EXAMPLE: Suppose that you know a community has a population of 50,000.To estimate the number of dog-owning households in this community: Divide total population by the average number of people per household from the Census: 50,000 ÷ 2.6 = 19,231 households 19,231 x .384 = 7,385 dog-owning householdsTo estimate the number of dogs in this community: 19,231 x 0.614 = 11,808 dogsAlternatively: 1.6 x 7,385 = 11,816 dogs
As with the number of households, state or regional values may be substituted for the national values if desired. (The number of dogs, cats, birds or horses per household for states or regions can be determined by dividing the total population of the state or region by the total number of pet-owning households in each state or region.) However, the same caution mentioned previously must be noted. Without additional analysis, it is unknown whether the error in the estimate introduced by differences between national and community demographic and pet-ownership characteristics is greater than or less than the error introduced by the larger error inherent in the smaller state or regional samples.
Most communities do not have data on the number of households that own dogs, cats, birds, or horses, nor do they have data on the numbers of these pets in their communities. The following formulas can be used to estimate the number of pet-owning households and pet populations in your community.
The demographics of the state or region may be more similar to the demographics of your community, but, as indicated above the state and regional estimates have a greater degree of statistical error associated with them than the national estimates. Therefore, without additional analysis, it is undetermined whether an estimate for the number of pet-owing households in your community will be more accurate by using the national estimates, regional estimates or state estimates.
To use the formulas below you need to know the total number of households in the community in which you are estimating. If you only know the population of the community, you can estimate the number of households by dividing the population of the community by the average number of members per household. In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureaus Current Population Survey estimated that there were 2.6 members per household.
Pet ownership in the United States
Seventy percent of U.S. households, or about 90.5 million families, own a pet, according to the 2021-2022 National Pet Owners Survey conducted by the American Pet Products Association (APPA). This is up from 56 percent of U.S. households in 1988, the first year the survey was conducted, and 67 percent in 2019.
Total pet industry expenditures in the U.S. totaled $123.6 billion, up 19 percent from $103.6 billion in 2020.
Cats vs. Dogs: The Battle Continues
No study of pet ownership would be complete without exploring the rivalry between cats and dogs. Here’s how cat and dog ownership stack up in the U.S., with a special focus on adoption factors.
Dog Owner Life VS. Cat Owner Life
Introduction: Pet ownership may provide an additional source of social support and may contribute to the owners self-esteem. Self-esteem is considered a basic human need and is associated with psychological conditions such as depressive symptoms. To date, there is limited knowledge on the association between keeping a pet and self-esteem.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether cat owners, dog owners, and individuals without pets differ in terms of self-esteem (total sample and stratified by sex).
Methods: Data were taken from the German Aging Survey (wave 5; nationally representative sample of individuals residing in private households ≥40 years). In this survey, the widely used and well-established Rosenberg scale was used to quantify self-esteem. Socioeconomic, lifestyle, and health-related factors were adjusted for in the regression analysis (n = 5,485).
Results: Multiple linear regressions showed that dog owners reported higher self-esteem scores compared to individuals without pets (β = 0.04, p < 0.05). Similarly, male dog owners reported higher self-esteem scores compared to men without pets (β = 0.07, p < 0.01). In contrast, female cat owners reported lower self-esteem scores compared to women without pets (β = −0.07, p < 0.01).
Conclusion: Study findings showed a link between owning a cat and lower self-esteem (women), as well as between owning a dog and higher self-esteem (total sample; men). Future studies should concentrate on investigating the underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the link between animal ownership and self-esteem.
In Germany, as well as in numerous other countries, a demographic change in the population is expected, with a shift in the age structure from young to old (1). Due to the aging population, the number of individuals with advanced age will increase.
A considerable proportion of older individuals are widowed, divorced, or have stayed single, and this proportion increases in older age (2). Likewise, grown-up children may have moved out to live in a separate household, or even another city, decreasing the spatial proximity of older individuals to children and other kin. Therefore, older persons are at risk for loneliness, social isolation, and reduced health and well-being (3). Among other things, these factors can increase morbidity or mortality (4, 5).
According to the attachment theory by Bowlby (6), there is a human need to be attached to somebody and to maintain relationships and a need for a sense of belonging. In the case of social isolation, this human attachment could be substituted by a human–pet attachment. Keeping pets has been shown to correlate with positive health outcomes when facing serious health issues, e.g., a reduced risk for mortality after a heart attack (7). Furthermore, there is evidence that pet owners in late life may have better psychosocial health, such as less depressive symptoms or decreased loneliness (8–11).
