The authors studied adolescent--pet bonding and bereavement following pet loss. Three hypotheses were entertained: (a) Adolescents who are highly bonded to a pet experience more intense grief when it dies than do those less bonded; (b) degree of bonding, when measured by self-disclosure, is greater for girls than for boys; and (c) intensity of bereavement is greater for girls than for boys. To test the hypotheses and provide descriptive data about bonding to various species, 55 adolescents who had recently experienced pet death were administered background questionnaires, Companion Animal Bonding Scales (Poresky, Hendrix, & Mosier, 1987), Pet Attitude Scales (Poresky, Hendrix, & Mosier, 1988), and Texas Inventory of Grief Scales (Faschingbauer, 1981). Results supported the hypotheses. Suggestions for counselors are offered.

Most children and adolescents at one time or another express a strong desire to own a pet (Kidd & Kidd, 1985; Salmon, 1982). Pets offer affection, intimacy, and unconditional love--all qualities essential for the emotional health and sense of well-being of children (Blue, 1986; Levinson, 1980). For many adolescents, pets serve as silent counselors, best friends, and even surrogate siblings (Arehart-Treichel, 1982; Beck & Katcher, 1983). Although many counselors now recognize the prominent role played by animals in the emotional lives of young people (Barker, 1993), there has been little empirical investigation of the counseling implications of pet death (Sharkin & Bahrick, 1990).

Evidence is accumulating, however, that children develop strong emotional attachments to their pets (Rynearson, 1978; Nieburg, 1981). Such attachments can be as intense as the emotional bonds between people (Karcher & Rosenberg, 1979; Voith, 1985). Once such a bond has formed, the loss of a beloved animal, as that of a family member, is traumatic, For many young people, their first experience with death is that of a pet. It is hardly surprising, then, that pet death is the most frequently reported stressor among preadolescents (Greene & Brooks, 1985). Although not as well researched, adolescents also seem to form strong bonds with animals. For them, bonding provides an anchor during the tumultuous years of puberty--a steady, reliable source of affection in a life filled with insecurity and rapid change.

It is a common observation that a period of bereavement follows the loss of a loved one, whether animal or human. As far as grieving is concerned, there is little difference between loss of human beings and that of pets (Levinson, 1981; Nieburg, 1981). In fact, Quackenbush and Graveline (1985) argued that loss of a pet can evoke the same sequence of psychological reactions as those observed by Kubier-Ross (1969): denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. "So, in many ways, you can expect to grieve for your pet as you would for a human family member" (Quackenbush & Graveline, 1985, p. 34). For adolescents and children alike, bereavement can be intense and lengthy when such a bond is broken (Stewart, 1983).

There are, of course, individual differences in the degree to which someone bonds with an animal. It seems plausible to suppose that intensity of bonding strongly influences the course of bereavement following a pet's death. For young adolescents, many of whom are in the midst of great emotional upheaval, the link between bonding and bereavement should be especially evident. Therefore, the major hypothesis of this investigation is that the strength of the bond between an adolescent and his or her pet will predict the intensity of bereavement following the loss of the animal.

Evidence also shows that bonding, as assessed through self-report, varies according to sex. Kidd & Kidd (1985), for example, found that 94% of the children they surveyed said that they loved their pets, but the boys in their sample reported loving their pets to a significantly lesser degree than did the girls. Interestingly, these same boys described giving and receiving affection from their pets as often as girls did. The boys may have loved their pets as much as the girls, but were less willing to disclose their feelings. Perhaps the reluctance of boys to be so forthright is dictated by a cultural tradition in which men are expected to be less expressive. Whatever the explanation for these effects, a secondary hypothesis of the study is that the degree of bonding, at least when measured by self-disclosure, will be greater for girls than for boys.

The purpose of the current study is twofold: (a) Descriptive data about pet ownership among adolescents and the degree of bonding occasioned by various types of animals is examined; and (b) Test results are reported for the following hypotheses:

 1. The intensity of the bond between an adolescent and a pet will
    predict the intensity of bereavement following the loss of the
    animal. That is, adolescents who are highly bonded to a pet
    will experience more intense grief when it dies than will
    those less bonded.

