2) what their reasons werefor not spaying or neutering; (3) whether their dogor cat resided inside only, inside and outside, oroutside only; and (4) whether they had a veterinar-ian for their dog or cat. These questions were usedas the dependent variables in a series of logisticregressions with racial and ethnic identities as theindependent variables. Those who identified as beingof Hispanic/Spanish origin were 3.41 times more

likely not to have their animal spayed or neuteredthan those who did not identify as of Hispanic/Spanish origin (model χ2 = 8.77, p = .003). We alsoused the chi-square test of independence for twomulticategorical dependent variables: reasons fornot spaying or neutering their cat or dog and resi-dence of dog or cat (inside only, inside and outside,outside only). Given the high frequency of cellswith expected counts of less than five, we wereunable to test for statistical significance betweenethnic identity and reasons given for not spaying orneutering their dog or cat. When we collapsed theresidence variable to two categories (inside andoutside versus outside only), the nonparametricFisher’s Exact Test was significant for identifying aswhite (p = .04). However when identifying as whitewas entered into a logistic regression along withthe other ethnicities as independent variables, themodel was not significant. Finally, cat and dog own-ers were asked whether they had a veterinarian fortheir pet. Hispanic/Spanish origin was the only eth-nicity to enter the model with having a veterinar-ian for their pet as the dependent variable (modelχ2 = 6.49, p = .01).Those identifying themselves asof Hispanic/Spanish origin were 73 percent morelikely not to have a veterinarian for their pet thanwere those who did not identify themselves as ofHispanic/Spanish origin.

Relationships and Beliefs. Cat and dog ownerswere also asked a series of questions regarding theirrelationships with their companion animals, includ-ing what their animal offered them. Specificallythey were asked if their pets offered them emo-tional support, unconditional love, companionship,a sense of personal safety, income from breeding,and a chance to teach their child responsibility. Inaddition, all pet owners were asked if they agreedto such statements as “My pet is a member of myfamily” (agree/disagree), and “It is okay to declawa cat” (agree/disagree). These variables were usedas dependent variables with all ethnic identities asindependent variables in logistic regression analy-ses. No statistically significant differences werefound with regard to racial and ethnic identity andemotional support, unconditional love from pet,companionship from pet, and pets are family mem-bers. Those identifying themselves as Hispanic/Spanish origin were 55 percent more likely to geta sense of personal safety from their pet than werethose not identifying themselves as Hispanic/Spanish origin (model χ2 = 4.36, p = .04). Those

264 Social Work Volume 51 , Number 3 July 2006

identifying themselves as Asian were 93 percentmore likely to say they got income from breedingthan were those not identifying as Asian (model χ2

= 18.91, p = .000). It should be noted, however,that there was a very small number of Asian Ameri-cans with pets (n = 6), and only two (33 percent)said they got income from breeding. Those identi-fying themselves as white were 2.44 times morelikely not to feel that their pets taught their chil-dren responsibility than were those not identify-ing themselves as white (model χ2 = 5.10, p = .02).Finally, the odds of those identifying themselves aswhite agreeing that it is okay to declaw cats in-creased by 64 percent when compared with thosenot identifying themselves as white (model χ2 =8.56, p = .003).

Participants were asked whether they agreed withanother series of statements, whether they had petsor not. These included “Pets should be spayed/neu-tered early in life,” “It’s okay to hit a pet if it misbe-haves,” “Animals do not feel pain,” “Animals canfeel sadness, fear, happiness, and love,” and “There

are too many unwanted animals in the world.” Allwere measured dichotomously as agree/disagree.Frequencies by ethnicity are presented in Table 3.Statistical significance was found only in the logis-tic regression model for “pets should be spayed/neutered early in life” and for whether animals feelpain. Those who identified themselves as white were0.59 times more likely to agree that animals shouldbe spayed or neutered early in life than those notidentifying themselves as white (model χ2 = 7.57, p= .006). Those who identified themselves as Asianwere 81 percent more likely to agree that animalsdo not feel pain (model χ2 = 4.58, p = .03). Inaddition, although the overall model was not statis-tically significant, identifying oneself as Asian wasassociated with disagreeing that there are too manyunwanted animals in the world (p = .05).