More generally, pet ownership may play a significant role in peoples lives. A pet may provide an additional source of social support by providing company and being part of the household (12, 13). There is evidence of numerous benefits of pet ownership, including satisfaction with life and happiness (14). Companionship provided by pet ownership may be particularly important for older people to alleviate social isolation. There is broad evidence supporting the association of social support with beneficial effects related to cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune functioning (15), as well as self-esteem (16). Therefore, pet ownership may also be associated with self-esteem. Self-esteem is considered a basic human need for, inter alia, the respect from others in form of recognition, success, and admiration (17). It is a significant predictor for psychological diseases, e.g., depression or anxiety (18). There is evidence that owning a pet may increase self-esteem for preadolescents and young adults (19–21). The question is whether this also applies to older adults.
There is evidence that males may score slightly higher on self-esteem than females (22, 23). These sex differences may also feature in the relationship with pet ownership. However, there is no literature on sex differences in the association between pet ownership and self-esteem. However, one study found that female cat owners had a higher depression score than male cat owners (24), while another study did not find interaction effects of gender for the link between pet ownership and loneliness (9). When distinguishing between dog owners and cat owners, further literature found that dog owners are less often socially isolated and depressed (11, 24).
To date, there is limited knowledge on the association between keeping a pet and self-esteem. There is one study showing that animal-assisted therapy may help to increase self-esteem for patients with depressive and psychiatric disorders (25). Another study found that pet owners tend to have higher self-esteem than non-owners in general (13). However, there is no study focusing on older people, who may be particularly vulnerable to low self-esteem, due to a possible lack of social support. The question arises whether pets may contribute to owners self-esteem by providing meaningful social support, and whether people of both sexes benefit from pet ownership to the same degree. Also, there may be differences between cats and dogs as most popular companion animals. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine whether older cat owners, dog owners, and individuals without pets differ in terms of self-esteem (total sample and stratified by sex). To investigate this, we used a large survey of individuals residing in Germany aged 40 and over in order to provide nationally representative findings. Knowledge on a link between owning a pet and self-esteem may particularly be helpful to address individuals who score low in self-esteem.
In our analysis, we used data from the fifth wave of the German Aging Survey (DEAS), a nationally representative study of non-institutionalized middle-aged and older adults (40+). It has a cohort-sequential design and is funded by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ). The Institute for Applied Social Sciences (infas) conducted the fieldwork for all waves.
Cross-sectional samples were drawn in 1996 (first wave), 2002 (second wave), 2008 (third wave), and 2014 (fifth wave), whereas the fourth wave was a pure panel sample (i.e., only including individuals who had already taken part before). The samples have been disproportionally stratified (by age, region, and sex). It is worth noting that the data relate to different households. In 2014, the response rate was 25% for first-time participants (resulting in more than 6,000 participants who participated for the first time in 2014). The response rate was 61% for participants who had already been interviewed previously (resulting in more than 4,000 individuals who participated again in 2014). The response rates of the DEAS study are in line with other German studies (26). After the interview (covering general topics such as sex or age), individuals were asked to fill out a drop-off questionnaire, which included questions that are more sensitive (e.g., regarding self-esteem). In 2014, a total of 7,952 individuals took part in the interview and additionally filled out the drop-off questionnaire. Moreover, we further restricted our sample to individuals with at least one child (who filled out the drop-off questionnaire), resulting in 6,927 individuals. We restricted our sample to individuals with one or more children because we included the distance to the nearest residential living child as a covariate in our regression model. Due to missing observations in regression, our analytical sample equaled 5,485 observations. More details regarding the DEAS study have been provided by Klaus et al. (27).
All participants provided written informed consent. As the criteria for an ethical statement were not fulfilled (such as risk for the respondents or use of invasive methods), ethics committee approval was not required.
In the drop-off questionnaire, the Rosenberg scale was used to assess general self-esteem. It measures the worth dimension of self-esteem. Sample items include “I feel that I have a number of good qualities,” “I feel I do not have much to be proud of,” “At times I think I am no good at all,” or “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” It is a widely accepted and rigorously tested psychometric assessment focused on measuring self-esteem (28). This scale consists of 10 items (in each case: 1 = strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree). Five items have been recoded (“On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”; “I am able to do things as well as most other people”; “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”; “I feel that I‘m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others”; “I take a positive attitude toward myself”). In line with accepted scoring for Rosenbergs scale, values were ascertained by averaging the items, with higher values indicating higher self-esteem (range: 1–4, Cronbachs alpha was 0.82 in our study).
Our main independent variable was pet ownership (no; yes). Individuals owning one or more pet/s were subsequently asked whether they own one or more cat/s, one or more dog/s, and other pet/s (multiple responses were possible). We decided to exclude the category “other pet/s” because of its unclear nature. More specifically, we defined cat owners as individuals who own one or more cat/s but do not own any other pets. In the same vein, dog owners were defined as individuals who own one or more dog/s but do not own any other pets.