 2. The degree of bonding, at least when measured by
    self-disclosure, will be greater for girls than for boys.

 3. As a logical consequence of Hypotheses 1 and 2, intensity of
    bereavement will be greater for girls than for boys.

Participants

A total of 55 adolescents (27 boys and 28 girls) between the ages of 12 and 17 years participated in the study. These young people lived in rural and small city environments within a 150 square mile area encompassing parts of northwestern Maryland, southern Pennsylvania, and eastern West Virginia. Most were middle class; all but 4 were White. They had all experienced the death of a pet within the year previous to the study.

Procedure

Young people were recruited from local 4-H and Boy Scout organizations, 9th- and 10th-grade classes at area high schools, and referrals from friends and colleagues (none of the potential participants was known to any of the investigators, however). The senior investigator spoke privately to each about conditions for participation, invited him or her to join the study, and administered a prescreening instrument.

Prescreening. To avoid recording spuriously high levels of grief following pet loss, it was important to minimize the effects of other stressful life events. For this reason, each potential participant was screened with the modified Adolescent Life Change Event Scale (ALCES). The ALCES is a 24-item, self-report measure of stress that has been validated for individuals ranging in age from 12 to 29 years (Forman, Eidson, & Hagan, 1983). Items consist of a rank-order listing of potential life changes that are known to be stressful (pet loss is ranked 11th). Anyone who marked any item more stressful than pet loss was excluded from participation in the study.

Data collection. After the prescreening, those who remained in the study were given the instrument package and provided with directions for completing it. They were also provided with consent forms to be signed by a parent or guardian and stamped, addressed envelopes for returning completed questionnaires.

Measures

Companion Animal Bonding Scale (CABS). The CABS provides a sensitive "assessment of self-reported behavior indicative of the establishment of a bond between a person and an animal" (Poresky, Hendrix, & Mosier, 1987, p. 744). The CABS has been validated for college and high school students (ranging in age from 14 to 47 years); reliability estimates (internal consistency) ranged from .77 to .82 for those samples.

The CABS consists of eight items that ask about a variety of human--animal interactions (e.g., "How often were you responsible for your pet's care?" "How often did you hold, stroke, or caress your pet?" "How often did you sleep near your pet?"). Each item is scored on a 1 to 5 Liken scale (always = 5 to never = 1), and a total score is obtained by summing across items.

Companion Animal Semantic Differential. This instrument, also referred to as the Pet Attitude Scale (PAS), was designed to assess "the respondent's perception of a childhood companion animal" (Poresky, Hendrix, Mosier, 1988, p. 257). The PAS is internally consistent (alphas as high as .90 have been reported), and it is correlated with the CABS (r = .54).

The PAS consists of 18 bipolar, semantic differential word pairs (e.g., beautiful--ugly, kind-cruel, trusting--fearful). To express how they feel about their pets, respondents are instructed to place a check in one of six spaces between word pairs. To reduce acquiescence response set, eight of the items are directionally transposed--that is, the positive adjective appears on the right rather than on the left. Each item is scored so that a higher number indicates a more positive attitude. Total PAS scores are obtained by summing across the 18 scales. As with the CABS, higher PAS scores indicate stronger bonding.

Bereavement. The Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG) is a self-report measure that "permits rapid evaluation of the extremity and nature of an individual's personal reaction to bereavement" (Faschingbauer, 1981, p. 2). Reliabilities of TRIG subscales have been found to range from .70 to .90.

As a warm-up, respondents rate the closeness of their relationship to a pet (e.g., "closer than any relationship I've had before or since with a pet," "closer than most relationships I've had with other pets") and whether the animal's death was expected, unexpected, slow, or sudden. The main body of the TRIG is divided into three parts. The first includes eight items about feelings and actions immediately following the pet's demise (e.g., "I found it hard to do my school work or chores well after my pet died"). Respondents register their reactions on 5-point Likert scales (ranging from completely true to completely false). Items are scored 1 to 5; higher scores indicate more grief. A total (called a "past" score) is obtained by summing across the eight items.

