Love me, love my dog: Cohabitation, dogs and romantic relationships among college students

Attachment theory provides a framework within which to articulate romantic relationships among humans and understand how attachment with canine companions can affect this relationship (Fraley and Shaver, 2000; Beck and Madresh, 2008; Cloutier and Peetz, 2016; Meehan et al., 2017; Applebaum et al., 2021). Based on her studies, Ainsworth (1991) maintained that attachment behaviors occur over a lifespan, as individuals develop multiple subsequent attachments based on their earlier attachments between parents and children. Dominant features in this relationship involve the parent as a caregiving source of security and the child needing protection and nurturance. Carnelley et al. (1996) support the notion that attachment and caregiving are central components of adult romantic love. As originally formulated, attachment theory maintains that early needs and expectations learned in early caregiver relationships shape the expectations that individuals have in their adult romantic relationships (Ainsworth, 1991; Fraley and Shaver, 2000). Fraley and Shaver (2000, p. 136) state that “as people build new relationships, they rely partly on previous expectations about how others are likely to behave and feel toward them, and they use these models to interpret goals or intentions of their partners.”

Attachment theory has also been used to study human-animal relationships because companion animals are a source of social support and represent attachment figures for their human caregivers (Archer, 1997; Beck and Madresh, 2008; Meehan et al., 2017; Applebaum et al., 2021). According to Applebaum et al. (2021), attachment theory emphasizes the development of social bonds among humans which can also occur between humans and animals. They assert that animals “… provide their human companions with a sense of social support that mirrors that of attachment bonds with other people yet offer unique characteristics that diverge from the complex dynamics of human interactions” (2021, p. 2). These unique characteristics include that companion animals “are often perceived by humans as being a reliable, nonjudgmental source of companionship and support, especially in the context of stressful situations or adversity” (2021, p. 2). They also maintain that certain forms of stress resulting from experiences with violence in a relationship or community, poverty and discrimination are more often experienced by racial-ethnic minorities and women, and may result in differences in how they bond with their animals.

Early studies have shown that animals can substitute for children, parents, or partners (Serpell, 1986, 1987; Albert and Bulcroft, 1987). With regard to companion animals, humans have demonstrated both proximity-seeking and maintenance, separation distress in their relationships, and regard their animals as offering dependable and unconditional emotional support (Meehan et al., 2017). Cavanaugh et al. (2008) assert that dogs’ trusting, empathic, and non-judgmental nature, specifically their agreeableness and openness, allows them to blend easily within human social groupings. These researchers suggest that humans living with dogs may include them in their human groups, possibly to foster these traits in themselves as they navigate their relationships with other humans.

Previous research on how living with dogs affects romantic relationships has shown that dogs facilitate couples’ interactions and that couples benefit from the social support they provide and the role they play (Allen, 1995; Beck and Madresh, 2008; McConnell et al., 2011; Cloutier and Peetz, 2016; Meehan et al., 2017). In their sample of 1161 college students, Meehan et al. (2017) found that the respondents saw their companion animals as important sources of social support similar to those they had with significant other humans. In a related study, Meehan et al. (2017) also found that students reporting high attachment to their animals indicated that their companion animals were an additional source of instrumental and emotional support and that their animals were potentially primary attachment figures for them.

In an earlier investigation, Beck and Madresh (2008) found that their respondents reported that their relationships with their companion animals were more secure than their relationships with romantic partners because their animals functioned as a source of attachment security. The researchers speculated that respondents’ companion animals may buffer the negative aspects of their relationships with human partners. Generally, most respondents recognized that their relationships with their companion animals and their relationships with their human partners were similar, but not the same; some respondents also compared their relationships with their animals with their human relationships. For example, one respondent said that she thought that the couple’s dog loved her boyfriend better than her since the dog obeyed him more. The respondents noted that their animals were not a substitute for human relationships, but that their presence allowed humans to tolerate more insecurity in their relationships with other humans, including romantic partners.

Most recently, Cloutier and Peetz (2016) examined how having companion animals affects romantic relationships, defining a relationship as “an enduring romantic partnership between two persons” and conceptualizing relationship quality as including factors such as “satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion and love” (p. 396). The researchers noted that having companion animals can influence relationship quality in several ways, such as investment that fosters further commitment and relationship longevity, as well as providing opportunities for couples to share activities such as caretaking tasks and taking walks with their dog(s). They found that couples with companion animals reported significantly greater relationship quality than those who did not. Romantic partners were asked about how their animals influenced their romantic relationships. Qualitative responses were coded into positive (192), neutral (18), and negative (10) effects. In their sample of 116 pet owners, 86% indicated that their animals had a positive impact on their romantic relationships most of the time; 8% reported a neutral effect; and 5% reported negative effects. Positive effects included increases in relationship quality, relationship closeness, shared activities, and familial feelings. Cloutier and Peetz (2016) concluded that interactions with companion animals provided romantic partners with the opportunity to practice empathy and concern-key factors in maintaining their romantic relationships.

