Final Thesis. Fatima Saleem 1217106 Footprints On Our Hearts

Foot Prints on Our Hearts: Pet Possession and Wellbeing
FATIMA SALEEM
1217106
BS Social Sciences
Mrs. Naureen Jaffery

_________________________
SZABIST Karachi Campus

2
Pet possession and Wellbeing
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................... 4
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.1: Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 14
2.1: Research Design ................................................................................................................. 14
2.2: Sample ................................................................................................................................ 14
2.3: Sampling methodology ....................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Materials .............................................................................................................................. 14
2.5 variables measured ............................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.7 Statistical Inference .............................................................................................................. 15
2.8 Operational definitions: ....................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 17
3.1: Group statistics ................................................................................................................... 17
3.2: Reliability analysis of the scales used ................................................................................. 19
3.3: Results Group Statistics ...................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 4: Discussion .................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 5: Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 32
5.1: Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 32
5.2: Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix A: Consent Form ........................................................................................................... 38
Appendix B: Demographics ........................................................................................................... 39
Appendix C: Rosenberg Self-esteem scale .................................................................................... 44
Appendix D: UCLA Loneliness Scale ........................................................................................... 45
Appendix E: Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) ........................................................................... 47
3
Abstract
The aim of this research was to study and analyze the impact of pet possession on
individual’s wellbeing and quality of life. It was hypothesized that pet owners would be
less lonely, happier, would have a higher self-esteem than non-pet owners and that
female pet owners would perform better in thee wellbeing measures, in a cultural setting
of Pakistan. The materials used in this study were three different scales which were The
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (A= 0.83), The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) (A=
0.879 to 0.94) and The UCLA Loneliness Scale (A= 0.89 to 0.94). The scales measuring
these have a reliable validity. The sample population was 100 young adults of Karachi,
which was obtained using convenience sampling.an independent measures t test was used
to all the four hypotheses using the SPSS. The results showed that pet owners are likely
to be less lonely than non-pet owners whereas they are not happier than non- pet owners
and neither do they have a high self-esteem, therefore accepting the first hypothesis and
rejecting the second and third one. There is a tremendous scope of future research in the
field of pet ownership and how it enhances wellbeing in an individual’s life.
Key words: wellbeing, pet ownership, happiness, loneliness, self-esteem

4
Acknowledgement
Firstly, I would like to thank Almighty Allah. Without His permission, no task can reach
its completion and only because of His blessings was I able to complete the thesis project
successfully.
I am very grateful to Miss Naureen Jaffery who is my thesis advisor. She was always
there for me whenever I needed guidance. She was extremely helpful throughout the time
I was making the thesis.
I would also like to thank my research methods teacher sir Faiz Rasool. He taught us the
course in a remarkable way and his enthusiasm and passion for research motivated me to
do my thesis in the best way possible.
I would like to thank my parents for their cooperation. They supported me while I did
this research project and prayed for me.
I would also like to thank my friends Khizer, Maheen, Aisha, Maira, Mishal, Laraib,
Zoya and Roohi who have helped me since day one in trying to gather all the research
and this paper together.
5
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this research paper to my friend Khizer Zia for sharing the same
love of animals with me.
6
Chapter 1 Introduction
According to Plato the founder of Western philosophy the basic nature of human beings
is rational and that human beings are social animals (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
2006). Therefore it is one of their primary needs to socialize and have companionship in
life. As selfish as human nature is believed to be, no individual provides support or
anything without expecting monetary gains. Pets on the other hand are those creatures
that provide unconditional social and moral support to humans without expecting any
monetary materialistic return. They only require love care and affection that are signs of
optimism and natural enhancers of positivity. This is primarily the reason why it is
believed that pet hold immense importance in our lives is because they hold no ulterior
motives while giving enough love and affection to humans to make them feel important,
less lonely and loved.
Pets are basically those animals that kept within households for the purpose of
companionship while some pets are kept for the purpose of security for example dogs.
Pets are mostly kept in households for their friendly playful nature and for their loyalty.
Having pets around in the house means having company and fun.
The suicidal rates among people, due to unhealthy relationships have been on a roll due
to lack of tolerance and trust issues. In a book which talks about stress coping in japan it
was reported when a teenager is excluded from a particular group in society he or she not
only feels isolated but also becomes victim to bullying and loses self-esteem and
confidence (R.Quah, 1989). In situations like these pet ownership turns out to be that
therapy which helps people cope up and have faith in nature’s creation of these selfless
creatures.
Pets provide physical as well as emotional benefit to their owners. In Becker’s book he
suggests that people who possess pets widely benefit from health, prosperity and
wellbeing (Marty Becker, 2002).
Having a pet around in the house means no lazier pointless laying around the house this is
because they don’t just let you sit around 24/7, they need maintenance firstly and
secondly most of them are playful so they require running, playing and walking. Playing
7
and walking means a lot of physical exercise which makes you healthy, fresh and active.
In recent times average households had the idea that having pets in the house meant more
Allergies however new researches suggests that children who grow up in households that
have furry pets tend to be less prone to allergies and asthma than those who do not have
pets (Davis, five ways pets can improve your health, 2004). Not only do pet owners stay
safe from Allergies but they also benefit in other health areas as well. Studies have shown
that people who suffer from Alzheimer’s can have reduced levels of anxiety if they have
animals around their house. Pet owners also gain advantage from their pets because pets
help lower blood pressure and help patients suffering from a recent heart attack to survive
longer than patients who do not have pets (Davis, five ways pets can improve your
health, 2004).
The emotional benefits of Pets could be considered greater than the health benefits
because become a part of the owners’ social support system and helps the owner cope up
really well in life than those people who do not have pets. Having pets around means
having to regularly touch them and pet them which have scientifically proven to be a
strong element in increasing wellbeing of humans (R.McConnel, 2011).
1.1: Literature Review