Limitations of the StudyBefore we discuss the implications of this study,several limitations are important to consider. First,although a random sampling technique was used,

Table 3: Beliefs Regarding Companion Animals by Ethnicity (n = 587)Hispanic/ White,Spanish not African American PacificOrigin Hispanic American Indian Asian Islander

Belief Variable (n = 72) (n = 491) (n = 22) (n = 34) (n = 16) (n = 5)

Pets should be spayed or neutered early in life.

Agree 55 419 14 27 10 4

Disagree 13 46 6 6 1 1

Don’t knowa 4 26 2 1 5 0

It’s okay to hit a pet if it misbehaves.

Agree 14 86 7 4 3 1

Disagree 58 390 14 29 11 4

Don’t knowa 0 15 1 1 2 0

Animals do not feel pain.

Agree 5 21 1 3 3 1

Disagree 66 469 21 31 13 4

Don’t knowa 1 1 0 0 0 0

Animals can feel fear, sadness, happiness, and love.

Agree 70 484 20 33 16 5

Disagree 0 4 0 0 0 0

Don’t knowa 2 3 2 1 0 0

There are too many unwanted animals in the world.

Agree 64 447 20 29 13 5

Disagree 6 29 0 4 3 0

Don’t knowa 2 15 2 1 0 0

Note: The ns for ethnicity add up to more than 368 because participants could identify themselves as more than one ethnicity.a“Don’t know” was coded “don’t know/refuse to answer.”

265Risley-Curtiss, Holley, and Wolf / The Animal–Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity

people of color were underrepresented in thesample in comparison to their representation inthe population from which they were drawn. Thisunderrepresentation limits the study’s generaliza-bility. Furthermore, the population from which thesample was drawn is one with relatively few peopleof Asian, African American, or Pacific Islander de-scent. This limitation prevented detection of sig-nificant differences that may actually exist amongthese racial and ethnic groups. Future studies mightuse a stratified random sampling technique to ad-dress this problem. Second, because of the explor-atory nature of the study and the need to limit thenumber of questions asked, relatively few ques-tions regarding human–companion animal attach-ment were asked, and no questions were askedabout why participants did not have companionanimals. Future researchers might benefit from ask-ing additional questions about the animal–humanrelationship (for example, “Does your pet sleep inyour bed with you?”) and about factors that influ-ence the decision to have or not have companionanimals.

Other research has suggested that care practicesand beliefs may vary depending on an individual’sattachment to a companion animal (Wilson &Netting, 1987). Finally, the use of stepwise regres-sion has limitations, in that a model is selected to fita particular sample. Thus, there is no assurance thatthe same model would be selected if another samplefrom the same population were selected. In addi-tion, the model always fits the sample better thanthe population from which it was selected (Norusis,1990). One, therefore, must use caution in inter-preting the results, especially with regard to otherpopulations.

DISCUSSIONIt is interesting to note that the percentage of petowners in our study is almost exactly the same (62percent versus 63 percent) as that found in the 2002American Pet Products Manufacturers Associationsurvey (American Pet Products Manufacturers As-sociation, 2003). In addition, this study’s findingsoffer support that there are some ethnic differencesin whether people have animal companions and inthe care of and beliefs regarding companion ani-mals. A higher percentage of indigenous peopleindicated that they have pets; those who identifiedas white were next most likely to have pets. Thisfinding is particularly important because no earlier

studies have included indigenous people in theirstudy samples.

Furthermore, members of different racial or eth-nic groups who do have pets may prefer the com-panionship of different types of animals. In thissample, those who identified as being Latina/Latinowere significantly less likely than others to havecats or birds, whereas those identifying as indig-enous were more likely to have fish. Although noother statistically significant differences were foundin types of companion animals owned by membersof various ethnic groups, it is possible that a samplethat includes larger numbers of people who iden-tify as African American, Asian, and Pacific Islandermay reveal other differences among groups.

Perhaps the most important finding is that amongstudy participants who had cats, dogs, or both, therewere no significant racial or ethnic differences inwhether participants reported that they receiveemotional support, unconditional love, and com-panionship from their pets. Furthermore, regard-less of racial or ethnic group membership, almostall companion animal owners described their ani-mals as being family members. This finding is con-sistent with earlier studies (Brookman, 1999) andreinforces the importance of social workers’ con-sidering clients’ relationships with their compan-ion animals in their work with individuals and fami-lies (see Implications for Social Work Practicesection, below). Of course, companionship, emo-tional support, and so forth may mean differentthings to different people, so further research isneeded to better understand these findings (seeImplications for Social Work Research section).