In an earlier study, Allen (1995) found that couples living with dogs reported greater well-being, especially among those who reported being highly attached to their dogs and who stated that they confided in their dogs. Talking to their dogs was also associated with stress reduction and greater perceived emotional and physical health, along with higher marital and life satisfaction. In their review of previous research, McConnell et al. (2011) reported an AP poll finding that married or cohabitating couples claimed that their companion animal was a “better listener” than their spouse. In their own study, McConnell et al. (2011) found that respondents who lived with dogs reported getting similar support from them as they did from family members. As in the study by Beck and Madresh (2008), these dog cohabitants acknowledged that their dogs were not a substitute for the social needs met by humans; however, they noted the unique role that dogs contributed in facilitating the relationships humans had with each other.

Based on previous research by Allen and Blascovich (1996), Walsh (2009, p. 485) noted that companion animals serve as “emotional barometers and homeostatic regulators moderating stress in relationships.” In a review of the previous literature, Walsh (2009) concluded that companion animals are absorbed into one’s family or a couple’s dynamics so that they may be highly sensitive to the emotional climate humans create and to the affective states of individuals.

Allen (1995) further commented that having animals is like having children, since caring for both involves structure and roles, clear and effective communication, authority, rules, setting boundaries, cooperation, conflict, and problem solving. Couples’ disagreements over rearing children also arise over companion animals in terms of rules (giving treats or not), discipline (put in crate or not), or caretaking (feeding, cleaning up, taking for walks). Moreover, when animals “are treated as family members, feelings, anger, control, guilt, and fear can all play out through them” often appearing to show “jealousy when partners or family members are hugging or kissing” (Walsh, 2009, p. 486).

In summary, dogs need caregiving which provides a measure of attachment security for romantic partners (Archer, 1997; Beck and Madresh, 2008) and an opportunity to practice empathy (Cloutier and Peetz, 2016). While some studies on the impact of dogs on romantic relationships have been conducted, more research is needed to examine the burdens along with the benefits that living with dogs has on romantic relationships among young college-age couples (Cavanaugh et al., 2008), particularly during crises such as COVID. Furthermore, the assertion in previous literature that the life experiences of women and members of different racial-ethnic groups may lead to differences in how they bond with animals (Applebaum et al., 2021) suggests further inquiry into gender and racial-ethnic differences regarding dogs’ impact on romantic relationships. Therefore, the present study examined the extent to which living with one or more dogs either enhances or detracts from young college-age cohabitating couples’ romantic relationships and any possible gendered and racial-ethnic differences in these perceptions.

The current study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Morehead State University (MSU-IRB 20-11-40), East Carolina University (UMCIRB 20-002414), and the University of Central Missouri (UCM Protocol # 1769). Afterward, an e-mail requesting undergraduate students’ participation and a link to the survey was sent during the late Fall Semester 2020 and the early Spring Semester 2021, during the peak of the COVID crisis. Specifically, the researchers contacted 280 students in courses on courtship, marriage, and family at East Carolina University, 125 students in introductory sociology and criminology courses at Morehead State University and 100 students in child and family development courses at Central Missouri University, inviting them to complete the survey with the subject heading, “Survey: Dogs’ Impact on Romantic Relationships.” Following the first e-mail, three reminder e-mails were sent to all potential participants. Participants were not given any inducements, such as extra credit, to respond to the online survey. The response rate for the convenience sample is 76.6%. Among the 387 participants, the current study sample consisted of 118 of these cohabitating college-age couples who also reported that they lived or had lived with one or more dogs.

The 41-item questionnaire consisted of 38 quantitative and three qualitative questions assessing the respondents’ demographics and the positive and negative impacts of having one or more dogs on the respondents’ romantic relationships. The demographic variables were: age in years, gender (Man; Woman; Transgender; Genderfluid/Genderqueer/Non-binary; and Other), sexual orientation (Heterosexual; Gay/Lesbian; Bisexual; Asexual; Pansexual/Queer; and Other), race-ethnicity (White; Black/African American; Hispanic/Latino; Asian/ Asian American; Native American/Alaskan Native; Biracial or Multi-racial; and Other). The next set of items asked about living with one or more dogs while in a romantic relationship; which partner initiated dog ownership and identifying the most important reasons for having a dog (general companionship; COVID-19 quarantine buddy; partner wanted a dog; self-improvement; relationship enhancer; child substitute; gift for partner; hunting dog; service dog; and other).