The world health organization defines wellbeing as that healthy state of one’s mind
whereby one is able to deal with everyday stressors of life, had a sense of being a
productive part of the society of community and feels they can offer something so their
surroundings (Friedli, 2009)
Bradburn on the other hand defines wellbeing as that occurrence in life when there is an
excess of positivity over negativity in life that results in high levels of wellbeing which is
linked to the concept of eudemonia that was proposed by Aristotle (Bradburn, 1969). On
the contrary however Dr.Carol Ryff in one of her papers, ‘happiness is everything? Or is
it?’ says that wellbeing is more than just the positive or negative affect in fact wellbeing
is measure or analyzed through six dimensions which determine wellbeing levels; Self-
acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in
life and personal growth (Ryff, 1989)
8
According to the new economics foundation (NEF) there are a number of ways that can
increase wellbeing among humans and one of the very important actions to do so is to
start connecting and interacting with people, in order to feel good about your own self
and in order to perform well (Jody Aked, 2008)
Previous literature and studies show that pet ownership has a positive correlation with
wellbeing. Professor Allen R. McConnell at Miami university conducted three studies
examining the positive effects of pet ownership, which concluded on positive terms that
pets provided similar levels of wellbeing benefits to their owners as much as humans do
(R.McConnel, 2011).
Deci and Ryan’s (Ryan, 2000) theory of self-determination provides an explanation to the
wellbeing benefits received by humans through pet ownership. The theory suggests that
wellbeing can be achieved by humans if three of their needs are fulfilled namely
autonomy, competence and relatedness. Relatedness in this theory is positive relations
with others in order to achieve a sense of acceptance. This is can be mostly related to the
need to belong theory according to which human beings are inherently designed to form
social relations in order to predict their own survival and safety (Leary R. F., 1995)
According to Azadeh Aalai it is a natural human tendency to sometimes feel they are of
no worth that comes from inability to cater to the social requirements of our society, pets
provide the innocent love and support that is unconditional and selfless (Aalai, 2013)
The benefits of pet ownership are not only just entitled to regular individuals but it holds
great significance to the hearts of significant people of the world for instance U.S
president Harry S. Truman once said “if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog!”
(Harry S. Truman, 2002). The benefits of their ownership are widely spread, for instance
in a study by Siegel it was concluded that people suffering from the sexually transmitted
disease of HIV who owned pets reported lesser signs of depression than those people who
did not possess pets, not only this but the results also reflected that HIV patients who had
fewer close companions benefited more from the wellbeing attained through ownership
of pet rather those HIV patients who had more best friends (Siegel JM1, 1999 ).
9
Researches have shown that pet ownership can be affiliated with the levels of happiness
among individuals. In the study conducted by Allen McConnell the results perpetuated
the differences in the levels of well-being between pet owners and non-pet owners that
were; pet owners reported greater levels of contentment and joy in life than non-pet
owners (R.McConnel, 2011)
Pets have a natural tendency to make you happy just by their presence and their cute
faces. They give you a motive to look forward to joy and fun all day after you return
home from work or school. Research shows that petting the animals, listening to them
purr and walking them have a positive effects on our moods reducing stress levels and
alternately making us relaxed and happy (Johnson, 2011)
In a small study conducted by Linda Nebbe on abused children and their bond with
animals it was assessed experimentally as well as relationally concluded that children
who had been abused in their childhood and currently owned pets as adults or as a child
only, showed better performances on wellbeing measures such as joy and higher self-
esteem (Nebbe, 1997).
Companionship and social support are necessary for an individual overall to function
well. As people grow old they become lonely and depressed after losing their life partners
and after their own kids become independent. At this time adopting a pet proves to be
very healthy and motivating for the Adult. Researches have shown that Adults who adopt
pets are less likely to suffer from loneliness, depression and old age diseases (Hernandez,
2012)
Allen McConnell’s paper also highlighted the importance of loneliness that is suffered as
a result of rejection of individuals by the society due to bullying, victim of abuse,
suffering from an STD or be it any other social stigma. People who suffer from such
loneliness experience a lot of negativity which can eliminated through pet ownership as
results reported. Pets helped in overcoming such feelings of isolations as effectively as a
pet owner’s best friend would do (R.McConnel, 2011). In another study similar to this
Stallones (Stallones, 1990) reported that people who had lesser human close associates,
owned pets and were strongly attached to them tended to show lesser signs of depression
10
and loneliness. Furthermore in another study carried out on single women who live alone,
there were lesser signs of sufferings from isolation amongst those elder women who lived
with a pet than those women who completely alone by themselves. These women were
also comparatively found to be more future oriented and positive than those without
animal companions around. (Mahalski, 1998).
Literature in the past has also shown that currently homeless people or previously
homeless people tried to change their lives and also avoiding to have committed suicide
when they had pets which again reflected the importance of human animal bond in
respect to it being the factor that avoids feelings of abandonment (Arluke, 1987)
McConnell’s study concluded that pet ownership and people’s personality characteristics
had a high correlation with self-esteem; this is because when pet owners and non-pet
owners were compared people who owned pets displayed higher self-esteem than those
people who did not own pets this is because people’s pets made them feel good about
themselves (R.McConnel, 2011).
In another experimental study it was discovered that people who suffered from diseases
such as a traumatic brain injury or an injury to the spinal cord improved their
performance on wellbeing measures in the course of 6 months when they were given a
service dog and displayed improved self-esteem with the help of these animals (Allen,
1996).
Barry Gunter and Adrian Fruham wrote a book called, “pets and people: the psychology
of pet ownership” which also include findings from researches that the positive outcomes
of pet ownership are high levels of self-esteem (Barrie Gunter, 1999) this is because pets
provide us the love that is without conditions and they make us believe that we are
worthy and deserving of the love provided by animals which is why we are important and
special human beings.
According to Professor Hal Herzog in his famous book “Some We Love, Some We Hate,
Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals”, the importance and
benefits of pet ownership came into lime light after a the airing of a TV series called
‘Lassie’, about a boy and his pet dog. The series showed how the attachment of the boy
11
to his pet turns out to be psychologically beneficial for the boy’s self-esteem (Herzog,
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight
About Animals, 2011). This idea inspired many parents and following this was an
increasing trend in pet ownership globally.
Gender differences in work done earlier on pets, have shown that women tend to keep
more pets than men and they perform better on wellbeing measures than men with pets.
According to Daly and Morton’s (Daly, 2006) study, females had higher scores on the
empathy as compared to the males. Similarly in another research study conducted by
(Brown, 2002) it was found that regardless of the race people belonged to, females
displayed that they were greatly attached to their pets and allowed them to invade their
personal space by allowing them to sleep inside the bedroom than males.
Interestingly another gender difference between unmarried women and men discovered
that women who own pets and are not married have the least signs of symptoms of
depression whereas men who are unmarried and possess any kinds of pets displayed the
most signs of positive symptoms of depression in a study conducted in USA (Nokotaa,
April '2015).
Gender difference also show how women tend to have a more positive and optimistic
attitude towards pets than males and consequently women benefit more from their
attachment to pets and their treatment to pets, on wellbeing measures. They are less
depressed and they tend to experience greater levels of contentment and joy from their
non-human friends (Herzoga, 28 Apr 2015).
The aim of this paper is to find out the extent to which pets provide social support, sense
of self worthiness, contentment joy and elation to human beings and whether there is a
difference among pet owners and non-pet owners who experience such feelings or not.
Another objective is to find out the differences of benefits between the two genders;
whether females or males benefit more through pet companionship. Furthermore it also
intends to find out whether the possession of the two most common pets that are dogs or
cats, proves to be more beneficial to their owners. To investigate and achieve the
12
following objectives the three variables measure would be happiness, loneliness and self-
esteem.
Human beings are by birth bound into relationships that provide them comfort and a
sense of social belongingness. Through these relationships humans have a natural
tendency to develop trust, love and care with their closed ones. Pets are non-human
creatures that provide a similar level of relatedness and psychological as well as physical
comfort. With the passage of time however, the way this world is progressing at a really
fast pace, people have lesser time to attend to relationships with sincerity than people did
years ago. Keeping in mind such a situation, Pets are those non-human innocent creatures
that are there for humans regardless of any progress of the fast paced world. They provide
a great sense of comfort and relief from negativities of the world and they just lift up your
mood whenever required.
Almost two third of American households have pets and who treat them like their family
members (Herzoga, 28 Apr 2015) which shows the importance of pets in the western
culture where as in Pakistan there are hardly any statistics as compared to these found.
This is because of two reasons; firstly because comparatively pets aren’t given that much
importance as compared to the western culture because their importance and their
benefits are not very commonly known. This could also be due to the fact that Pakistan is
a developing nation where an average household needs to earn enough to fulfill the
family’s needs than to make room for animals and bare their expenses (which is the main
concern). Pets become an issue or a matter of luxury because people tend to believe they
are burden on the pockets. Income is not just the only concern because lack of education
and awareness in majority of the population is also the reason why people do not know of
the psychological, social and health benefits of acquiring pets which is why there is little
work done on this topic in our country. Secondly in Pakistan there is a barrier when it
comes to publishing work and material or research being available to people, if done.
There is either lack of accessibility to work done by people or the people who do work on
such issues do not publish it which is why this paper aims to carry out such a research
and make it available for the general public.
13
Research Hypotheses:
The hypotheses this paper aims to test are following:
Pet owners are less likely to be lonely than non-pet owners
Pet owners are more likely to attain subjective happiness than non-pet owners
Pet owners are likely to have a higher self-esteem than non-pet owners
Female pet owners perform better on these three wellbeing measures as compared to
male pet owners.
14
Chapter 2 Methodology
In this research paper primary research methodology and quantitative research has been
followed. A Sample of (N=100) Questionnaires were filled out comprising of three
different scales that were constructed by different psychologists. To collect past literature
related to the topic, reliable search engines such as Google, Google Scholar and JSTOR
were used to collect legitimate journal articles, research papers and relevant books.
2.1: Research Design

A questionnaire will be used which would enable us to correlate the association between
pet ownership and its impact on wellbeing. It further seeks to understand the particular
components of wellbeing that are associated with pet ownership.
2.2: Sample
The target population of this research paper was N=100 participants from Karachi
Pakistan who were young adults from SZABIST university. Their age group ranged 20 to
24 years.
2.3: Sampling methodology

A Random sampling technique was used. Due to purposive sampling the participants
were chosen at random, however 50 pet owners who had owned a pet for the past six
months and 50 non-pet owners each. The categories of pet owners and non-pet owners
were further divided into sub categories of 25 males and 25 females each. This sampling
technique enabled the first 50 pet owners and first 50 non-pet owners, belonging to
different age brackets to be able to fill out the questionnaire. Equal representation of
males and females was taken as part of this study in order to increase validity.
2.4 Materials
In this paper primary research method has been used. A questionnaire was constructed
that comprised of relevant demographics personal to a person, 11 pet related
demographics and 3 scales. The three scales are the subjective happiness scale (SHS), the
Rosenberg self-esteem scale and the UCLA loneliness Scale revised. The total numbers
of items present in the entire questionnaire were 45. A consent form was also collected
from each participant. The preexisting reliability analyses of each of these scales are as
follows:
15
The UCLA loneliness scale (1980) reliability analysis revealed that the overall scale had
an excellent reliability both in terms of internal consistency (A= 0.89-0.94) and test-retest
reliability over a 1-year period (r = 0.73) (n=20)
The Rosenberg self-esteem scale (1965) reported internal consistency reliability which
is also high, ranging from (0.85 to 0.88) while the overall alpha coefficient score is (A=
0.87) (n=10)
The Subjective Happiness Scale (1999) reported internal consistency reliability ranging
from (0.55 to 0.90) while the overall alpha coefficient score ranged from (A= 0.879 to
0.94) (n=4)
2.5 variables measured

One item each was assigned to ask gender, age whether a pet owner or not and
educational level of the respondent. Possible responses ranged from 1= strongly agree to
4= strongly disagree. Different scales were used to measure the scale of self-esteem,
Subjective happiness and Loneliness.
2.6 Procedure
A questionnaire was designed, which accounted for personal details further comprising of
34 questions. The questionnaire was handed over to the participants on the basis of the
purpose of the study. It included a consent form with the questionnaire, which assured
that all ethical principles will stay intact and any respondent may withdraw if they have
any reservations.
The questionnaire was handed over and ample time was given, therefore participants
filled their questionnaires with ease and according to the confidentiality agreement names
their names were not exposed.
2.7 Statistical Inference