The finding that Latinas/Latinos report that theirdogs or cats give them a sense of personal safety isalso critical to consider. Because members of thisgroup are less likely to have cats, it may be assumedthat they considered their dogs as providing thissense of safety. Although further research is certainlyneeded to understand this finding, it is not surpris-ing that a social group that experiences discrimina-tion and other forms of oppression might gain asense of safety from having a dog companion.

This study found that those who identified them-selves as white were significantly different fromothers on three outcome variables. White peoplewere significantly more likely than others to saythat pets should be spayed or neutered early in lifeand that it is okay to declaw cats and least likely tosay that having a cat or dog teaches children to be

266 Social Work Volume 51 , Number 3 July 2006

responsible. Further research is needed to learnwhether this first difference is related to socioeco-nomic status. The first difference suggests a con-cern for the nonhuman animal world, whereas thesecond and third differences appear to be morefocused on humans’ needs or preferences. Furtherresearch is needed to better understand these ap-parently complicated attitudes about companionanimals.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIALWORK RESEARCHFindings from this exploratory study have severalimplications for future research. First and most criti-cal, the finding that the vast majority of partici-pants with companion animals see them as familymembers strongly indicates that social work re-searchers who are studying individual and familiesmust include, at a minimum, the presence of com-panion animals—and their meaning to human par-ticipants from various ethnic, gender, age, and othersocial groups—in their research. Research fromother disciplines has already suggested that animalscan play an important role in violent families expe-riencing domestic violence or child abuse (for ex-ample, see Flynn 1999, 2000) in the developmentof children (Melson, 2001), and in enhancing thelives of elderly people (Baun & McCabe, 2000). Byincluding animals in their studies, social work re-searchers can add to this important, growing bodyof knowledge and assist social work practitioners inimplementing a more inclusive ecological approachto work with clients.

In relation to ethnicity, additional quantitativestudies need to be conducted with samples thatinclude larger numbers of people from various ra-cial and ethnic groups, including Latinas/Latinoswho are not of Mexican descent. Studies mightalso include measures of the strength of ethnicidentity (for example, see Cuellar, Arnold, &Gonzalez, 1995; Klonoff & Landrine, 1999;Resnicow, Soler, Braithwaite, Selassie, & Smith,1997; Roberts et al., 1999). Studies in other areashave found that strength of ethnic identity, ratherthan simply ethnic group membership, may affectattitudes and behaviors (for example, see Lorenzo-Hernández & Ouellette,1998; Phinney, Cantu, &Kurtz, 1997). Such studies also need to examinewhether there are differences in attitudes towardand relationships with animals among people fromvarious geographic regions, ages, genders, social

classes, and urban, rural, and suburban residencesand those with different amounts of leisure timeand varying personal experience with companionanimals. Future studies might include additionalquestions that will allow researchers to better un-derstand people’s relationships with their compan-ion animals. For example, are there ethnic differ-ences in whether it is appropriate to allow one’sdog to sleep in one’s bed? Are there differences inhow much time one spends with one’s cats? Thisstudy found that people obtain unconditional love,emotional support, and companionship from theircats and dogs. Additional research is needed to un-derstand human relationships with other types ofcompanion animals. How would people from vari-ous ethnic, gender, and age groups rate the impor-tance of the benefits of having different types ofcompanion animals?

Qualitative studies are needed to assist in under-standing what these relationships mean to people.For example, when people say that they get emo-tional support from their companion animals, whatdo they mean? When do they turn to their animalfor this emotional support? Are there instances inwhich this emotional support is more importantthan what one might obtain from a human com-panion—or from a social worker? Can an animalwho is not a long-term part of one’s family of ori-gin or choice (for example, a horse in an outdoorprogram for youths; a cat in a residential care facil-ity) provide the same level of companionship, un-conditional love, and emotional support as a family’scompanion animal? Does such an animal becomepart of an individual’s family, as study participantsdescribed? Are there ethnic, age, or other socialgroup differences and similarities in how peopleexperience these relationships?

Research is also needed to learn whether indi-viduals living in stressful environments (for example,higher crime areas, violent or neglectful families)have different relationships with their companionanimals than do others. It is possible that people insuch environments may feel that the responsibili-ties of caring for an animal simply add stress totheir lives. Alternatively, such people may benefitfrom the companionship, emotional support, andunconditional love of a companion animal.

Unfortunately, it makes sense that some peoplewho consider their companion animals to be mem-bers of their families might abuse animals just asthey might abuse humans. More studies of the

267Risley-Curtiss, Holley, and Wolf / The Animal–Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity

factors related to animal abuse—particularly stud-ies that consider whether there is a relationship be-tween animal abuse and human abuse—are neededto help us better understand both of these socialproblems.

Studies also need to explore the perspectives ofthe sizable minority of people who do not havecompanion animals. Is not having companion ani-mals related to living situation, income, formal edu-cational level, attitudes about animals, or somethingelse?

Finally, available research suggests that many so-cial workers may not be including attention to ani-mal–human relationships in their practices. Addi-tional studies are needed to understand if some socialworkers are doing so and ways in which practicethat includes attention to such relationships affectsthe lives of clients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIALWORK PRACTICEThe finding that the vast majority of dog and catowners in this study said that their animal compan-ions provide them with emotional support, uncon-ditional love, and companionship and that theyconsider their animals to be family members hastremendous implications for social work practice,particularly in light of evidence suggesting that at-tention to animals may currently be lacking (forexample, see Risley-Curtiss, 2004; Zilney & Zilney,2005). First, these findings support the practice ofasking about the presence of animals and includingattention to individuals’ relationships with theircompanion animals, particularly cats and dogs, inbiopsychosocial assessments. If animals are presentand not included, essential elements of individuals’interactions with their environments will be miss-ing, and the interventions that follow may fail todraw on critical resources for clients’ health andwell-being. In addition, if an individual is stronglyattached to her or his companion animal, an ad-equate intervention may need to include providingresources for care of a companion animal (for ex-ample, food; veterinary care, including vaccinations;boarding services during hospitalization or otherout-of-home care of the person). Although suchcomponents are rarely considered “social work in-terventions,” they may indeed be important for cli-ents’ well-being.

Findings also have implications for work withspecific racial and ethnic groups. For example, so-

cial workers who want to include animals in theirgroup care settings that serve Latinas/Latinos (atleast those who are of Mexican descent) may con-sider selecting dogs, rather than cats or birds, forresidence in their facilities. Findings also suggestthat facilities serving indigenous and white popu-lations, in particular, might improve their servicesby including animals in their programs.

Finally, findings suggest that adult group homes,shelters, and other care facilities might consider thefeasibility of allowing people to bring their com-panion animals with them. Of course, there are manydifficult issues involved in such an arrangement (suchas the potential for an animal to harm another per-son or animal, or vice versa). Instead, social workersmight ensure that animals are well cared for whenapart from their human companions and arrangefor visitation opportunities. This could decreaseindividuals’ worries about the well-being of theiranimal companions, while continuing to providebenefits resulting from the emotional support, com-panionship, and perceived unconditional love of acompanion animal.

Given the findings of this and other studies re-garding the importance of companion animals, so-cial work researchers and practitioners must payattention to the presence of animals in the lives oftheir clients. To give companion animals short shriftmeans we are missing a potentially vital connec-tion and are paying only lip service to our claims ofan ecological approach.

REFERENCESAmerican Association for Public Opinion Research.

(2004). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of casecodes and outcome rates for surveys (3rd ed.). Lexena,KS: Author.

American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. (2003,April 14). Leading trade organization releases studyfinding pets owned by more than half of all U.S. households.Retrieved January 29, 2004, from www.appma.org/press/press_releases/2003/nr_04-14-03.asp

American Veterinary Medical Association. (2002). U.S. petownership and demographics sourcebook. Schaumburg,IL: Author.

Baun, M. M., & McCabe, B.W. (2000). The role animalsplay in enhancing quality of life for the elderly. In A.Fine (Ed.), Handbook of animal-assisted therapy (pp.237–251). New York: Academic Press.

Brookman, F. (1999, October 25). The things people dofor pets! Discount Store News. Retrieved January 29,2004, from www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/_m3092/20_38/57443535/p1/article.jhtml

Brown, S. E. (2002). Ethnic variations in pet attachmentamong students at an American school of veterinarymedicine. Society and Animals, 10, 455–456.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995). Accultura-tion Rating Scale for Mexican-Americans–II: A

268 Social Work Volume 51 , Number 3 July 2006

revision of the original ARSMA scale. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304.

Deviney, E., Dickert, J., & Lockwood, R. (1998). Thecare of pets within child abusing families. In R.Lockwood & F. Ascione (Eds.), Cruelty to animals andinterpersonal violence: Readings in research andapplication (pp. 305–313). West Lafayette, IN: PurdueUniversity Press.