Similar to Cloutier and Peetz (2016), we developed items to reflect the positive and negative impacts of having one or more dogs using five-point Likert questions (strongly disagree to strongly agree) to examine the respondents’ beliefs and attitudes about their dog(s). For example, one general item was: “The dog(s) have/have had a more positive than negative impact on the relationship with my partner.” Other items specifically addressed the dog(s) providing emotional support (i.e., companionship; quarantine buddy; talks to dog(s); helps better understand partner; every couple should have dog(s); could only marry a dog lover), and physical benefits (play more; exercise more). Another set of items reflected anticipatory parenthood (i.e., having a dog is like having a child; one or the other partner refers to you as a dog parent; you think your partner is a good dog parent; and partners share love for the dog).

Other sets of items addressed the negative effects of having a dog(s) beginning with the general statement that “having a dog(s) has made our life more stressful.” Additional negative items concerned dog(s)’ maintenance [i.e., time and money spent on the dog(s); arguing over the expense of having the dog(s); having less time for each other; one partner taking more care of the dog than the other; and disagreements over the care and training of the dog(s)]. Another set of items addressed divided affection and jealousy because of the dog(s) (i.e., if one partner or the other was jealous of the dog; one partner loving the dog more than the other; which partner the dog preferred; and if the couple split up, who would get the dog) and intimacy issues (i.e., if the dog(s) sleep in the same room as the couple; on the same bed; and if the dog interferes with having sex). One item addressed any physical injury caused by the dog(s). Table 1 provides a list of conceptually grouped positive and negative survey items which have either positive or negative impacts on respondents’ relationships with their partners.

The quantitative data were analyzed using Version 25 of the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). For the quantitative data, three sets of analyses were conducted; the first was a descriptive analysis yielding the percentages among responses to items indicating the positive and negative effects of having dogs; the second set consisted of t-tests examining the gender and racial-ethnic differences among those same items; and in the third set, regression analyses were done examining which of those response items had the greatest impacts on the belief that their “dog(s) have/had a more positive than negative impact on the relationship with my partner” (Q33) and the belief that “having a dog has made our life more stressful” (Q26), respectively. Prior correlation analyses were performed among those items to identify which ones were significantly related to items Q33 and Q26 and to determine multicollinearity among those potentially predictive items. Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation was used because the sample size was relatively small (N = 118) and nonparametric.

The three open-ended items yielding qualitative data were: “In what ways has having a dog/s impacted your relationship?”; “In what ways have you disagreed about the dog/s over issues such as food for the dog, amount of money to spend on the dog for vet bills, and where the dog sleeps?” and “How would you respond if your partner told you that they wanted to give up the dog(s)?”. Data from these questions were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach (Miles and Huberman, 1994). During the first phase, the coders assigned codes to individual responses typically reflecting a positive or negative response. The second phase provided more specific codes, at which point the common categories began to emerge. Developing the codes and subsequent categories involved ongoing discussions among the three coders (also coauthors) to establish strong inter-rater reliability (IRR). The final coding into categories was completed by the three coders with only minor discrepancies, with an IRR of 90% agreement of 95% of the codes (per Miles and Huberman, 1994). Categories for the question about ways the dog(s) has impacted couples’ relationship were: brought partners closer; helped through a hard time; taught adult parenting skills and responsibilities; created tension and conflict between partners. Categories for the ways couples disagreed about the dog(s) issues were: dog never caused arguments; dog was the partner’s responsibility; dog caused arguments about money spent; dog caused arguments about where to stay day and night; dog caused arguments about maintenance (training, discipline, and cleaning up). Finally, the categories of how to respond if your partner wanted to give up the dog(s) ranged from: agree to give up dog; talk about it; break up with partner and keep dog; say no and argue; and partner would never ask.

