Affiliation:
1. Affiliations:
Department of Psychology, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA;
2. Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
Abstract
Abstract
Relationship processes in the human-pet relationship parallel those in the human romantic relationship. In this study, we sought to determine whether the six human romantic love styles – Eros (ideal), Storge (friendship), Ludus (game-playing), Pragma (practical), Mania (obsessive, dependent) and Agape (selfless), represented the human-pet relationship. We wrote 44 pet-human love style items, derived from the Love Attitudes Scale (Hendrick and Hendrick,
1986
). Participants (
N
= 254) completed these 44 pet love style items, along with measures of romantic love styles, general pet attitudes, and pet and romantic relationship satisfaction. We reduced the 44 items to the following five factors: Eros/Storge, Ludus, Pragma, Mania, and Agape. The pet love attitudes were modestly correlated with human romantic love attitudes suggesting people endorse different love attitudes in different relationships. Multiple regression results showed that Eros/Storge and Agape were positively correlated with pet relationship satisfaction, while Mania was negatively correlated. Eros/Storge was the strongest predictor of relationship satisfaction (
β
= 0.68). This is the first study to show that love attitudes apply to human-pet relationships and that certain love attitudes predict a happy relationship with one’s pet.
Reference39 articles.
1. Does a Long-Term Relationship Kill Romantic Love?
2. Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Dorsey Press, Chicago, IL.
3. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (2005) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T. and Zanna, M.P. (eds) The Handbook of Attitudes. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 173–221.
4. Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal.
5. Does social connection turn good deeds into good feelings? On the value of putting the 'social' in prosocial spending