Issue link: https://read.uberflip.com/i/1146067
Why Do People Love Their Pets? 241 using the other as a source o f security and protection. Relationships between adult sexual partners contain elements o f both (Ainsworth 1989; Vormbrock 1993). There is convincing evidence that people usually view their relationship with pets as similar to those they have with children. Pet owners treat pets like children, for example, playing with them (Smith 1983), talking to them in motherese or baby- talk (Hirsh-Pasek and Treiman 1982), continually referring to " m y baby," and hold- ing and cuddling them as one would a baby (Carmack 1985; Serpell 1986). Berry- man et al. (1985) administered a repertory grid to 30 pet owners, using as elements eight individuals, six people, and two pets (current and previous), and as constructs aspects o f human relationships such as dependence, fun, and the importance o f the relationship. They found that pets were viewed as closest to "own child" among the human elements. Similar (but less systematic) evidence that pets act as child substi- tutes can be found from anthropological and historical accounts o f other cultures: this includes breast-feeding o f young animals by humans (Messent and Serpell 1981; Savishinsky 1983; Serpell 1986, 1987). There is, however, evidence that pets can also be used as parent or partner sub- stitutes (Albert and Bulcroft 1987). For example, it is apparent from cross-cultural sur- veys of pet ownership (Savishinsky 1983) that pets serve a variety o f roles in addition to that of surrogate children. One veterinary researcher has even set out the theory that dogs are primarily used as parent substitutes (O'Farrell 1994). In the study o f attach- ment to pet dogs referred to above (Archer et al. n.d.), we included in our questionnaire both the caring (i.e., child substitute) aspect of attachment and the source of security (i.e., parent substitute) aspect. In one sample, we found a factorially distinct group o f items indicating that the dog was fulfilling an emotional need. Responses to several of the specific items showed that the dog was being used as a source of security in the way that children use parental figures: for example, "I enjoy feeling m y dog sitting close to me," "When upset or anxious I turn to m y dog for comfort," and "I hate going home when my dog is not there to greet me." Similarly, the sample of pet owners studied by Endenburg (1995) reported a sense of security from the presence of their pets. We can conclude that, although in general there is evidence to support the com- monsense idea that pets are baby and child substitutes, in the case of dogs the nature of the bond is such that it may also contain a strong element of reassurance and a feeling o f security; there are, therefore, aspects of a substitute companion or even a parental figure. W H Y P E T O W N E R S H I P IS A N E V O L U T I O N A R Y P R O B L E M The evolutionary significance o f the attachments formed to other humans is clear, since they serve obvious biological functions such as shared parenting, or aiding rel- atives, or forming mutually beneficial alliances. This raises the question o f why people should form similar attachments to members o f a different species. Three possible answers to this question are considered, before examining pet ownership from the perspective o f comparative zoology. From this analysis, a fourth possibility ("manipulation") is considered to be more plausible. The first two explanations to be considered were referred to as "popular beliefs and misconceptions" by Serpell