The second part features 13 statements about present feelings (e.g., "I still want to cry when I think of my pet who died"). As with the first, 5-point Likert scales are used to assess levels of grief. A total (called a "present" score) is obtained by summing across the 13 items. As with the past scale, higher scores indicate higher levels of grief. Past and present scores tend to be moderately correlated (in our study, the correlation was .59, p < .001), and a reliable total score can be obtained by summing across the two scales.

The third part contains three true-or-false questions. Respondents are asked whether they feel grieved about the pet who died, whether they are now functioning as well as before the death, and whether they believe they have the same illness as the pet.

After completing the TRIG, respondents were thanked and invited to write down any special thoughts and feelings.

Background information and consent form. Each participant filled out a demographic questionnaire that asked about age, sex, race, education level, religious affiliation, type of pet (e.g., cat, dog, horse), date of the animal's death, family income, and number of other pets and people in the household. A document explaining the nature of the study, the rights and obligations of participants, and a place for parents or guardians to sign for permission to participate was also included.

Preliminary Analyses

Bonding scale reduction. The CABS and PAS yield scores that are incommensurate, but they are intended to measure the same underlying construct. With this in mind, the two bonding scales were reduced to a single continuum:

First, to confirm the notion that the CABS and PAS measure the same construct, the correlation between the two scales was computed. In accord with expectations, the two bonding scales were positively intercorrelated (r = .48, p < .001). This correlation is similar to the one (r = .54) reported by Poresky et al. (1988).

Second, means and standard deviations were obtained for the two scales. Based on these statistics, raw scores were converted to standardized t scores. Third, composite bonding scores were obtained by adding CABS t scores to PAS t scores.

Finally, to create groups of nearly equal size, respondents were ranked according to composite bonding score. The 18 highest scorers were classified as "high bonders" (bonding group = 3); the 18 lowest as "low bonders" (bonding group = 1). The remaining 19 were classifted as "medium bonders" (bonding group = 2).

Grief scale reduction. The combined grief scores were obtained by summing the past and present Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG) scores. In addition, the two warm-up items on the TRIG ("closeness" and "suddenness") were scored on 5-point scales, with higher scores indicating greater closeness or greater suddenness.

Descriptive data and validating correlations. Means and standard deviations for the bonding scales (CABS and PAS), grief scales (Past and Present), closeness to pet, suddenness of death, and the TRIG (third part) items (really grieved, now functioning well, and same illness as pet), are shown in Table 1. These same statistics for background information questionnaire items also are presented.

To check the validity of bonding group (BG) classifications and combined grief scores (Grief), correlations were obtained with all the measures listed in Table 1. If the combined grief scale is valid, it was deemed logical that this scale would be positively correlated with all the bonding and TRIG measures except "now functioning well" (i.e., individuals experiencing more grief probably grieve longer and, as a consequence, are less likely to be "now functioning well"). As can be seen in Table 1, all correlations with grief are positive and significant. It also was anticipated that some measures would be more correlated with bonding and others with grief. For example, it was logical to suppose that ratings of closeness would be more correlated with bonding than with grief, although both would likely be positive. Overall, the pattern of correlations support the validity of the BG and grief scales.

In closing this section, it is interesting to find age negatively correlated with grief, the only significant link with the background indexes. Apparently, older children grieve less following pet loss, or perhaps they admit to grieving less than their younger counterparts.

The first hypotheses was that adolescents who are highly bonded to a pet will experience more intense grief when it dies than those less bonded. Because the TRIG yields two correlated scores (past and present grief), a multivariate analysis was conducted to test this hypothesis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983). A three-group multivariate analysis of variance of the two TRIG scales yielded a significant Wilks's lambda (.662, p < .01). As an aid to interpreting this result, three univariate tests of the same design were conducted on the two TRIG and combined grief scales (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971). All three analyses yielded significant F-ratios, F(2,52) = 4.02, p < .04, for past; F(2,52) = 12.75, p < .01, for present; and F = 11.07, p < .01, for combined grief. The univariate tests are not independent (the pooled within-group correlation was .50), and judgments about respective effects on the individual scales should be avoided. Means and standard deviations of the grief scales as a function of bonding group are shown in Table 2. Collectively, the results supported the first hypothesis. Mean differences favoring high bonders are evident on all three TRIG scales.