The sample, consisting of 118 undergraduate students who reported that they were or had been in a romantic relationship living with one or more dogs, were currently enrolled at one of the three aforementioned southeastern and mid-western universities. Participants were of traditional college age (less than 26 years old) with an average age of 22.5 (SD = 6.924). The sample for analysis consisted of 80% women and 20% men; 73% white and 27% racial-ethnic minorities; and 86% heterosexual, 11% gay, lesbian, or bisexual; and 3% other. In the sample, women tended to be overrepresented and racial-ethnic minorities were underrepresented. However, institutional data from the respondents’ three universities during the academic year 2020–2021 demonstrated that women represented between 55% and 61% and racial-ethnic minorities represented between 2 and 8% of their undergraduate populations (Central Missouri University, 2023; East Carolina University, 2023; Morehead State University, 2023).

Participants’ responses regarding how dogs have affected their romantic relationships were divided into positive and negative responses as shown in Table 1. Over three-fourths of the respondents (77%) agreed that having a dog(s) had a more positive than negative impact on their relationship, while 17% indicated no effect and only 6% reported a negative effect. Almost all (97%) of the respondents reported that their dog(s) provided companionship, with a majority (88%) responding that their dog(s) enhanced their romantic relationships.

Regarding emotional support, 70% said they talked to their dog(s) about their problems, and almost three-fourths (74%) reported that their dog(s) helped them better understand their partner. One female respondent said that because they cared for their dog together, she could “see how my partner handles relationships with people he has to take care of, helping me understand his motives for ways he takes care of me and gives me a glimpse into how he would take care of our children in the future.” More than half of the respondents (57%) agreed that every couple should have a dog and that they could only marry another dog lover (59%). When asked about their dog(s) as relationship enhancers, most (88%) reported that they shared their love for their dog(s), regarding either themselves (85%) or their partner (81%) as “dog parents,” with 76% indicating that having one or more dogs “was like having a child together.” One female respondent said, “Having a dog in our relationship has made us better in our relationship because even if me and my partner are arguing, we come together to make sure the dog has what she needs.” Moreover, half of the respondents reported that they played more (51%) and exercised more (58%) while having a dog.

However, some sample respondents (14%) reported that having one or more dogs in their cohabitant household created more stress. Sources of stress were the cost, jealousy, disagreements over care for the dog(s), and whether the dog(s) should be allowed on the sofa or sleep on the bed. Almost half of the sample (45%) said their dog(s) was (were) high maintenance because they required “a lot of time and money.” A smaller number (12%) said that they argued over costs and they had less time for each other because of the dog(s). About one-quarter of the respondents (26%) reported having disagreements over who was to take care of the dog with one-third (32%) saying that they took care of the dog(s) more than their partner or reported having disagreements over dog training issues. For example, a male respondent admitted that his female partner “doesn’t like it when I shock my dog when my dog is disobedient.”

Although many respondents (69%) said their dog(s) frequently or always slept in the same room as them, about half (48%) reported that the dog frequently or always slept on the couple’s bed. One female respondent explained that “the only thing we disagree about sometimes is the dog on the bed. She doesn’t care if the dog sleeps on the bed, but we have a very cuddly dog who is close to 100 pounds. So, sometimes the dog takes up most of the bed.” However, only 20% of the sample said their dog(s) had interfered with their sexual intimacy, while even fewer respondents (10%) reported being physically injured by their dog(s).

When asked about their feelings of affection and jealousy involving their dog(s), 17% said they loved their dog(s) more than they loved their partner and 10% reported that they thought their partner loved the dog more than them. About half (53%) agreed that their dog(s) preferred them over their partner with about 15% of the sample reporting that their partner was jealous of their relationship with the dog(s). However, only 8% reported that they had been jealous of their partners’ relationship with the dog(s). For example, a female respondent said, “Sometimes he will get somewhat jealous about how much time I want to spend with the dogs, but other than that, we have not argued over them.” Nonetheless, about one in four (29%) reported that if they split up with their partner, custody of the dog would be an issue and 15% said they would break up with and (or) leave their partner, but keep the dog(s). As one female respondent put it, “I would be very upset. You don’t give away a child, do you? No. To the dog, we are his whole world, and he would not understand why we abandoned him.”

Based on t-tests for gender differences in the sample, women were significantly more inclined than men to agree that dogs provided great companionship (t (107) = −3.585; p < 0.001) and were good quarantine “buddies” (t (106) = −2.364; p < 0.05). Women were also significantly more likely than men to talk to their dog(s) about their problems (t (105) = −2.946; p < 0.01), to report that their dog helped them better understand their partner (t (105) = −1.958; p < 0.05) and that they could only marry someone who loved dogs (t (105) = −2.151; p < 0.05). Overall, women were more likely than men to rely on their dog(s) for companionship and emotional support in their romantic relationships. In the context of attachment theory, this finding may reflect women’s anticipation regarding the earliest attachment bonding between a mother and a child.

