Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to dogs (or cats) can evoke stereotypical temperaments and behaviors associated with these pet species, thereby activating a promotion-focused or prevention-focused motivational mindset. Although the effects of pet exposure on consumer judgments and behaviors have been established, the health consequences of these effects remain unclear. Evidence indicates that promotion-focused individuals tend to be more risk-seeking, while prevention-focused individuals are more concerned with safety. Based on these findings, we predicted that individuals exposed to dogs would be less likely to comply with health measures during a pandemic compared to those exposed to cats, due to their differing regulatory focuses. In Study 1, we found that dog owners self-reported less adherence to virus-containment behaviors than cat owners. Moving beyond correlational evidence and self-report measures, Study 2 revealed that individuals who recalled experiences of interacting with dogs exhibited less actual virus-mitigation behavior compared to those who recalled experiences with cats. Using a different priming procedure involving the viewing of pet pictures, Study 3 replicated the findings of Study 2. Furthermore, the results indicated that regulatory focus mediated this effect. Together, these findings suggest that pet exposure influences individuals’ health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic through regulatory fit.
BaoK. J.SchreerG. (2016). Pets and happiness: Examining the association between pet ownership and wellbeing. Anthrozoös, 29(2), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1152721
2.
BarghJ. A.ChenM.BurrowsL. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.230
3.
BarklamE. B.FelisbertiF. M. (2023). Pet ownership and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: The importance of resilience and attachment to pets. Anthrozoös, 36(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2022.2101248
4.
BianR.SunF.LinZ.GaoQ.YuanX.XieA. (2020). The moderating role of interviewer's regulatory focus in the effectiveness of impression management tactics: Regulatory fit as a source of subjective value. British Journal of Psychology, 111(2), 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12403
5.
BolderoJ. M.HigginsE. T. (2011). Regulatory focus and political decision making: When people favor reform over the status quo. Political Psychology, 32(3), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00814.x
6.
BradshawJ. (2012). Dog sense: How the new science of dog behavior can make you a better friend to your pet.
7.
BradshawJ. (2013). Cat sense: How the new feline science can make you a better friend to your pet. Basic Books (AZ).
8.
BrocknerJ.HigginsE. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2972
9.
CampagnoloE. R.PhilippL. M.LongJ. M.HanshawN. L. (2018). Pet-associated campylobacteriosis: A persisting public health concern. Zoonoses and Public Health, 65(3), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12389
10.
CesarioJ. (2014). Priming, replication, and the hardest science. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 9(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613513470
11.
ChernevA. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1086/425090
CurbL. A.AbramsonC. I.GriceJ. W.KennisonS. M. (2013). The relationship between personality match and pet satisfaction among dog owners. Anthrozoös, 26(3), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713x13697429463673
14.
Dalla VillaP.MessoriS.PossentiL.BarnardS.CianellaM.Di FrancescoC. (2013). Pet population management and public health: A web service based tool for the improvement of dog traceability. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 109(3-4), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.10.016
15.
de BuisonjeD. R.RitterS. M.de BruinS.ter HorstJ. M. L.MeeldijkA. (2017). Facilitating creative idea selection: The combined effects of self-affirmation, promotion focus and positive affect. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1303308
El-AlayliA.LystadA. L.WebbS. R.HollingsworthS. L.CiolliJ. L. (2006). Reigning cats and dogs: A pet-enhancement bias and its link to pet attachment, pet-self similarity, self-enhancement, and well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2802_3
18.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). Gpower: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03203630
19.
GoslingS. D.BonnenburgA. V. (1998). An integrative approach to personality research in anthrozoology: Ratings of six species of pets and their owners. Anthrozoös, 11(3), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279398787000661
20.
GraupenspergerS.LeeC. M.LarimerM. E. (2021). Young adults underestimate how well peers adhere to COVID-19 preventive behavioral guidelines. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 42(3), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-021-00633-4
21.
GüneşS.BulutB. P. (2021). Health anxiety during COVID-19: Predictive roles of health promoting behaviors and sensory processing sensitivity. The Journal of Psychology, 156(3), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2021.2012110
22.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?The Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
23.
HigginsE. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340.
HirschenhauserK.MeichelY.SchmalzerS.BeetzA. M. (2017). Children love their pets: Do relationships between children and pets co-vary with taxonomic order, gender, and age?Anthrozoös, 30(3), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1357882
26.
HoJ.HussainS.SparaganoO. (2021). Did the COVID-19 pandemic spark a public interest in pet adoption?Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 647308. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.647308
27.
HongB.BonczakB. J.GuptaA.ThorpeL. E.KontokostaC. E. (2021). Exposure density and neighborhood disparities in COVID-19 infection risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(13), e2021258118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021258118
JanssensM.EshuisJ.PeetersS.LatasterJ.ReijndersJ.Enders-SlegersM. J.JacobsN. (2020). The pet-effect in daily life: An experience sampling study on emotional wellbeing in pet owners. Anthrozoös, 33(4), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1771061
30.
JezierskiT.CamerlinkI.PedenR. S.ChouJ. Y.SztandarskiP.MarchewkaJ. (2021). Cat owners’ perception on having a pet cat during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One, 16(10), e0257671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257671
31.
JiaL.YangX.JiangY. (2022). The pet exposure effect: Exploring the differential impact of dogs versus cats on consumer mindsets. Journal of Marketing, 86(5), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221078036
32.