To test the notion that bonding (second hypothesis) and grief scores (third hypothesis) are higher for girls than for boys, the data were sorted according to sex. As with the first analysis, there were two correlated dependent variables for each comparison. Two Hotelling T tests, one for each hypothesis, yielded significant results, T(2,52) = .168, p < .05, for the bonding scales; T(2,52) = .269, p < .01, for the grief scales. Means, standard deviations, and univariate t-ratios are shown as a function of sex in Table 3.

As with the first hypothesis, the second and third were supported by the data. Significant differences in the predicted direction were found for all the bonding and grief scales. Especially strong effects were evident on the PAS and the present subscale of the TRIG. There can be little doubt that girls score higher than do boys on both the bonding and grief scales.

The results support all three hypotheses of the study. As shown in Table 2, mean differences in grief scores between high and low bond-ers are substantial (especially on the present scale of the TRIG) and in the direction predicted by Hypothesis 1. These findings accord well with our initial ideas and, assuming the bonds of affection between person and animal are similar in kind to those between humans, with the broader literature on attachment (Bowlby, 1980). As far as adolescents are concerned, the data also support Raphael's (1983) assertion that loss of a pet can be of paramount importance to an adolescent. "If his pet has been a valued source of attachment. as well as serving symbolic needs, he is likely to grieve and mourn for him." (p. 146). Taken at face value, our results suggest that attachment and bereavement go hand in hand.

The data also support our conjecture about girls tending to form deeper bonds with their pets than do boys (Hypothesis 2). As can be seen in Table 3, bonding score means are in the predicted direction and statistically significant, but the distributions overlap. Many boys in our sample scored high on the bonding scales; some girls scored low. The following comment written by a 15-year-old boy is eloquent testimony that boys as well as girls can develop strong bonds with a pet:

Well, my bunny Peter CottonTail (Pete) was 14 years old. . . . He and I would sleep on my uncle's couch in the garage. He was the first pet to belong totally to me. I cared for him . . . I loved Pete. I have nothing now but memories & photos.

Counselors would be well advised to avoid inferring too much about pet bonding on the basis of gender alone.

Our findings also support the notion that girls express more grief than boys do following pet death (Hypothesis 3). Again referring to Table 3, it can be seen that grief score means, like bonding score means, are in the predicted direction and the differences significant. On the present scale of the TRIG, the difference is nearly a full standard deviation--a result that supports the conclusions of Kidd and Kidd (1985) cited earlier. These results also help explain why Quackenbush and Glickman (1984) found that 79% of the 138 young people seeking therapy for pet bereavement were female. Still, there is substantial overlap, and many boys grieve just as deeply over the loss of their pets. Moreover, sex differences may be explained in more than one way. It is not known, for example, whether boys truly experience less grieving or, because of cultural expectations, admit less grieving on questionnaires (Stoddard & Henry, 1985).

Perhaps some of the most useful insights of this study emerged from informal observations and comments written on questionnaires rather than from the quantitative data. When visiting families, it was common for parents to express relief that their son or daughter "had someone to talk to." A 16-year-old girl wrote, "I think it is great that you are this interested in the feelings of people that have lost pets." Another 17-year-old girl added, "I would just like to thank you for doing this project. It really does mean a lot to me knowing that someone is interested in this subject." The major implication for counselors, then, is to treat pet loss and the grief such loss engenders seriously--as seriously as loss of a family member.

Another useful insight emerges from comments about the role of open expression of grief and burial rituals. One youngster wrote about how the family left the veterinarian's office with their euthanized dog and drove to their minister's home to request that he say a prayer over the body. The preacher invited them to bring their deceased pet into the chapel to be placed at the base of the altar. As the family prayed, the minister read scripture and said a closing prayer. The pet was buried beneath its favorite bush in the family's backyard. As other authors have pointed out (e.g., Quackenbush, 1982; Stewart, 1983), a ceremony may help to bring closure to the grieving process.