In this research quantitative methods were used to conduct the research. IBM SPSS
Statistics 21 was used to quantitatively analyze the group statistics, the reliability analysis
and the mean scores of every scale used. The independent t-test was used to analyze the
means and test the hypotheses that guide this paper for all four hypotheses.
16
2.8 Operational definitions:

The key concepts mentioned in this paper are the following:
Well-being: According to 21st century theorists Wellbeing is a term that can be used for
multiple dimensions and which sums up the happy, content and satisfied state of mind as
well productive psychological functioning of a person (Dodge, Daly, Huyton, & Sanders,
2012). High levels of wellbeing relate to positive experiences and low levels and be
explained by negative experiences in life.
Subjective Happiness: According to Martin Seligman (Seligman, 2012) happiness can

be measured in terms of three things that are positive emotion, engagement and meaning.
Positive emotion is when we feel optimism, engagement is when we involve ourselves
into activities that make us optimistic and meaning is when a person believes he has a
meaning and purpose in life which he needs to fulfill.
Loneliness: loneliness is defined as that state in a person’s life when there is a distinction
between the willingness of a person to form social relations and when he is unable to that
leads as an onset of sad and depressed feelings because man is a social animal and it
becomes very difficult to make it through, without having interactions with the world
(Cacioppo, June 2011).
Self-esteem: Self-esteem is the overall analysis of one’s own self as to what one is
worthy of. According to Maslow (Maslow, 1943) who was a pioneer in psychology, self-
esteem is one of the very important needs to motivate a person in life which can be either
influenced by inheritance or through the external forces, that is how other people treat an
individual. When a person has respect and satisfaction for his own self then he or she has
a high self-esteem. Whereas when a person does not believe him or herself and
negatively evaluates himself then he or she has a low self-esteem.
17
Chapter 3: Data Analysis

3.1: Group statistics
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the gender distribution
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
Male 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid Female 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The table 1 above shows the descriptive statistics of the sample. The males and females
who were given the survey numbered to 50 each. The percentage of males and females
correspondingly was 50% each too. The total number of participants was 100, as is
evident from the table.
Table 2 descriptive statistics for distribution of educational levels of
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
Undergraduate (currently
98 98.0 98.0 98.0
doing bachelors)
Valid
Postgraduate 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The table 2 above shows the descriptive statistics of the educational level of participants.
There were 98 undergraduates and two post graduates who were given the survey. The
18
percentage of undergraduates therefore was 98% and percentage of post graduates was
2%. The total number of participants was 100, as is evident from the table.
Table 3 descriptive statistics for Age distribution
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
21-23 90 90.0 90.0 90.0
Valid24-25 10 10.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The table 3 above shows the descriptive statistics of the Age distribution of participants.
There were 90 people who were aged 21-23, there were 10 people who were aged 24-25,
who were given the survey. The percentage of participants aged 21-23 was 90% therefore
and percentage of participants aged 24-25 was 10%. The total number of participants was
100, as is evident from the table.
19
3.2: Reliability analysis of the scales used

Table4 Scale: Rosenberg self-esteem Scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's N of Items
Alpha
.915 10
Table 5 Scale: UCLA loneliness scale
Alpha
.922 20
Table 6 Scale: Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)
Alpha
.919 4
20
3.3: Results Group Statistics

Table 7 pet ownership and Loneliness (t test)
do you currently have N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

any pets in household Mean
Yes 50 13.8400 7.37995 1.04368

Loneliness
No 50 19.8000 12.88885 1.82276
Independent Samples Test
Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

(2- Differenc Differenc Interval of the
tailed e e Difference
)
Lower Upper
Equal
- - -
variance 16.97 .00
2.83 98 .006 -5.96000 2.10041 10.1282 1.7918
s 6 0
8 0 0
Lonelines assumed
s Equal
- - -
variance 78.01
2.83 .006 -5.96000 2.10041 10.1415 1.7784
s not 1
8 9 1
assumed
21
To test the hypothesis that pet owners were associated with statistically lesser mean
levels of loneliness than non-pet owners, an Independent Samples t-test was used. The
following table shows that there is a significant difference between the two groups whose
level of loneliness is measured. The non-pet owner group (N=50) was associated with a
loneliness level of M=19.80 (SD=12.88) while the pet owner group (N=50) was
associated with a loneliness level of M=13.80 (SD=7.37). T (98) = -2.838, P< 0.05,
therefore this hypotheses has been accepted.
Table 8 pet ownership and happiness
Group Statistics
do you N Mean Std. Std.

currently Deviatio Error
have any n Mean
pets in
househol
d
5 21.860
Yes 3.87040 .54736
0 0
Happines
s 5 18.300
No 5.64692 .79860
0 0
Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of
Variances
22
F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

(2- Differenc Differenc Confidence
tailed e e Interval of the
) Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
3.67 1.6387 5.4813
variances 4.204 .043 98 .000 3.56000 .96817
7 0 0
assumed
Happines
s Equal
variances 3.67 86.71 1.6355 5.4844
.000 3.56000 .96817
not 7 5 7 3
assumed
To test this hypothesis that pet owners were associated with statistically higher degree of
subjective happiness than non-pet owners, an Independent Samples t-test was used. The
following table shows that there is a small difference between the two groups whose
degree of happiness is measured. The non-pet owner group (N=50) was associated with a
happiness degree of M=18.30 (SD=5.64) while the pet owner group (N=50) was
associated with a loneliness level of M=21.86 (SD=3.87). T (98) = 3.677 P> 0.05,
therefore this hypothesis is rejected.
Table 9 pet ownership and self-esteem
Group Statistics
do you currently have any N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
pets in household
Yes 50 30.9800 5.21180 .73706

