Most pet owners will swear that their animal makes life better, especially during stressful times. A cat settling on your lap, a dog leaning against you after a long day—these moments feel like proof of something genuine.
Scientists have suspected this for decades. However, the evidence backing up this pleasant sensation remains surprisingly mixed. Some studies reveal clear benefits to living with animals. Others find no advantages at all or even uncover negative effects.
A research team in the Netherlands decided to conduct a more thorough investigation. They wanted to learn not only whether pets help, but also how they do so, and whether the assistance provided by cats and dogs differs depending on the type of animal. The study’s findings were published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
For years, one idea has dominated this field. People often believe that animals soothe us best when life becomes stressful, thus acting as a kind of cushion against emotional turmoil. This is called the stress-buffering hypothesis. It sounds obvious, but almost no one has tracked its effects within the chaotic flow of everyday life.
The team of researchers from the Open University in the Netherlands set out to test this directly. They also wondered whether this effect, if it truly exists, would look different for people who love cats and those who love dogs.
The researchers recruited 188 dog and cat owners from the Netherlands and Belgium. Each participant continued living their normal life while an app randomly sent them notifications.
These alerts came up to 10 times a day for five consecutive days. Each time, the owners recorded their mood, stress level, and whether they were interacting with their pet. This method is called ecological momentary assessment. It captures feelings in the moment rather than relying on shaky memories formed weeks later.
In the end, the team gathered nearly 8,000 snapshots in real time. Few studies on pets and emotions reach this scale. The main results were encouraging. Moments of more active interaction with pets were accompanied by more positive emotional responses and fewer negative ones.
The pattern held even after the researchers accounted for age, gender, and whether the owner was alone. Notably, loneliness itself correlated with a worse mood. Thus, the daily joy of spending time with a pet appears genuine. Animals truly seem to brighten small moments.
And then came the first surprise. The benefit did not depend on the species at all.
Dog and cat owners reported nearly identical emotional improvements. The team expected dogs to come out ahead, given their reputation as sociable animals.
“Dog owners likely more often identify as ‘dog people,’ whereas cat owners more often identify as ‘cat people,'” says study co-author Sanne Peters from the Open University. “It’s quite possible that this ‘match’ between owner and pet partly explains why the results turned out so similar for dogs and cats.”
Then came the big question. Does interacting with a pet actually soften the blow of a stressful situation? The answer was no. Overall, cuddling with a pet during a stressful emotional moment did nothing to preserve a good mood.
“Our results show that the stress-buffering mechanism is not the reason for the short-term emotional well-being from interacting with a pet. Interacting with either type of animal did not act as a buffer against negative emotions,” said study co-author Maike Janssens from the Open University. “The positive impact of spending time with pets on well-being does seem to exist, but apparently it’s not because animals help people cope better with stress right at the moment it occurs. More intense interaction with a pet did not provide additional emotional benefits beyond those that might come simply from the animal’s presence.”
For stressed-out cat owners, interacting more frequently with their pet was linked to stronger negative emotions rather than weaker ones.
“With cats, we even noticed that higher levels of interaction were connected to a stronger link between stress and negative emotions in owners,” noted Janssens.
The effect was small, and the sample of cat owners was limited—only 58 individuals. The researchers urge caution before jumping to sweeping conclusions.
“One assumption is that since interaction with cats is often more passive and less demanding, higher levels of interaction might trigger stronger emotions. This may not match the need for support during stressful situations,” explains Peters.
If tension relief isn’t the explanation, then what accounts for the boost?
“Maybe spending time with a pet provides a sense of companionship, and animals help people feel more connected to the world around them and less lonely, which in turn can contribute to better emotional well-being,” said Janssens.
In other words, a pet’s value may lie more in everyday closeness than in rescue. Its worth might show up during ordinary hours rather than tough ones.
So which animal wins in the age-old debate? Based on the data, the answer is neither.
“You can’t claim that one type of animal is better suited as a pet than another,” concludes Peters. “It’s most likely about the owner’s personality and preferences. The main takeaway is that interacting with dogs and cats seems to provide similar emotional benefits.”
The essence of the findings lies not so much in the difference between cats and dogs as in the bond itself. Choose the animal that suits you, and comfort in daily life generally follows on its own.
About the Author