Based on the literature and our own findings, the following recommendations are offered for counselors dealing with young people who have lost a pet:

 1. As with any grieving person, understand and accept the
    genuineness of the bereavement.

 2. Because society tends to ignore, discount, or trivialize the
    impact of pet loss, some adolescents may repress their
    feelings (Sharkin & Bahrick, 1990). It is therefore important
    to provide validation that such feelings are normal (Carmack,
    1985).

 3. Explain the typical stages of grief, and how they relate to
    the death of a pet.

 4. Recognize that a young person will likely find little social
    support in dealing with the loss of a pet. Alert friends and
    family to the necessity of providing such support.

 5. Explore the depth of the bond that existed with the pet to
    better understand the grief being experienced.

In concluding this discussion, an important limitation of this research should be mentioned. The geographical area where the data were collected yielded homogenous (nearly all White) samples that do not represent the cultural diversity of the nation as a whole. Customs, traditions, and socioeconomic differences elsewhere, especially in urban areas, might mitigate against the anthropomorphic revering of animals so common among our participants. Before counselors in less homogenous settings apply our recommendations, it is important to replicate this research in more culturally diverse geographical regions.

Selected Measures With Bonding Group Classification and Combined Grief Scale

Legend for Chart:

A - Measure
B - M
C - SD
D - Bonding Group
E - Grief

  A                       B         C           D        E

Bonding scales
CABS                    25.33      6.33       .73[b]   .35[b]
PAS                     97.76     10.25       .66[b]   .49[b]

Grief scales
TRIG (Past)             20.35      7.75       .35[b]   .83[b]
TRIG (Present)          42.33     12.21       .57[b]   .94[b]

Additional TRIG items
Closeness to pet         3.71      1.05       .33[b]   .31[a]
Suddenness of death      3.16      1.36      -.13      .30[a]
Really grieved           1.83      0.38       .24[a]   .36[b]
Now functioning well     1.88      0.32      -.01     -.40[b]
Same illness as pet      1.04      0.19       .00      .27[a]

Demographic questionnaire
Age of respondent       15.25      1.58      -.17     -.37[b]
Household size           4.00      0.96      -.22      .00
Number of pets           4.35      5.49       .00      .11
Pet was replaced         1.56      0.50       .05      .05

Note. Underlined correlations are   expected to be higher than
corresponding nonunderlined entries. CABS = Companion Animal
Bonding Scale. PAS = Pet Attitude Scale. TRIG = Texas Revised
Inventory of Grief.

a p < .05. b p < .01.

TRIG Scales as a Function of Bonding Group

Legend for Chart:

A - Grief Scale
B - Bonding Group: Low (n = 18): M
C - Bonding Group: Low (n = 18): SD
D - Bonding Group: Medium (n = 19): M
E - Bonding Group: Medium (n = 19): SD
F - Bonding Group: High (n = 18): M
G - Bonding Group: High (n = 18): SD
H - Total: M
I - Total: SD

 A               B          C          D          E        F
                 G          H          I

Past          17.67       8.01      19.16       7.35     24.28
               6.61      20.35       7.75

Present       34.11      12.81      41.68       8.29     51.22
               8.98      42.33      12.21

Combined      51.78      18.73      60.84      14.14     75.50
              12.26      62.67      17.89

Note. TRIG = Texas Revised Inventory of Grief.

Legend for Chart:

A - Scale
B - Boys (n = 27): M
C - Boys (n = 27): SD
D - Girls (n = 28): M
E - Girls (n = 28): SD
F - t-ratio

  A                       B      C        D       E        F

Bonding scales

CABS                   23.85    6.72    26.75    5.69   -1.73[a]
PAS                    93.89   12.88   101.50    4.56   -2.90[b]
Bonding Composite      93.88   20.35   105.89   11.02   -2.71[b]

Gdef scales

TRIG (Past)            18.63    8.45    22.00    6.74   -1.64[a]
TRIG (Present)         36.70   11.88    47.75    9.99   -3.74[b]
Combined Grief         55.33   17.53    69.75   15.44   -3.24[b]

Note. TRIG = Texas Revised Inventory of Grief.

a p < .05, one-tailed test. b p < .01, one-tailed test.