Selfesteem
No 50 29.3400 5.58281 .78953
23

Test for
Equality
of
Variances

(2- Difference Difference Confidence
tailed) Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
-
variances .823 .366 1.518 98 .132 1.64000 1.08010 3.78342
.50342
assumed
SelfesteemEqual
variances -
1.518 97.540 .132 1.64000 1.08010 3.78355
not .50355
assumed
To test the second hypothesis that pet owners were associated with statistically higher
levels of self-esteem than non-pet owners, an Independent Samples t-test was used. The
following table shows that there is a barely any significant difference between the two
groups whose level of self-esteem is measured. The non-pet owner group (N=50) was
associated with a loneliness level of M=29.34 (SD=5.58) while the pet owner group
(N=50) was associated with a loneliness level of M=30.98 (SD=5.21). T (98) = 1.518,
P> 0.05, therefore this hypothesis is being rejected.
24
Table 10 Gender and self-esteem
Group Statistics
gender N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean
Male 25 31.4800 5.19711 1.03942

Self-esteem
female 25 30.4800 5.28457 1.05691

Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. T df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
-
variances .008 .927 .675 48 .503 1.00000 1.48239 3.98054
1.98054
assumed
Self-
esteem Equal
variances -
.675 47.987 .503 1.00000 1.48239 3.98056
not 1.98056
assumed
25
To test this hypothesis that female pet owners were associated with statistically higher
self-esteem levels than male pet owners, an Independent Samples t-test was used. The
following table shows that there is a barely any significant difference between the two
groups whose level of self-esteem is measured. The male pet owners (N=25) was
associated with a self-esteem level of M=31.48 (SD=5.19) while the female pet owners
(N=25) was associated with a self-esteem level of M=30.48 (SD=5.28). T (48) = 9.27,
P> 0.05, therefore this hypothesis is rejected.
Table 11 loneliness and gender
Group Statistics
gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male 25 11.9600 4.62313 .92463

Loneliness
female 25 15.7200 9.08075 1.81615
26

Test for
Equality of
Variances

Difference
Lower Upper
lonelinessEqual - -
variances 13.957 .000 48 .071 -3.76000 2.03797 .33762
1.845 7.85762
assumed
27
Equal
variances - -
35.658 .073 -3.76000 2.03797 .37458
not 1.845 7.89458
assumed
To test this hypothesis that female pet owners were associated with statistically lesser
isolation levels than male pet owners, an Independent Samples t-test was used. The
following table shows that there is a difference between the two groups whose subjective
degree of loneliness is measured. The male pet owners (N=25) was associated with a
loneliness level of M=11.96 (SD=4.62) while the female pet owners (N=25) was
associated with a loneliness level of M=15.72 (SD=9.08). T (48) = -1.85, P> 0.05,
therefore this hypothesis has been accepted.
Table 12: happiness and gender
Group statistics
Gende N Mean Std. Std. Error

r Deviation Mean
23.240
Male 25 2.29637 .45927
0
happiness
20.480
female 25 4.61988 .92398
0

