Pets could boost wellbeing as much as a wife or husband, study suggests
Having a cat or a dog to keep you company could boost your wellbeing as much as being married or meeting up regularly with friends and relatives, new research suggests.
The study, which was published on March 31 in the journal Social Indicators Research, concludes that having an animal companion is worth up to £70,000 ($90,000) a year in life satisfaction – a metric economists use to quantify the 'implicit price' of otherwise intangible things.
That figure is roughly the same as the theoretical boost in income you would get from having a spouse or meeting up with friends and relatives regularly, researchers said, comparing their findings with other studies that have used the same statistical method.
The results surprised even the researchers. 'First when I obtained the values I was surprised; I was thinking that is a lot of money even for me who loves (pets),' said Adelina Gschwandtner, an economics professor at the University of Kent, who co-authored the paper.
Then, she thought, 'most people claim that their pets are like friends or family members to them, so that is comparable,' she told CNN.
'If pets are indeed like friends and family, why shouldn't that measure be comparable to talking to friends and family once a week? You have your pet every day.'
Although the mental and physical health benefits of having a dog, in particular, are well known, there is more debate among scientists surrounding the overall impact of pets on their owners' wellbeing.
'(It's) a little bit more complex than people think,' says Megan Mueller, an associate professor at Tufts University, who studies the relationship between people and animals and wasn't involved in this study.
'A lot of us perceive our pets as contributing to our life satisfaction but depending on how you measure that in the research it comes out different ways,' she told CNN, adding that she was unfamiliar with the specific statistical analysis Gschwandtner used in this study.
In their study, Gschwandtner and her co-author Michael Gmeiner, an assistant profes sor of economics at the London School of Economics, used data collected in a long-running survey of 2,500 British households.
Rather than simply comparing life satisfaction and pet ownership, which would reveal little except a correlation between the two variables, the economists then set about proving a causal link.
To do this, they used a complicated statistical tool known as an instrumental variables approach. This works by finding 'a third variable which is correlated with … in our case the pets but is not correlated with life satisfaction,' Gschwandtner explained.
'And so what this variable tries to capture is potential omitted variables, potential reverse causation.'
For example, the authors wrote, 'It could be that happy and healthy people decide to take a pet as a companion rather than pets making people happy and healthy.' So, in their research, they used survey data on personality types as well as pet ownership and life satisfaction, to control for this factor.
If pets improve life satisfaction as much as the study suggests, Gschwandtner called on policymakers to make it easier for people to own them, for example by relaxing regulations that restrict renters' access to them.
However, Mueller cautioned against 'anthropomorphizing pets too much' and equating our relationships with them to our relationships with other humans.
'There's some elements that are similar,' she said. 'And we know that social support and emotional support are really key aspects of human-pet relationships that are also the same types of support we get from our human social connections… While animals are connected to us in powerful ways, they are not the same as humans.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Just how psychopathic are surgeons?
These are the people we trust to hold a sharpened knife above our bare bellies and press down until they see blood. We let them tinker with our hearts, brains and bowels while we lie unconscious beneath their gloved hands. Surgeons live in a world of terrifying margins, where the difference of a millimetre can be the difference between life and death. That level of precision demands an extraordinary calm, or what you could also call a cold detachment. But what happens when that same self-possession curdles into something darker? In recent weeks, two surgeons have made headlines for all the wrong reasons. In France, Joël Le Scouarnec was sentenced for abusing hundreds of children – some while they lay anaesthetised in his care. In the UK, plastic surgeon Peter Brooks was convicted of the attempted murder of fellow consultant Graeme Perks, whom he stabbed after breaking into his home in Nottinghamshire. Today, Brooks was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years at Loughborough Courthouse. It would, of course, be absurd to taint an entire profession with the acts of two individuals. But it does resurface a long-standing, uncomfortable question: might the very traits that make a surgeon brilliant also mask something far more troubling? 'When people hear the word psychopath, they tend to think of serial killers and rapists,' says Dr Kevin Dutton, a psychologist and the author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths. 'But the truth is that certain psychopathic traits – focus, emotional dispassion, ruthlessness, self-confidence – can predispose you to success, and in an operating theatre, they really come to the fore.' Dutton has spent much of his career trying to prove that 'bad psychopaths' – people who have these characteristics but who can't regulate them – are the ones who commit crimes. A 'good psychopath', by contrast, is someone who can dial those qualities up and down at whim. He recalls one neurosurgeon who was regularly brought to tears by bits of classical music, but who also said, 'Emotion is entropy. I have hunted it to extinction over the years.' Similarly, a cardiothoracic surgeon told him that once a patient was under, he no longer saw them as a person – just a piece of meat. 