Arehart-Treichel, J. (1982). Pets: The health benefits. Science
     News, 121, 220-223.

Barker, S. B. (1993). Pet owners no longer grieve alone. American
     Counselor, 2, 26-31.

Beck, A. M., & Karcher, A. H. (1983). Between pets and people. New
     York: Putnam.

Blue, G. F. (1986). The value of pets in children's lives.
     Childhood Education, 24, 85-89.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. III. Loss, sadness
     and depression. New York: Basic Books.

Carmack, B. J. (1985). The effects on family members and
     functioning after death of a pet. Marriage and Family Review.
     8, 149-161.

Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1971). Multivariate data analysis.
     New York: Wiley.

Faschingbauer, T. R. (1981). Texas Revised Inventory of Grief
     Houston, TX: Honeycomb.

Forman, B. D., Eidson, K., & Hagan, B. J. (1983). Measuring
     perceived stress in adolescents: A cross validation.
     Adolescence, 18, 573-576.

Greene, A. L., & Brooks, J. (1985, April). Children's perceptions
     of stressful life events. Poster presented at the biennial
     meeting of Society for Research on Child Development,
     Toronto, Canada.

Katcher, A. H., & Rosenberg, M.A. (1979). Euthanasia and the
     management of the clients' grief. Compendium on Continuing
     Education for the Small Animal Practitioner, 2, 177-122.

Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1985). Children's attitudes toward
     their pets. Psychology Reports, 57, 15-31.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.
     Levinson, B. M. (1980). The child and his pet: A world of
     nonverbal communication. In S. A. Corson & E. O. Corson
     (Eds.), Ethology and nonverbal communication in mental
     health. Oxford: Pergamon.

Levinson, B. M. (1981). Human grief in the loss of an animal
     companion. Foundation of Thanatology: Archives, 9, 5.

Nieburg, H. A. (1981). Pathologic grief response to pet loss.
     Foundation of Thanatology: Archives, 9, 7.

Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., & Mosier, J. E. (1987). The Companion
     Animal Bonding Scale: Internal reliability and construct
     validity. Psychological Reports, 60, 743-746.

Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., & Mosier, J. E. (1988). The Companion
     Animal Semantic Differential: Long and short form reliability
     and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48,
     255-260.

Quackenbush, J. E. (1982). The social context of pet loss. Animal
     Health Technician, 3, 333-337.

Quackenbush, J. E., & Glickman, L. (1984). Helping people adjust
     to the death of a pet. Health and Social Work, 9, 42-48.

Quackenbush, J. E. & Graveline, D. (1985). When your pet dies: How
     to cope with your feelings. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Raphael, B. (1983). The anatomy of bereavement. New York: Basic
     Books. Rynearson, E. K. (1978). Humans and pets and
     attachment. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 550-555.

Salmon, A. (1982). Montreal children in the light of the test of
     animal infinities. Annals Medico-Psychologiques, 140,
     207-224.

Sharkin, B. S., & Bahrick, A. S. (1990). Pet loss: Implications
     for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68,
     306-308.

Stewart, M. (1983). Loss of a pet-loss of a person. In A. H.
     Karcher & A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives
     with companion animals. Philadelphia: University of
     Pennsylvania.

Stoddard, J. B., & Henry, J. P. (1985). Affectional bonding and
     the impact of bereavement. Advances, 2, 19-28.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate
     statistics. New York: Harper & Row.

Voith, V. L. (1985). Attachment of people to companion animals.
     Veterinary Clinics of Noah America, 15, 289-295.

~~~~~~~~

By Brenda H. Brown, Herbert C. Richards, and Carol A. Wilson