Test for
Equality of
Variances
28

(2- Differenc Differenc Confidence
tailed e e Interval of the
) Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
13.20 2.67 .6853 4.8346
variances .001 48 .010 2.76000 1.03183
1 5 7 3
assumed
Happines
s Equal
variances 2.67 35.17 .6656 4.8543
.011 2.76000 1.03183
not 5 7 6 4
assumed
To test this hypothesis that female pet owners were associated with statistically higher
subjective happiness levels than male pet owners, an Independent Samples t-test was
used. The following table shows that there is a very small between the two groups whose
mean degree of happiness is measured. The male pet owners (N=25) was associated with
a happiness level of M=23.24 (SD=2.29) while the female pet owners (N=25) was
associated with a happiness level of M=20.48 (SD=4.61).T (48) = 2.675, P> 0.05,
therefore this hypothesis has been rejected.
29
Chapter 4: Discussion
Previously researches on pet ownership showed how pet ownership resulted in a positive
impact on different individuals such as those who were ill, or old or recovering from an
injury however recently a trend developed where people have examined how pet
ownership has positive benefits for an average individual as well. There has already been
research conducted previously that has shown the relationship of pet ownership with
variables such as happiness, loneliness, self-esteem, relationship styles and gender.
However there is very little research done on this domain in psychology, in Pakistan. To
do so three areas of wellbeing were examined that were happiness, loneliness and self-
esteem. The researcher hypothesized that levels happiness and self-esteem were
significantly more in pet owners than non-pet owners that levels of loneliness were the
opposite and that female pet owners performed better on all three of these wellbeing
measures than male pet owners. In order to test all four of these hypotheses independent
t-testing was done.
The first hypothesis tested was that pet owners are less lonely than non-pet owners
showed a significant difference in mean of pet owners and non-owners and thus the
hypothesis was accepted (-2.838, P< 0.05). These results were consistent were consistent
with the results achieved by (R.McConnel, 2011). Professor Allen McConnell conducted
three studies in 2011 in which the first one he aimed to find out if pet owners enjoyed
better than non-pet owners on wellbeing. The study also concluded that pet owners
reported less feelings of subjective loneliness than non-pet owners. This hypothesis may
also be true in the case of this research paper because pets do provide companionship that
people cannot deny. Suffering from loneliness or feeling isolated is what a lot of people
at many times because none of the social networks are available for everyone all the time
because it’s a fast paced world where it’s every person for him mostly. However as
hypothesized people who have pets have report lesser feelings of isolation because pets
are those creatures who provide and unquestioning companionship whenever you require
therefore the company and quality time spent helps in eliminating the feelings of
loneliness.
30
The second hypothesis was that pet owners are likely to be happier than non-pet-owners,
and it showed there was a very negligible difference in mean and standard deviation
between the two groups (3.677 P> 0.05) and therefore the hypothesis was rejected. This
may be true because happiness is a subjective phenomenon and it differs for everyone.
What may be a source of contentment and joy for one may not be the same for others.
Suggesting that some people generally do not like animals which could be due to
phobias, or others don’t like them because they simply do not feel that the companionship
of pets is something to enjoy rather it’s just that they are part of the family system who
fulfill the emptiness when other members are not home. Another reason might be that
Pakistan is a developing country and most of the middle class families would prefer to
fulfill basic needs to be happy rather than possessing pets and bearing the maintenance
cost of owning a pet (which is unavoidable). Therefore the ownership of pets might not
be one of the most significant reasons in life to be happy about because again we cannot
deny that feelings of joy and happiness vary for every individual. However the negligible
difference does portray that yes some pet owners do take pets as a symbol of happiness
for themselves. The pet owners reported in the pet related demographics, how the
presence of their pets just made them happy every time they came home after a long day
and to look at such creatures waiting for you was an instant happiness energizer.
The third hypothesis that pet owners have a higher self-esteem than non-pet owners was
also rejected because both the groups reported significantly similar levels of self-esteem
(9.27, P> 0.05). This was unlike the results of the study conducted by (R.McConnel,
2011) which may be true due to a number of reasons differences in culture being a
prominent one. The study conducted by him was in an American culture where people
have different living standards and different priorities where pet ownership is very
common because 1 out four household has pet as compared to the demographics of this
research, therefore this maybe why pet ownership may not have concluded to be a
determinant of self-esteem. Similarly self-esteem has a number of determinants the most
significant ones being that the roots of sel-esteem stem from childhood and upbringing as
the child learns is sense of worth through his different developmental milestones and
those are achieved through child’s primary sense of relatedness with his family members
and schooling and all those who accept him as an individual and who appreciate him for
31
who he is (Garber, 2001). In reference to this I may not be wrong to say that even though
pets provide companionship may not be able to induce a sense of feeling worthy in a
person. They may seek that importance from you but not be able to provide it to you.
Another reason for the rejection of this hypothesis might be the differences in individual
differences in personality of all human beings (Leary M. R., 2003). Personalities are a
very significant determinant of self-esteem.
The fourth hypothesis that females perform better on these wellbeing measures than
males were tested in parts and also analyzed in parts. Both the happiness and self-esteem
hypothesis were correspondingly rejected whereas the loneliness hypothesis was
accepted. The hypotheses that were rejected boath concluded that both females and males
performed equally on well-being measures. In the context of this study this might have
been due to the fact that the participants that were a part of this study all belonged to the
same university and mostly belonged to the same age group which is why the levels of
self-esteem and happiness may have been similar and also may be due to the fact that
self-esteem and happiness are subjective and dependent on depend on person to not
necessarily show that gender contributes to happiness and self-esteem. Some women may
have higher self-esteem and be more happy than other women whereas some men may
feel more worthy of themselves and happy than other men and a necessary distinction
between both the genders is not necessary. However the hypothesis that female pet
owners are less lonely than male pet owners resulting to be true may be due to the reason
that living in Pakistan we are a part of the patriarchal society it is considered that females
have a greater need for companionship than males. It is healthy and essential for males to
have a sense of belonging but it is crucial for women to have companionship (Bay, 2005).
Therefore if women own pets they are less likely to feel lonely in the presence of
companionship whereas men who own pets might still feel due to other reasons which are
more significant than the company of pets.
This study raises further questions such as what are the other variables that might be
related to petpossession wellbeing?
32
Chapter 5: Conclusion
This study helped extend the research on pet possession in Pakistan which was something
not found on a large amount in the country. Pet possession could be incorporated as part
of psychological therapy for people who experience feelings of isolation or those who
suffer from depression. Pet therapy could be used on a greater scale and could
incorporated not only by clinical psychologists but also by other institutions such as
schools for autistic children in Pakistan in order to help those children develop social
skills of some sort or just to develop their sense of social involvement. There could also
be awareness programs conducted in schools for children and parents where importance
and benefits of pet ownership could be promoted in order to highlight its impact on child
wellbeing which could benefit them in their further years of life.
5.1: Limitations
There are a few limitations to this research. This research did not take elderly people or
adolescents as its target population. The participants were students from Shaheed
Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (SZABIST) only. Therefore
almost all of them fell into the age group of 21 to 25. Moreover, this research cannot be
generalized to the entire youth of Karachi owing to the fact that the youth that was
studied belonged only to one university and other pet owners from other universities were
not included. In other words, this research’s sample had age and geographical
homogeneity due to which generalization is difficult. Moreover, using questionnaires can
have its own drawbacks. Some students do not answer honestly because they might not
take the survey seriously.
The sampling frame used was a cluster based frame which is why it represents less
information about pet possession and well-being in the population of Karachi.
5.2: Recommendation
This research was limited to the youth of Karachi. In future researches, older people and
children of ages below 18 could also be conducted research on so that the relationship of
pet ownership and wellbeing on different age groups can be concluded and contrasted.
Moreover, the sample could be made more representative by taking the sample from a
wider range of different univerisites- both from public and private sector. This would
33
ensure that the participants are from a diverse range of mid sets and educational
capabilities.
Future researches can explore a specific kind of sample, for example, autistic children or
divorced people either men or women in order to find out specifics of how different
individuals are impacted differently through the companion ship of pets. Moreover, this
study should be expanded to the rural areas of Pakistan as well. This is important because
63% of the population of Pakistan lives in the rural areas. (Trading Economics, 2010)
Getting a true picture of the situation in Pakistan is only possible if the rural areas are
also included where statistics show that a lot of the rural areas own pets such as goats
cows and birds.
Furthermore, the association of other variables with pet ownership could be investigated
as well. For example, depression, physical illness and symptoms,attachment styles,
responsibility etc. Moreover, it is highly recommended that a scale on pet ownership and
wellbeing be created in the local languages such as Urdu and Punjabi which should be
more culturally relevent to the Pakistani context. This would help understand therelation
between well being and pet ownership among Pakistani people in more depth.
34
References
(n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.carroll.edu/msmillie/philhumbeing/theorieshumannature.htm
Aalai, A. (2013, March 4). Psychology Today. Pet ownership and Mental health: Ode to
man's best friend.
Albuquerque, B. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.positivepsychology.org.uk/pp-