JuI.OhsJ.ParkT.HinsleyA. (2023). Interpersonal communication influence on health-protective behaviors amid the COVID-19 crisis. Health Communication, 38(3), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1956038
33.
KaimA.Siman-TovM.JaffeE.AdiniB. (2021). Effect of a concise educational program on COVID-19 vaccination attitudes. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 767447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.767447
34.
KalwijA. (2023). Risk preferences, preventive behaviour, and the probability of a loss: Empirical evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Science & Medicine, 334, 116169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116169
35.
Kanat-MaymonY.AntebiA.Zilcha-ManoS. (2016). Basic psychological need fulfillment in human–pet relationships and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.025
36.
KumarV.SoodA.GuptaS.SoodN. (2021). Prevention-versus promotion-focus regulatory efforts on the disease incidence and mortality of COVID-19: A multinational diffusion study using functional data analysis. Journal of International Marketing, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031x20966563
37.
KusaharaM. (2001). The art of creating subjective reality: An analysis of Japanese digital pets. Leonardo, 34(4), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1162/00240940152549203
LatkinC. A.DaytonL.KaufmanM. R.SchneiderK. E.StricklandJ. C.KonstantopoulosA. (2022). Social norms and prevention behaviors in the United States early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 27(1), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.2004315
40.
LeeC. T.KanjiR.WangA. H.MamujiA.RozdilskyJ.ChuT. (2021). Cultural contexts during a pandemic: A qualitative description of cultural factors that shape protective behaviours in the Chinese-Canadian community. BMC Public Health, 21, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11928-w
41.
LiH. (2021). Follow or not follow? The relationship between psychological entitlement and compliance with preventive measures to the COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences, 174, 110678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110678
42.
LiH. (2023). I belong, therefore I am: The role of economic culture in compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures. International journal of intercultural relations: IJIR, 96, 101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101856
43.
LiH.CaoY. (2022). Rules we live by: How religious beliefs relate to compliance with precautionary measures against COVID-19 in Tibetan Buddhists. Journal of Religion and Health, 61(2), 1671–1683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01512-w
44.
LiN.LiuY. (2012). A comparison of cultural connotations between Chinese and English animal words. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2178. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.2178-2182
45.
LibermanN.FörsterJ. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015671
46.
LiuY.ChangX.YangS.LiZ.WuY. (2024). “Pets make you spend more!” Impact of pet ownership on consumer purchase decisions. Journal of Business Research, 183, 114838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114838
47.
LockwoodP.JordanC. H.KundaZ. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(4), 854.
48.
LuJ. G.JinP.EnglishA. S. (2021). Collectivism predicts mask use during COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(23), e2021793118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021793118
49.
MarksS. G.KoepkeJ. E.BradleyC. L. (1994). Pet attachment and generativity among young adults. The Journal of Psychology, 128(6), 641–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9921292
50.
Martinez-CajaA. M.De HerdtV.Enders-SlegersM. J.MoonsC. P. H. (2022). Pet ownership, feelings of loneliness, and mood in people affected by the first COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 57, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2022.09.008
51.
MoyaC.KlineM. A.SmaldinoP. E. (2020). Dynamics of behavior change in the COVID world. American Journal of Human Biology, 32(5), 6.
52.
OiknineA. H.PollardK. A.KhooshabehP.FilesB. T. (2021). Need for cognition is positively related to promotion focus and negatively related to prevention focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 606847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.606847
53.
Owczarczak-GarsteckaS. C.GrahamT. M.ArcherD. C.WestgarthC. (2021). Dog walking before and during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: Experiences of UK dog owners. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126315
54.
PayneB. K.Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LoerschC. (2016). Replicable effects of primes on human behavior. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 145(10), 1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000201
55.
PhillipouA.TanE. J.TohW. L.Van RheenenT. E.MeyerD.NeillE.SumnerP. J.RossellS. L. (2021). Pet ownership and mental health during COVID-19 lockdown. Australian Veterinary Journal, 99(10), 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.13102
56.
PooleK. (2015). The contextual cat: Human–animal relations and social meaning in Anglo-Saxon England. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(3), 857–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-014-9208-9
57.
PotterA.MillsD. S. (2015). Domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) do not show signs of secure attachment to their owners. PLoS One, 10(9), e0135109. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135109
58.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879
RodriguesD. L.LopesD.BalzariniR. N. (2022). Having a prevention regulatory focus longitudinally predicted distress and health-protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stress and health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 38(4), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3132
61.
SableP. (1995). Pets, attachment, and well-being across the life cycle. Social work, 40(3), 334–341.
ShankaM. S.MeneboM. M. (2022). When and how trust in government leads to compliance with COVID-19 precautionary measures. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1275–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.036
64.
StullJ. W.BrophyJ.WeeseJ. S. (2015). Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections. Cmaj, 187(10), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.141020
65.
XinX.ChengL.LiS.FengL.XinY.WangS. (2021). Improvement to the subjective well-being of pet ownership may have positive psychological influence during COVID-19 epidemic. Animal Science Journal, 92(1), e13624. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13624
66.
ZhouR.PhamM. T. (2004). Promotion and prevention across mental accounts: When financial products dictate consumers& investment goals. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 125–135.