Faver, C. A., & Strand, E. B. (2003). Domestic violenceand animal cruelty: Untangling the web of abuse.Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 237–253.

Flynn, C. P. (1999). Exploring the link between corporalpunishment and children’s cruelty to animals. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 61, 971–981.

Flynn, C. P. (2000). Why family professionals can nolonger ignore violence towards animals. FamilyRelations, 49, 87–95.

Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R. H., & Larsen, J. A. (2002).Direct social work practice (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Johnson, R.A., & Meadows, R. L. (2002). Older Latinos,pets and health. Western Journal of Nursing Research,24, 609–620.

Kaufman, M. E. (1999). The relevance of culturalcompetence to the link between violence to animalsand people. In F. R. Ascione & P. Arkow (Eds.), Childabuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse (pp. 260–270). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R.M., & Presser,S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse ina national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly,64, 125–148.

Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1999). Acculturation andcigarette smoking among African Americans:Replication and implications for prevention andcessation programs. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22,195–204.

Lago, D., Delaney, M., Miller, M., & Grill, C. (1989).Companion animals, attitudes towards pets, andhealth outcomes among the elderly: A long-termfollow-up. Anthozoos, 3, 25–34.

Lavrakas, P. J., Stasny, E. A., & Harpuder, B. (2000, May18–21). A further investigation of the last-birthdayrespondent selection method and within unit coverage error.Paper presented at the 55th Annual AmericanAssociation for Public Opinion Research Conven-tion, Portland, OR.

Lorenzo-Hernández, J., & Ouellette, S. C. (1998). Ethnicidentity, self esteem, and values in Dominicans,Puerto Ricans, and African Americans. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 28, 2007–2024.

Marx, M. B., Stallones, L., Garrity, T. F., & Johnson, T. P.(1988). Demographics of pet ownership among U.S.adults 21 to 64 years of age. Anthrozoos, 2, 33–37.

Melson, G. F. (2001). Why the wild things are. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Nelson, P. (2002). The survey of psychologists’ attitudes,opinions, and clinical experiences with animal abuse(Doctoral dissertation, The Wright Institute, 2002).Dissertation Abstracts International, 63,1040

Netting, F. E., Wilson, C. C., & New, J. C. (1987). Thehuman-animal bond: Implications for practice. SocialWork, 32, 60–64.

Norusis, M. J. (1990). SPSS/PC+ advanced statistics 4.0.Chicago: SPSS.

Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnicand American identity as predictors of self-esteemamong African American, Latino, and Whiteadolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 165–185.

Resnicow, K., Soler, R. E., Braithwaite, R. L., Selassie,M. B., & Smith, M. (1997). Development of a racial

and ethnic identity scale for African Americanadolescents: The survey of black life. Journal of BlackPsychology, 25, 171–188.

Richard, J. (2004, January/February). Minority report:part one: African Americans. Best Friends, pp. 14–16.

Risley-Curtiss, C. (2004). [The animal–human bond andschools of social work]. Unpublished raw data.

Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R.,Roberts, C. R., & Romero, A. (1999). The structureof ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverseethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,301–322.

Sable, P. (1995). Pets, attachment, and well-being acrossthe life cycle. Social Work, 40, 334–341.

Siegel, J. M. (1995). Pet ownership and the importance ofpets among adolescents. Anthrozoos, 8, 217–223.

Wilson, C.C., & Netting, F. E. (1987). New directions:Challenges for human-animal bond research and theelderly. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 6, 189–200.

Zilney, L. A., & Zilney, M. (2005). Reunification of childand animal welfare agencies: Cross-reporting ofabuse in Wellington County, Ontario. Child Welfare,84, 47–66.

Christina Risley-Curtiss, PhD, MSSW, is associateprofessor, School of Social Work, Arizona State University,Tempe, AZ 85287-1802; e-mail: risley.curtiss@asu.edu.Lynn C. Holley, PhD, ACSW, is assistant professor,School of Social Work, Arizona State University. ShapardWolf, MEd, is director and technology support analyst,principal, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University.This study was part of a larger study conducted through theArizona State University Survey Research Laboratory ofwhich Mr. Wolf was, at the time, the director.

Original manuscript received March 19, 2004Final revision received March 18, 2005Accepted June 1, 2005