theory/happiness/106-subjective-well-being.html
Allen, K. &. (1996). The value of service dogs for people with severe ambulatory
disabilities. . Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 1001–1006.
Arluke. (1987). “Reasons for Sociological Study of Animal Research: The Experimenter
as Guinea Pig.” . Bulletin of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 6:8–9.
Barrie Gunter, A. F. (1999). Pets and people: the psychology of pet ownership.
California: Whurr.
Bay, E. H. ( 2005). Chronic stress, sense of belonging, and depression among survivors
of traumatic brain injury. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 34, 221-226.
Benjamins, K. (2013, june 14). Retrieved from http://mentalfloss.com/article/51154/8-

benefits-being-cat-owner
Bradburn, N. (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well-being. Adline publishing.
Brown, s.-e. (2002). Ethnic variations in pet attachment among students at an American
school of Veterinary medicine . Society and Animals , 10, 250-266.
Cacioppo, J. T. (June 2011). Social Isolation. Annals of the new york Academy of
Sciences.
Daly, B. &. (2006). An investigation of human–animal interactions and empathy as

related to pet preference, ownership, attachment, and attitudes in children. Anthrozoös ,
19, 113–127.
35
Davis, J. L. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-

pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets?page=3
Davis, J. L. (2004). five ways pets can improve your health. WebMD.
Diener, E. (1984, May). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/95/3/542/
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining
wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222-235.
Friedli, D. L. (2009). Mental Health Resilience and Inequalities.
Garber, J. &. (2001). Predictors Of Depressive Cognitions In Young Adolescents.

Cognitive Theory and Research, 25 , 353-376.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, R. F. (2006). Lectures on the History Of Philosophy.

Oxford University Press.
Hare, B. (July 26'2013). Harnessing Dog Lovers: Crowdfunding Helping Canine Science.
Live Science.
Hark, D. (2013, May 14). Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle-

hark/pet-ownership-health_b_3187960.html
Harry S. Truman, R. H. (2002). The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman. university of

Missouri .
Hernandez, G. (2012, October 29). Effects of pets on their caregiver's health. gennyblogs.
Herzog, H. (2011). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to
Think Straight About Animals. Harper Collins.
Herzog, H. (2015, April). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2015/04/people-care-

pets-humans/
Herzoga, H. A. (28 Apr 2015). Gender Differences in Human–Animal Interactions: A

Review. Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and
animals, Volume 20, Issue 1, pg 7-21.
36
Inglehart, R. (2002, October). Retrieved from http://cos.sagepub.com/content/43/3-

5/391.abstract
Jody Aked, N. M. (2008). Five ways to well being.
Johnson, T. D. (2011). Pets can be a prescription for happier, healthier life. The Nation's
Health , vol. 40 no. 10 32.
Leary, M. R. (2003). Individual differences in selfesteem: a theoretical view on

integration. In M. L. Tangney, Handbook of self and identity (pp. 401– 418). New York :
Guilford Press.
Leary, R. F. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a

Fundamental Human Motivation. American Psychological Association, Vol. 117, No. 3,
497-529.
Mahalski, P. A. (1998). The value of cat ownership to elderly women living alone . The
International Journal of Aging & Human Development , 27(4), 249-260.
Marty Becker, D. M. (2002). The Healing Power of Pets. Hyperion.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-

396.
Mills, K. l. (2011, july 11). Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/07/cats-dogs.aspx
Nebbe, L. J. (1997). The human-animal bond's role with the abused child. Retrospective
Theses and Dissertations @ lowa university.
Nokotaa, R. B. (April '2015). Pet companionship and depression: Results from a United
States Internet sample. Taylor & Francis Online, 50-64.
R.McConnel, A. (2011). Friends With Benefits: On The Positive Concequences of Pet

Ownership. American Psychological Assosciation, Vol. 101, No. 6, 1239 –1252.
37
R.Quah, S. (1989). The Triumph of Practicality. Singapore: Institute of South Asian

Studies.
Rettner, R. (2014, May 27). Dog People vs. Cat People: Who's More Outgoing? More
Intelligent? Live Science.
Ryan, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,

social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 68-78.
Ryff, D. C. (1989). happiness is everything? or is it? American Psychological

Association, Vol. 57, No. 6,1069-1081.
Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and

Well-being. Free Press.
Siegel JM1, A. F. (1999 ). AIDS diagnosis and depression in the Multicenter AIDS
Cohort Study: the ameliorating impact of pet ownership. National Center for
Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Smith, D. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+2100&aid=640
Stallones, L. M. (1990). Pet ownership and attachment in relation to the health of U.S
adults. Anthrozoos, , 4 (2), 100-112.
38
Appendix A: Consent Form

This research is being conducted by Fatima Saleem, a major in Psychology at SZABIST
University under the supervision of Miss Naureen Jaffery for bachelor’s dissertation. This
study is based on how pet ownership impacts individuals’ lives and how it impacts their
wellbeing. The three dimensions studied will be happiness, loneliness and self-esteem. In
particular, how generally youth ownership of pets is healthy for their contentment and
joy. Please try to be as honest as possible as it would really help in formulating genuine
results. I assure you that the data collected will be used for research purposes only. Thank
you for being a part of the research 
Signature ______________________________________ Date:

_________________________
39
Appendix B: Demographics
Gender:
Male
Female
Age bracket:
18-20
21-23
24-25
Education level: (what you are currently doing)
High school
Undergraduate (currently doing bachelors)
Postgraduate (currently doing Masters/M.Phil./MBA)
Do you currently have any pets in your household?
Yes
No
(If No then skip to Q.5)
Q1. People have different attachments to their pets. How attached are you to your pet?
40
Very attached
Attached
Not very attached
Q2. How much time, on an average daily basis, do you spend doing something with or
for your pet, such as grooming it, petting it, walking or feeding it? This does not mean
just being in the same room.
One hour or less
More than one hour
Q3. Is the time spent in these activities?
Enjoyable?
Not enjoyable?
Sometimes enjoyable, sometimes not?
Q4. What is your reason(s) for having a pet? Circle all that apply.
I enjoy (love) animals
I wanted a pet for protection.
I wanted some companionship.
I wanted something I could take care of.
I wanted something to keep me busy (occupy the time).
I was given this pet.