'Once you care, you are walking an emotional tightrope,' says Dutton, 'but if you see the human body in front of you as a puzzle to solve, then you are more likely to save their life.' Gabriel Weston, a London-based surgeon and the author of Direct Red: A Surgeon's Story, describes her profession as one that requires you to 'flick off a switch'. Sent to boarding school at a young age (much of British surgery is the product of elite schools), Weston learnt early how to detach emotionally – a skill she found served her well in the theatre. 'If you asked my family, they'd say I'm very emotional in that I cry in films or at art or literature,' she says. 'But there's a ruthless part of me. I use that in surgery – and in other parts of life where emotion just gets in the way.' Over time, Weston learnt to distinguish between two kinds of surgeons: those who switch their feelings back on once they leave the operating room, and those who never do. 'They don't just have psychopathic traits,' she says. 'They live in that space permanently.' They can also come with a reputation for being not just difficult, but dangerous. Harry Thompson*, a British abdominal surgeon, describes a world of towering egos and simmering aggression. 'If you think about it, all surgeons were in the top five of their class,' he says. 'They are all very competitive, and many play sports: they want to prove they are better than everyone. And if you are at the forefront of major surgery, you think you are invincible. It's a boiling-house environment of jealousy, envy and hatred.' He recalls one consultant who stabbed a plain-clothes policeman with a disposable scalpel after being stopped for speeding en route to the theatre. Another smashed a ward office clock when a nurse arrived five minutes late. Physical assaults were, he says, more common than you would think. 'I was in one operation when a student, John, was an hour and a half late, because he overslept. The surgeon thumped the student's head against the theatre wall until he was unconscious, screamed, 'Nobody move!' then started kicking him. No one ever saw John again.' Nor is the patient always spared. 'When I was training, I saw one surgeon thump a patient for removing a drain from his own bottom after an operation because it had become painful,' says Thompson. 'The patient only admitted this (in tears) after the surgeon had made the nurses and junior doctors line up and interrogated each one in turn about who had done it.' Thompson used to work with Simon Bramhall – the liver surgeon who made headlines and was later struck off for branding his initials onto patients' livers using a laser. 'Simon had always been a bit mad,' says Thompson. 'He was fascinated by the programme Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) and he always wore a white suit [like the character Hopkirk], tie, shoes and socks.' As for tattooing his patients' organs: the initials were discovered by his colleagues only during a second surgery when his once-subtle etching was now grotesquely enlarged by liver damage. While Bramhall's actions sparked public outrage, some in the medical community were nonplussed. Perhaps because this is a far more commonplace occurrence than we realise: an article in Harper's Magazine cited examples of anonymous ophthalmic surgeons who had lasered their initials onto retinas, and orthopaedic surgeons who had etched theirs into bone cement. 'Why would you do that? Ego, of course,' says Dutton, 'and it isn't incidental in surgery. It's selected for. From the moment you start training, you have to fight – quite literally – for your space at the operating table.' Dutton researched which of the various disciplines within the profession had the highest rates of psychopathy, and the results are revealing. Number one is neurosurgery (which is bad luck for any fans of Grey's Anatomy), followed by cardiothoracic or heart surgery and then orthopaedic. 'The last one is brutal as you have to smash people's bones,' says Dutton. 'Cardio more than anything is about life and death, but neurosurgery is particularly interesting to me. I think it's because this is the only branch of surgery where, if something goes wrong, you leave the patient permanently crippled or blinded or incapacitated, so only very few people can take such a calculated risk under pressure.' And though these traits are often seen as typically male, women are by no means exempt. Weston says the most difficult surgeon she ever worked under was a woman. 'She was very attractive and well-liked – mostly for being gorgeous and good at her job – but privately she made my life hell. Maybe she didn't like another woman being on the team but she did that horrible thing that women do of presenting this incredibly benign face while being very cruel in private. For months, she blamed me for mistakes that weren't mine, stole credit for my diagnoses, and made me feel like my surgical skills were terrible. She was truly villainous.' And yet, Weston admits, the operating theatre offers her a rare freedom: 'If you are a woman who is quite tough and unsentimental, surgery is a really amazing environment in which you can be yourself. There are many areas of my life – mainly motherhood, but also writing – where there is an expectation that I will be softer than I am. Like Simone de Beauvoir, I find it very freeing not to be pleasant.' Perhaps there is something in all of this (criminal and violent behaviour aside) that we, as patients, secretly find reassuring. We don't want our surgeons to hesitate. We don't want them to be emotional or anxious. We want them to be brilliant: laser-focused, supremely confident, even terrifying if that's what it takes to save us. In life, we dislike arrogance. On the operating table, many of us yearn for it. 'I had one boss,' says Thompson, 'a French surgeon. He used to say: 'There are the porters, the nurses, the managers – and then there are the surgeons. Above them, God. And above God? Me.'' *Names have been changed Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Is Elon Musk Tweeting About Me at 3 A.M.?
If elected, I would be the poorest member of Congress—and the world's richest man just attacked me in a 3:00 am tweet for supporting universal healthcare. You might have seen a clip of me on CNN last week, debating with Scott Jennings on whether healthcare is a basic human right. In that clip, Jennings—a long-time Republican strategist and pro-Trump contributor at CNN—asks, 'Even illegals?' To which I respond, 'Every single person in the world deserves healthcare... How is this controversial?' It shouldn't be controversial. And I'm not afraid to say that as a person or as a congressional candidate. The state of our country's healthcare has been front and center for many Americans over the last few weeks, as President Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' threatens healthcare coverage for 11 million people—including thousands of families right here in Illinois' Ninth Congressional District, where I am running. Why? So Republicans can slash taxes for the ultra-rich, decimate oversight for AI, and spend $125 billion on a 'Golden Dome' which will make America less safe – all for the low, low price of workers' health, food, and clean air. Our healthcare system is one of the worst in the developed world. Medical debt is the cause of 66% of bankruptcies in the US. In Canada, the runner up in this bleak competition, that number is 19%. We spend more on healthcare than any other wealthy country and yet have the worst outcomes. We take Ubers instead of ambulances, take fish antibiotics instead of prescriptions, and often skip medical treatment altogether because of the expected cost. These hardships are uniquely American. In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights to Congress, encouraging legislators to enshrine into law additional rights not already enumerated in the Constitution. His proposals were prescient, reflecting trials many Americans face today: the right to earn a decent living, the right to trade free of monopolies, the right to education. He also said that every American should be guaranteed 'the right to medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.' Congress did not pass it. It's been more than 80 years since FDR proposed his Second Bill of Rights and healthcare is still not a legal right for any American. While the Affordable Care Act made progress on this front, treatment and prescription costs are still expensive, insurance bureaucracy is still predatory, and most Americans' coverage is still tied to their employment. I lost my own health insurance for over a year when I was laid off last May. Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would continue the death by a thousand cuts approach to the ACA that Republicans have pushed every time they're in power. Donald Trump and the Republicans want to make this worse. By creating even more hoops for Americans to jump through just to get care that is often lackluster, by demonizing the poor, and by insisting healthcare is something you must earn, this administration is bragging about its own inhumanity. When I said, 'Every person in the world deserves healthcare,' Jennings couldn't fathom that idea. His first instinct was to blurt out, 'Even illegals?' The answer is yes. If you are a person, you deserve healthcare, no matter where you are or who you are. No one deserves to die because they can't afford insulin or because they're too scared of bankruptcy to seek medical attention. If you show up at my doorstep starving or injured, I am not going to ask for papers before I help you. Conservatives struggle with this idea. Elon Musk seems to think this idea and my comments are 'suicidal empathy.' Illinois Republicans were so incensed that my campaign office stocks food, clothes, and other resources for whoever needs them, that they thought I was somehow breaking the law. But in most other wealthy countries, this mindset is barbaric. In much of the rest of the world, if you need care, you get it. In fact, I have needed to see an emergency doctor in three foreign countries since I was a kid and all of those visits cost less than any urgent care clinic visit I've had in the United States. But when you say any of this, the Republican instinct is to ask, 'How will we pay for this?' The answer is pretty simple and we've known it for a long time. Universal, single-payer healthcare—a system where our tax dollars pay for our healthcare without the private insurance middleman—would actually save us money and lead to better health outcomes. We save lives, reduce waste, and guarantee a baseline of human dignity. Of course, predatory insurance companies would lose the ability to profit off of our basic existence, but that's a sacrifice we should all be willing to make. One of the main reasons I'm running for Congress is because our leaders have conditioned us into thinking we don't deserve good things, especially if we aren't rich. But we do. You do. Every American deserves to afford housing, groceries, and healthcare with money left over to save and spend. We deserve to thrive, not just survive. And every single human being in every single country deserves to know that they can find the help they need on the worst day of their lives, when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable. For most Americans this concept isn't hard to grasp, but when it comes to Elon Musk and right-wing pundits, they simply can't fathom having even an ounce of basic humanity.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
What if your house changed color with the seasons? This ‘climate-responsive' paint could make it happen
Editor's Note: Design for Impact is a series spotlighting innovative solutions for communities affected by the climate crisis, natural disasters and other humanitarian emergencies. When Joe Doucet bought a new house in Katonah, New York, he wanted to make it as environmentally friendly as possible. As a designer and inventor, he immediately found himself wondering whether the exterior of his home could play a role in mitigating the effects of climate change. 'One of the things I had not really considered before was: What color should I paint the house?' he told CNN, speaking in a video call. It's well known that light-colored buildings reflect heat and stay cooler while darker ones absorb — just compare chilly Scandinavia's black housing tradition to the whitewashed homes found across warm Mediterranean countries. But what shade would perform best in a climate like New York's, with hot summers but dark and snowy winters? Doucet started by 3D-printing small scale models of his house, complete with similar levels of insulation, and painting them in different colors. Over the course of a year, he found that in winter the inside temperature of the black model was on average 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the white one. In summer, the white model house was 12 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. 'The answer wasn't, 'Should I paint it black or white?' The answer was: It should be black in winter and white in summer,' he said of the findings. 'It is not really feasible to paint a house twice a year. I began to think, 'Surely there are other ways of doing this?'' Doucet's solution was inspired by his childhood interest in mood rings, which feature manmade 'stones' that change appearance according to the wearer's finger temperature. 'I recall a fascination I had with a mood ring I received as a child and really trying to dig in and understand what it was,' he explained. 'I knew, even as 7-year-old, that (the ring's changing color) had nothing to do with my mood, that there was some type of chemistry at play. The chemistry that creates that change is very, very similar to what I used.' The process in question is called a thermochromic response, which refers to how chains of liquid crystals react to atmospheric temperature. In a mood ring, these liquid crystals are contained within the 'gemstone,' causing its color to change. Doucet developed a kind of thermochromic pigment containing the crystals and started experimenting with a tin of ordinary housepaint and different additives. The result was a substance that could change color by absorbing ultra-violet light (which produces heat) above a certain temperature. Despite what he called the 'great success' of his initial trials, Doucet found his new paints would slowly degrade in the sunlight. But after experimenting for another year, the designer solved the issue with the help of a protective additive. His climate-responsive paint, as he dubs it, appears 'very, very dark gray' below 77 degrees Fahrenheit and gradually turns lighter as the temperature rises. Doucet has since filed a patent application for the technology. He admits his invention won't be especially useful for people in consistently hot or cold climates. But Doucet believes his paint could be a 'game changer' for those living in the world's temperate zones — including large parts of North America, Europe and Asia — where average temperatures are typically higher than 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the warmest months but no lower than 26.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the coldest. Last year was the hottest year on record. It was also the first calendar year to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a critical climate threshold. Doucet sees his invention as a direct response to this changing climate, rather than innovative new technology: 'This could have been done 70 years ago, there was just no need for it,' he explained. 'Climate change wasn't an issue at the time.' But more than helping homeowners respond to rising temperatures, Doucet's invention could have an impact on their climate pollution amid increasing energy costs and dependence on air conditioning (in 2020, 88% of US households used AC, up from 77% two decades ago). The operation of buildings accounts for 30% of global energy consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. But homes with improved thermal control consume less power by reducing demand for both air conditioning and heating. Doucet's modeling 'conservatively' predicts his paint could help households save between 15% to 30% on their energy costs. Beyond the science, Doucet believes there is beauty in the idea that buildings might shift with the seasons, like the leaves on a tree. 'There's something poetic about seeing the built environment and the built world change with the seasons in the way nature does,' he said. He also notes that new climate-responsive paints need not only change from white to black: 'You can tint this pretty much any color,' he explained. A house could turn light blue in warmer months before turning a darker blue in the wintertime, he offered as an example. So, with his prototype technology developed, how long until people can paint their houses with it? 'Five to 10 years,' said Doucet, caveating that its proliferation will depend on how people react to it. So far, he said, responses have ranged from 'amazing' to 'I don't believe you.' The changing political climate may also impact his product's route to market. President Donald Trump's promise to 'terminate' his predecessor Joe Biden's clean energy policies — which he has called the 'Green New Scam' — has created an uncertain climate for eco-investing. Doucet, who is also involved with an wind energy venture, says the resulting change in how investors respond to green projects has made him reluctant to raise venture capital and go at it alone. Instead, he hopes to find a partner that can bring the invention to market, like a paint company, a chemical company or some combination of both. 'When situations change,' he said, referencing the Trump administration's plans to cut subsidies and tax rebates for clean energy projects, 'you need to change with them.' Nevertheless, Doucet appears confident that his creation has a potentially huge market. Not only could the paint be used on homes, but also larger buildings like schools, factories and other structures requiring a controlled internal environment. Though he is careful not to oversell the impact of his invention. 'There is no single solution to climate change. It's a series of steps and small actions,' he said. 'But this could be a meaningful one.'