As covariates, we included socioeconomic (age, family status, income poverty, and the distance to the nearest residential living), lifestyle (body mass index, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and the frequency of sports activities) and health-related variables (self-rated health, physical functioning, and the number of physical illnesses). Family status was measured by a set of dummy variables (married, living together with spouse; married, living separated from spouse; single; divorced; widowed). Income poverty was assessed using the threshold of 60% of median net-equivalence income. This is based on the OECD modified equivalence scale. The distance to the nearest residential living child (in the same household; in the same house (other household); in the neighborhood; in the same town; another town in Germany, but can be reached within 2 h; farther away, in Germany; farther away, abroad) was also used in the regression analysis. Furthermore, regarding lifestyle factors, the body mass index [BMI; defined as weight (kg) divided by height squared (m2)], smoking status (non-smoker; former smoker; casual smoker; daily smoker), alcohol consumption, and the frequency of sports activities (in both cases, categories were as follows: “never,” “rarer than once a month,” “one to three times a month,” “once a week,” “several times a week,” and “daily”) were used in the regression analysis. Regarding health-related covariates, physical functioning [subscale physical functioning of the SF-36 (29); from 0 (worst) to 100 (best)], self-rated health [ranging from very good (1) to very bad (5)], and the number of chronic diseases (e.g., bad circulation or diabetes; from 0 to 11) were used as covariates.
Stratified by owning a cat, owning a dog, and individuals without pets, sample characteristics were displayed using descriptive statistics. Subsequently, multiple linear regressions were computed to determine the link between owning a cat or dog and self-esteem (total sample; stratified by sex). Additionally, the analysis was stratified by age category (40–64 years; 65 years and older). The results were considered statistically significant when the p < 0.05. Stata 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA) was used to perform statistical analyses.
Sample characteristics stratified by owning a cat, owning a dog, and individuals without pets are depicted in Table 1. TABLE 1
In the total sample, mean age was 65.4 years (standard deviation (SD) 10.9), and 50.7% were female. Of cat owners, 57.3% were female. 50.1% of dog owners were female, and 49.5% of non-owners were female (Table 1). Among all females in the dataset, 16.0% owned cats, 9.2% owned dogs, and 74.7% owned no pets. Among all males, 12.3% owned cats, 9.5% owned dogs, and 78.3% owned no pets (results not shown). Mean self-esteem was 3.4 (SD 0.4) among dog owners, cat owners, and non-owners, both female and male. Further details are reported in Table 1.
The results of the multiple linear regressions are displayed in Table 2. For the total sample, cat owners had marginally significant lower self-esteem (β = −0.03, p < 0.1) than individuals without pets, whereas dog owners had statistically significant higher self-esteem than individuals without pets (β = 0.04, p < 0.05). Stratification by sex showed that these results were driven by either males or females: female cat owners had significant decreased self-esteem (β = −0.07, p < 0.01), and male dog owners had significant increased self-esteem (β = 0.07, p < 0.01), compared to non-owners, respectively. TABLE 2
The analysis was further separated by age which showed that the main driver of these results were individuals aged 65 and more years (Table 3). Among those aged 65 years and over, both men and women who own a dog showed statistically significant increased self-esteem (β = 0.07, p < 0.05), compared to individuals without pets. When separating those aged 65 years and over by sex, female cat owners had significant decreased self-esteem (β = −0.07, p < 0.05) and male dog owners had increased self-esteem, which was, however, no longer significant (β = 0.07, p < 0.1). For individuals aged 40–64 years, cat (β =.-0.03) and dog (β = 0.01) owners did not show significant results, compared to non-owners. Male pet owners aged 40–64 years had non-significant or marginally significant increased self-esteem (cat owners: β = 0.01; dog owners: β = 0.05; p < 0.1), whereas female pet owners aged 40–64 years had non-significant or marginally significant decreased self-esteem (cat owners: β = −0.06; p < 0.1; dog owners: β = −0.04). TABLE 3
Across all models, significant decreased self-esteem was associated with an increasing number of chronic diseases, decreasing self-rated health, and the presence of income poverty.
Dog owners reported statistically significant higher self-esteem scores compared to individuals without pets and cat owners reported marginally significant lower self-esteem scores compared to individuals without pets (Table 2). Male dog owners reported significant higher self-esteem scores compared to men without pets. In contrast, female cat owners reported significant lower self-esteem scores compared to women without pets. These findings were driven by older individuals aged 65 years and over (Table 3).