Social Indicators Research

, Volume 80, Issue 2, pp 297–311 | Cite as

Pets and Human Health in Germany and Australia: National Longitudinal Results

  • Bruce Headey
  • Markus M. Grabka


The German and Australian longitudinal surveys analysed here are the first national representative surveys to show that (1) people who continuously own a pet are the healthiest group and (2) people who cease to have a pet or never had one are less healthy. Most previous studies which have claimed that pets confer health benefits were cross-sectional. So they were open to the objection that owners may have been healthier in the first place, rather than becoming healthier due to owning a pet. In both countries the data show that pet owners make about 15% fewer annual doctor visits than non-owners. The relationship remains statistically significant after controlling for gender, age, marital status, income and other variables associated with health. The German data come from the German Socio-Economic Panel in which respondents have been interviewed every year since 1984 ( = 9723). Australian data come from the Australian National Social Science Survey 2001 ( = 1246).

Key words

doctor visits health panel surveys pet owners 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen K.M. and Blascovich J. (1991). Presence of human friends and pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to stress in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 582–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen K.M. and Shykoff B.E. (2001). Pet ownership, but not ace inhibitor therapy, blunts human blood pressure responses to mental stress. Hypertension 38: 815–820Google Scholar
  3. Allen K.M., Blascovich J. and Mendes W.B. (2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets, friends and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychological Medicine 64: 727–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson W.P., Reid C.M. and Jennings G.L. (1992). Pet ownership and risk factors␣for cardiovascular disease. The Medical Journal of Australia 157: 298–301Google Scholar
  5. Beck A.M. and Katcher A.H. (1984). A new look at pet-facilitated psychotherapy. Journal of the American Veterinary Association 184: 414–421Google Scholar
  6. Riddick C.C. (1990). Effects of watching aquariums on elders’ stress. Anthrozoos 4: 44–48Google Scholar
  7. Friedmann E., Katcher A.H., Lynch J.J. and Thomas S.A. (1980). Animal companions and one year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports 95: 307–312Google Scholar
  8. Friedmann E. and Thomas S.A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support and one year survival after acute myocardial infarction in the cardiac arrhythmic suppression trial, CAST. American Journal of Cardiology 76: 1213–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrity T.F. and Stallones L. (1998). Effects of pet contact on human well-being: review of recent research. In: Wilson, C.C. and Turner, D.C. (eds) Companion Animals in Human Health, pp 3–22. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Headey B.W. (1999). Health benefits and health cost savings due to pets: Preliminary estimates from an Australian national survey. Social Indicators Research 47: 233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jorm A.F., Jacomb P.A., Christensen H., Henderson S., Korten A.E. and Rodgers B. (1997). Impact of pet ownership on elderly Australians use of medical services: An analysis using medicare data. Medical Journal of Australia 166: 376–377Google Scholar
  12. Kingwell B.A., Lomdahl A. and Anderson W.P. (2001). Presence of a pet dog and human cardiovascular responses to mild mental stress. Clinical Autonomic Response 11: 313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ory M.G. and Goldberg E.L. (1983). Pet possession and life satisfaction in elderly women. In: Katcher, A.H. and Beck, A.M. (eds) New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals, pp 303–317. Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Raina P., B. Bonnett and D. Waltner-Toews: 1998, Relationship between Pet Ownership and Health Care Use among Seniors, 8th Conference of the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organisations, Prague, Sept. 10–11.Google Scholar
  15. Robb S. and Stegman C. (1983). Companion animals and elderly people: A challenge for evaluations of social support. Gerontologist 23: 277–282Google Scholar
  16. Rosenbaum P.R. and Rubin D.B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1): 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwarze, J., H. Andersen and S. Anger: 2000, Self-Rated Health and Changes in Self-Rated Health as Predictors of Mortality – First Evidence from the German Panel Data, DIW Discussion Paper No. 203, (DIW, Berlin).Google Scholar
  18. Serpell J.A. (1991). Beneficial aspects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behaviour. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 84: 717–720Google Scholar
  19. Siegel J.M. (1990). Stressful life events and the use of physician services among the elderly: The moderating effects of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 1081–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sikora, J.: 1997, International Survey of Economic Attitudes in Australia, Finland and Poland: Comparison with the Census”. WwA: Worldwide Attitudes. Available at Scholar
  21. SOEP Group: 2001, ‘The German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) after more than 15 years – Overview’. in E. Holst, D.R. Lillard and T.A. DiPrete (eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 Fourth International Conference of German Socio-Economic Panel Study Users (GSOEP2000), Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 70(1), 7–14.Google Scholar
  22. Stasi M.F., Amati D., Costa C., Resta D., Senepa G., Scarafioti C., Aimonino N. and Molaschi M. (2004). Pet-therapy: A trial for institutionalized frail elderly patients. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Supplement 9: 407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winkelmann R. (2000). Seemingly unrelated binomial regression. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 62: 553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wood L., Giles-Corti B. and Bulsara M. (2005). The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital?. Social Science & Medicine 61(6): 1159–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright J.C. and Moore D. (1982). Comments on animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge. Public Health Reports 97: 380–381Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic & Social ResearchUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.SOEPGerman Institute of Economic Research (DIW)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations