The Truth about Cats and Dogs

Two recent articles have attempted to quantify the difference between cat people and dog people, using different data sets and different measures. In both cases, dogs appear to come out ahead – but as with all quantitative studies, it’s ultimately a matter of interpretation.

The Washington Post reports that dog owners are happier than cat owners, according to the 2018 General Social Survey, which, for the first time, asked questions about pet ownership. Here are the general conclusions:

For starters, there is little difference between pet owners and non-owners when it comes to happiness, the survey shows. The two groups are statistically indistinguishable on the likelihood of identifying as “very happy” (a little over 30 percent) or “not too happy” (in the mid-teens).

But when you break the data down by pet type — cats, dogs or both — a stunning divide emerges: Dog owners are about twice as likely as cat owners to say they’re very happy, with people owning both falling somewhere in between.

Dog people, in other words, are slightly happier than those without any pets. Those in the cat camp, on the other hand, are significantly less happy than the pet-less. And having both appears to cancel each other out happiness-wise.

This graphic tells the story:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, coincidence is not causation. It is possible that dogs do more than cats to make people happy, or it could be that happy people just prefer dogs. Maybe depressed people tend to adopt cats, which doesn’t fully cheer them up. What we really need is a study that measures net incremental happiness, starting with a pre-pet baseline.

Meanwhile, The Conversation reports a similar result, in that dog owners appear to value their pets more highly than do cat owners, which more or less supports the theory that dogs make people happier. Not only do dog owners spend more on their pets -- which makes sense, given that dogs tend to be bigger and therefore eat more food and require more expensive boarding -- but they are also willing to spend more on life-saving medical care: "Dog owners, on average, said they would pay $10,689 to save the life of their pet, whereas cat owners offered less than half that."

This being a psychology experiment, rather than a population study, the researcher offered an explanation: 

These findings establish that psychological ownership is a driving factor in dog owners’ higher valuations.

People feel ownership because they perceive that they can control their pets’ behavior. This research even distinguishes the type of control that probably most stimulates ownership feelings: It’s not just physical control, such as being able to pick up an animal or drag it by a leash. Rather, it’s the animal’s voluntary compliance with its owner’s wishes.

No matter how cute and cuddly your kitties may be, they can’t compete with dogs when it comes to giving pet owners the sense of mastery they seek.

You can draw your own conclusions about the validity of these observations, which may well be influenced by your own animal companion preferences. I offer them here only as an example of the contingent nature of quantitative studies, where interpretations -- about cats and dogs, and everything else -- depend heavily on our priors. As a dog-owning young friend of mine put it, "I just think cats suck and want to selectively use data to support my case."

Comments

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

I have drawn my own conclusions:

I am curious as to what counts for “happiness” (I cannot access the article so perhaps that is explained) and to what extent that (however defined or understood) is amenable to measurement (I am rather skeptical with regard to the possibility of measuring ‘net incremental happiness’). Is it based solely on self-reporting? Are we immune from self-deception and wishful thinking when it comes to our sense or feelings of happiness? Do our respondents or subjects share the same meaning of happiness? I spoke to some of the relevant questions here: https://www.religiousleftlaw.com/2019/04/preliminary-musings-on-happiness.html

The second, psychological study strikes me as rather strange, at least in our family’s case, as a “sense of mastery” seems rather elusive and the idea that we “own” our dog silly (the notion being relevant only for legal purposes; we feel our dog to be a part of the family and that his welfare and care are first and foremost in our minds) and in fact I continue to derive pleasure from seeing our dog do things that (apparently) express his own desires or wishes: for example, on a walk, he will suddenly stop and refuse to move, letting us know it is time to turn around and go home; he will let out a brief whine at us if our attention is devoted to much to each other over a considerable length of time at his apparent expense; he paws at the blankets to let us know he wants under them; stares patiently and quietly at us if we are eating something he knows we will share with him (having done so in the past); his nose is glued to the bottom of the front door and his tail wags if someone has arrived who knows us (even if yet only inside a vehicle of some kind), especially a close friend or relative, otherwise he will bark at someone near the front door, etc. etc. My spouse occasionally shows voluntary compliance with my wishes ... as will I occasionally do so with hers: that has not led me to be believing I have anything like control over her behavior, let alone a feeling of ownership (the same holds for our beloved dog).

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

erratum: ...if our attention is devoted too much to each other...

[Steve L.]

Why can't you access the WaPo article, Patrick? It is paywalled, but you get 10 free articles every month.(Or have you already used them this month?)

In any case, happiness is self-reported in the study. Respondents on the General Social Survey are simply asked if they are "very happy," "mostly happy," "not too happy," etc. I agree that it isn't a very rigorous measure, but I believe there are about 60,000 respondents and the results are used widely in the Social Sciences. Make of it what you will.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

It says I need to pay $1.00 to keep reading: it does not inform me that I have already read 10 free articles for the month (and I know for a fact that I have not read that many, perhaps none at all, for the month of April).

[Steve L.]

Oh, I guess the $1 charge is new (I subscribe, so I was not aware of it). Perhaps I will stop linking to WaPo.

[Howard Wasserman]

In the commercials for Cymalta and other anti-depressants, the person is always shown with a dog later in the commercial, (implicitly) after she began taking the medication to help control her depression. Does being happier (with depression under control) make her get a dog? Or is getting a dog part of getting happy, along with Cymbalta to help control depression?

[Steve L.]

Interesting observation, Howard. Other than for cat food, are there any commercials that feature cats?

Many presidents have had well-known dogs, including FDR's Fala, Nixon's Checkers, LBJ's beagles (Him and Her, who may or may not have been mistreated), Bush 41's Millie, and Obama's Bo. But I can only think of one presidential cat: Clinton's Socks.

[Bill Turnier]

Dogs are basically pack animals who rely on an alpha. Because they rely on you to supply food, walk them, etc., you become the alpha, unless you display weakness or otherwise screw up. The alpha controls the beta (dog). Hence, dogd are great for people with control impulses. (Declaration against interest-I really like dogs) Most people do not like being controlled and you will have difficulty developing a good personal relationship if you seek to control other people. Get a dog who will leap up to lick your face when you return home and will jump with delight as you put a collar around its neck and with the aid of a chain or leather strap walk it through the street. Warning-Do not attempt this with a person.
Cats on the other hand were domesticated from solitary hunters which prowled desserts and other places lacking major predators in search of lizards and voles. They will remain solitary creatures in your home. Yet they are easy to care for.

[Bill Turnier]

I must add that although I prefer digs to cats, as I have aged, I tired of walking my dogs in the rain on chilly nights and now have a cat. I have learned how to become its alpha but that is a tale fir another occasion. (I did warn you that I like many have control impulses.).

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Bill, The first sentence in your first comment is part of an enduring but now debunked myth (the 'alpha dog' theory which has inordinately influenced the formal and informal training of dogs), and the ideas that buttress it were never never based on either appropriate research or sufficient evidence (you can find some of the appropriate discussion and references online). And it is rather important (i.e., it behooves all of to endeavor) to appreciate the fact that the behavior of domesticated dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) differs in several important and still unappreciated respects from their biological ancestors (and the dog food advertising that encourages you to feed your dog's 'inner wolf' are pernicious nonsense), if only because of the latter's historical and close interaction with human companions, although that explanation does not convey the possibility, in the words of Carl Safina: "Dogs _may_ be the only creatures ever to have domesticated themselves. And--they _might not_ be the only such creatures."

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

erratum, in parentheses: it behooves all of us to endeavor

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

and: is pernicious nonsense