41
Other ___________________________________________________
Q5. Have you ever had a dog, cat or bird? If no, skip to question 4.
Yes
No
Q6. What was the last time you had a pet?
Less than one year
1–5 years ago
Greater than 10 years ago
Q7. What happened to your pet?
Died
Gave it away. Reason:_____________________________________
Ran away (disappeared)
Q8. How much does it bother you that you do not have a pet?
A lot
42
A little
Not at all
Q9. What are your reasons for not having pets now? Circle all that apply.
I am allergic to animals.
I can’t keep a pet at my present residence.
I couldn’t afford the cost of a pet.
I couldn’t physically handle the demands of taking care of a pet.
I don’t enjoy animals.
I don’t want to be bothered having to care for a pet.
Other household members are allergic to animals.
Other household members do not like animals.
Other
________________________________________________________________________
_____
Q10. Do you have any reason(s) for getting a pet in the near future? Circle all that apply.
A family member or friend wants to give me a pet.
I enjoy (love) animals.
I have always had a pet.
I have more time now to care for a pet.
I need something to care for.

43
I want a pet for protection.
I would like a pet to keep me busy.
I would like some more companionship.
Other
________________________________________________________________________
____
Q11. What kind of pet would you consider?
Bird
Cat
Dog
Other, specify_____________________________________
44
Appendix C: Rosenberg Self-esteem scale

Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. Please
indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
2. At times I think I am no good at all.
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I certainly feel useless at times.
7. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.

45
Appendix D: UCLA Loneliness Scale

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate how often each of the statements below is descriptive of you.
C indicates “I often feel this way”
S indicates “I sometimes feel this way”
R indicates “I rarely feel this way”
N indicates “I never feel this way”
1. I am unhappy doing so many things alone OSRN
2. I have nobody to talk to OSRN
3. I cannot tolerate being so alone OSRN
4. I lack companionship OSRN
5. I feel as if nobody really understands me OSRN
6. I find myself waiting for people to call or write OSRN
7. There is no one I can turn to OSRN
8. I am no longer close to anyone OSRN
9. My interests and ideas are not shared by those around me OSRN
10. I feel left out OSRN
11. I feel completely alone OSRN
12. I am unable to reach out and communicate with those around me OSRN
13. My social relationships are superficial OSRN

46
14. I feel starved for company OSRN
15. No one really knows me well OSRN
16. I feel isolated from others OSRN
17. I am unhappy being so withdrawn OSRN
18. It is difficult for me to make friends OSRN
19. I feel shut out and excluded by others OSRN
20. People are around me but not with me OSRN

47
Appendix E: Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)

For each of the following statements and/or questions, please circle the point on
the scale that you feel is most appropriate in describing you.
1. In general, I consider myself:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not a very a very
happy happy
person person
2. Compared with most of my peers, I consider myself:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
less more
happy happy
3. Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on,
getting the most out of everything. To what extent does this characterization describe
you?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at a great
all deal
4. Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they
never seem as happy as they might be. To what extent does this characterization describe
you?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48
not at a great
All deal
49
Appendix F: Plagiarism report

Turnitin Originality Report
Synopsis_fatima_saleem_.docx by Anonymous
 Processed on 26-May-2017 13:45 PKT

 ID: 666651461
 Word Count: 7099
Similarity Index
5%
Similarity by Source
Internet Sources:
4%
Publications:
4%
Student Papers:
4%
sources:
1
1% match (student papers from 05-May-2014)
Submitted to The Robert Gordon University on 2014-05-05
2
1% match (Internet from 20-Nov-2013)
http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=25619
3
1% match (publications)
Mullersdorf, M., F. Granstrom, L. Sahlqvist, and P. Tillgren. "Aspects of health,
physical/leisure activities, work and socio-demographics associated with pet ownership in
Sweden", Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 2010.
4
1% match (student papers from 13-Apr-2016)
Submitted to Southampton Solent University on 2016-04-13
5
1% match (student papers from 22-Jan-2013)
Submitted to Bath Spa University College on 2013-01-22
6
1% match (student papers from 28-Aug-2014)
Submitted to University of Plymouth on 2014-08-28
7
1% match (student papers from 11-May-2015)
Submitted to Higher Education Commission Pakistan on 2015-05-11

Final Thesis. Fatima Saleem 1217106 Footprints On Our Hearts

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Thesis. Fatima Saleem 1217106 Footprints On Our Hearts

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Foot Prints on Our Hearts: Pet Possession and Wellbeing

Mrs. Naureen Jaffery

SZABIST Karachi Campus

Key words: wellbeing, pet ownership, happiness, loneliness, self-esteem

1.1: Literature Review

The hypotheses this paper aims to test are following:

Pet owners are less likely to be lonely than non-pet owners

2.1: Research Design

2.3: Sampling methodology

2.5 variables measured

2.7 Statistical Inference

2.8 Operational definitions:

Subjective Happiness: According to Martin Seligman (Seligman, 2012) happiness can

Chapter 3: Data Analysis

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Male 50 50.0 50.0 50.0

Valid Female 50 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Table 2 descriptive statistics for distribution of educational levels of

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Table 3 descriptive statistics for Age distribution

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

21-23 90 90.0 90.0 90.0

Valid24-25 10 10.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

3.2: Reliability analysis of the scales used

Table 5 Scale: UCLA loneliness scale

Table 6 Scale: Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)

3.3: Results Group Statistics

do you currently have N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Yes 50 13.8400 7.37995 1.04368

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

Table 8 pet ownership and happiness

do you N Mean Std. Std.

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

Table 9 pet ownership and self-esteem

Yes 50 30.9800 5.21180 .73706

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

Table 10 Gender and self-esteem

gender N Mean Std. Std. Error

Male 25 31.4800 5.19711 1.03942

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

Table 11 loneliness and gender

gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Male 25 11.9600 4.62313 .92463

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

Table 12: happiness and gender

Gende N Mean Std. Std. Error

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%

(n.d.). Retrieved from