In contrast, men were significantly more likely than women to report that their dog(s) made their couple’s lives more stressful (t (104) = 2.927; p < 0.01). Specifically, more than women, men felt that having a dog(s) meant spending less time with their partner (t (106) = 2.650; p < 0.01), that their partner was jealous of the dog (t (107) = 2.764; p < 0.01), and that they or their partner had been injured because of the dog(s) (t (106) = 3.706; p < 0.001). Overall, cohabitant men reported more disadvantages associated with having a dog(s) than women.

Regarding racial-ethnic differences, whites were significantly more likely than racial-ethnic minorities to report that their partner was a “good dog parent” (t (110) = 2.611; p < 0.01). In contrast, racial-ethnic minorities were significantly more likely than white respondents to report that the time spent with their partners was compromised by having a dog(s) (t (111) = 2.072; p < 0.05). Racial-ethnic minorities were also more likely than white respondents to report that having a dog(s) had interfered with the couple’s sexual intimacy (t (107) = 2.627; p < 0.01). Finally, racial-ethnic minorities were significantly more likely than whites to report having disagreements with their partners over dog training (t (112) = 2.768; p < 0.01), and were significantly more likely to report that if they split up, custody of the dog would be an issue (t (109) = 2.102; p < 0.05). Overall, racial-ethnic minority respondents were more likely than white respondents to report the negative impacts their dog(s) were having on their relationships.

Although the Bonferroni correction requiring a more stringent p-value could have been used when conducting multiple t-tests, it was not based on the argument that this adjustment is unnecessary (Perneger, 1998). Moreover, the Bonferroni correction has been criticized because it greatly reduces the risk of Type 1 error (finding false positives) and increases the probability of increasing Type 2 error (finding false negatives). In the present study, we wish to encourage further research on these gender and racial-ethnic differences, so we opted to accept the risk of false positives and used the commonly accepted p-value in the social sciences of 0.05.

Two regression analyses revealed the strongest predictors of positive and negative effects a dog(s) had on cohabitant couples’ romantic relationships using gender and race-ethnicity as control variables. Prior to these analyses, the results of Spearman’s correlations showed that there was no multicollinearity among the independent variables for either regression model.

As shown in Table 2, whites were more likely than racial-ethnic minorities to indicate that their partner is a “great dog parent” as previously stated. All three predictor variables: “partners share love for the dog(s)”; “partners play or played more with each other since having a dog”; and “partner thinks the other is a great dog parent” were moderately correlated with each other and with the dependent variable, “the dog(s) have or have had a more positive than negative impact on the relationship with my partner.”

As shown in Table 3, men were more likely than women to agree that “having a dog makes (has made) our life more stressful.” Racial-ethnic minorities were also more likely to report having dog training issues and that the dog(s) interfered with sexual intimacy with their partners than whites. Again, all three predictor variables: “the expense of the dog(s) is something my partner and I argue about”; “we have (have had) disagreements about dog training related issues”; and “having a dog interferes (has interfered) with sexual intimacy between you and your partner” were moderately correlated with each other and with the dependent variable, “having a dog makes (has made) our life more stressful.”

The first regression analysis revealed that the strongest predictors for respondents who reported their dog(s) having a more positive than negative impact on their relationships were sharing their love for the dog(s), playing together more since living with their dog(s) and thinking that their partner is a “great dog parent” as shown in Table 4. However, as seen in Table 5, the strongest predictors for respondents reporting dog(s) bringing stress to their relationships were the expense of having the dog(s), dog training issues, and the dog(s) interference with their sexual intimacies.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. There are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.

The current study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Morehead State University (MSU-IRB 20-11-40), East Carolina University (UMCIRB 20-002414), and University of Central Missouri (UCM Protocol # 1769). The protocols were followed as approved. This declaration was also made in Methods section.

There are no acknowledgments due any individuals beyond the authors.

Conceptualization: DK.

Methodology: DK, JC, ST, EP.

Software: JC, ST.

Validation: JC.

Formal analysis: JC, ST, EP and EL.

Investigation: JC, DK, ST, EP.

Resources: DK, JC, ST, EP.

Data curation: JC, ST.

Writing-original draft: ST.

Writing-review/editing: ST, DK, EP, EL.

Visualization: ST.

Supervision: DK, ST, EP.

Project administration: DK, ST.

Funding acquisition: N/A.

There are no relevant funds to report. No funding source was used during any stage of this research. Data are not available.