Anthrozoös

A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals

ISSN: 0892-7936 (Print) 1753-0377 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality

and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership
and Bedsharing

Christy L. Hoffman, Kaylee Stutz & Terrie Vasilopoulos

To cite this article: Christy L. Hoffman, Kaylee Stutz & Terrie Vasilopoulos (2018) An Examination
of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership and Bedsharing,
Anthrozoös, 31:6, 711-725, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1529354

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1529354

Published online: 13 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1251

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 711

ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 31, ISSUE 6 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2018

PP. 711–725 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY

An Examination of Adult
Women’s Sleep Quality and
Sleep Routines in Relation
to Pet Ownership and
Bedsharing
Christy L. Hoffman*, Kaylee Stutz*, and
Terrie Vasilopoulos†
*Department of Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, Cani-
sius College, USA
†
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida, USA
Address for correspondence: ABSTRACT People in many parts of the world commonly share their beds not
Christy L. Hoffman,
Department of Animal
only with human partners but also with dogs and cats. Self-report and actigraphy
Behavior, Ecology, and data have shown that sleeping with an adult human partner has both positive and
Conservation, negative impacts on human sleep, but there has been little exploration of the im-
Canisius College,
2001 Main St., Buffalo, pacts that pets have on human sleep quality. We collected survey data online
NY 14208, USA. from 962 adult women living in the United States to investigate relationships
E-mail: between pet ownership and human sleep. Fifty-five percent of participants shared
hoffmanc@canisius.edu

Anthrozoös DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1529354

their bed with at least one dog and 31% with at least one cat. In addition, 57%
of participants shared their bed with a human partner. Our findings did not show
a strong relationship between pet ownership status or bedsharing conditions
and sleep quality as assessed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI),
although according to this measure, a high percentage of study participants did
experience sleep quality deficits. It is possible that pet ownership contributed to
the high global PSQI scores we observed, especially since all but 7% of partici-
pants resided with dogs and/or cats. Other measures included in this study
indicate that dogs and cats, and where they sleep, may indeed affect sleep habits
and perceptions of sleep quality. Dog owners had earlier bedtimes and wake
times than individuals who had cats but no dogs. Compared with human bed
partners, dogs who slept in the owner’s bed were perceived to disturb sleep less
and were associated with stronger feelings of comfort and security. Conversely,
cats who slept in their owner’s bed were reported to be equally as disruptive as
human partners, and were associated with weaker feelings of comfort and
security than both human and dog bed partners. Follow-up research is neces-
sary to determine if pet owners’ perceptions of pets’ impacts on their sleep align
711

with objective measures of sleep quality.

AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 712

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership…

Keywords: cats, companion animals, dogs, human–animal interaction, pets, sleep habits,
sleep quality

❖
Sleep is a necessary part of the lives of animals, humans included. In addition to
allowing for the conservation of energy and relaxation of muscles, sleep is involved in
a wide spectrum of processes, such as general emotional and cognitive functioning,
memory formation and retention, immune system maintenance, hormonal regulation, and
metabolism (Kryger, Roth, & Dement, 2010). Both quality and duration of sleep impact the degree
to which individuals benefit from this behavior. Sleep disturbances have been linked to both
physical and mental health diseases, such as heart disease, chronic body aches, and depression
(Breslau, Roth, Rosenthal, & Andreski, 1996; Foley, Ancoli-Israel, Britz, & Walsh, 2004). Humans
are monophasic sleepers and typically need seven to eight hours of sleep per night to maximize
the benefits of sleep on health and general wellness (Alvarez & Ayas, 2004).
There are numerous factors that may impede humans from achieving the optimal amount
of sleep and affect their sleep quality. Age is one such factor, as older adults report more sleep
disturbances and complaints of insomnia than younger individuals (Foley et al., 1995, 2004;
Middelkoop, Smilde-van den Doel, Neven, Kamphuisen, & Springer, 1996). There are also
gender differences associated with sleep quality, with women tending to report poorer sleep
quality than men (Middelkoop et al., 1996; Reyner, Horne, & Reyner, 1995). Furthermore, many
aspects of one’s life can affect sleep quality, including health, social and psychological factors,
living habits, and lifestyle (Urponen, Vuori, Hasan, & Partinen, 1988).
Whether or not a person shares his or her bed with another individual is yet another factor
impacting sleep quality and duration. When adult human partners share a bed, roughly one-
third of their nocturnal awakenings are also shared (Meadows, Arber, Venn, Hislop, & Stanley,
2009; Pankhurst & Horne, 1994). Subjective reports from women and men suggest they sleep
better when their partner is present due to feelings of security and to habit, respectively
(Pankhurst & Horne, 1994), yet actigraphic measures of sleep efficiency collected from
accelerometers and self-report data indicate that sharing a bed with a partner negatively
impacts sleep quality for women (Dittami et al., 2007).
Humans are not the only individuals in a household who may impact women’s sleep. Nearly
37% of United States households include a dog and 30% include a cat; moreover, 63% of
these households consider their pets to be family members (American Veterinary Medical
Association, 2012). Anthropological literature suggests that companion animals, particularly
dogs, have a long history of sleeping with or near their owners within some cultures, although
bedsharing with pets appears to be more common in modern Western cultures than it has
been historically (Smith et al., 2017). Despite the common occurrence of dogs and cats in
homes and bedrooms, few studies have explored the impact of dogs on human sleep, and
even less is known about the impacts of cats on human sleep.
Findings from the handful of studies that have examined pets’ effects on sleep have been
mixed. One survey-based study reported that owners who sleep with their pets take longer
Anthrozoös

to fall asleep, experience more sleep disturbances, and are more likely to wake up tired (Smith,
Thompson, Clarkson, & Dawson, 2014). The effects of sleeping with a pet may not be all bad,
however. A recent actigraphy study concluded that individuals who sleep with dogs in the
bedroom have good sleep efficiency, although it declines if the dog is in the owner’s bed (Patel
et al., 2017). Questionnaire and interview data indicate that sleeping with a pet helps some
712

individuals relax and feel more secure, thereby enabling them to sleep better (Krahn, Tovar, &
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 713

Hoffman et al.

Miller, 2015). Indeed, dogs may have initially gained acceptance in human settlements
thousands of years ago because of the dog’s tendency to bark and ward off potential threats
(Coppinger & Coppinger, 2001; Power, 2012).
To date, no studies have distinguished between the effects of dogs and cats on human
sleep, nor have studies directly compared sleeping with a dog or cat with sleeping with an adult
human companion (but see Smith et al. (2017) for a theoretical paper identifying similarities
between human–child and human–animal co-sleeping). The purpose of this online, survey-
based study was to examine pet ownership and bedsharing in relation to adult women’s sleep
routines and sleep quality, and to assess adult women’s perceptions of the ways in which
dogs, cats, and adult human bed partners affect their sleep. Because dogs’ and cats’ sleep
patterns differ (Campbell & Tobler, 1984; Lucas, Powell, & Murphree, 1977), with cats gener-
ally sleeping less at night than dogs, we hypothesized that cats would be more likely to impair
sleep quality than dogs. Furthermore, because dog owners may take comfort in the belief that
their dogs’ vocalizations will alert them to threats or ward off potential intruders in a way that
cats cannot, we hypothesized that cats would not provide as much comfort and security as
dogs. Compared with human partners, we hypothesized that dogs would provide similar
amounts of comfort and security as well as disturbance, whereas cats would provide less
comfort and security and greater disturbance due to their inability to warn of, or ward off,
threats and their nocturnal activities, respectively.

Methods
Participants
Anyone over 18 years of age was eligible to participate in our online survey, but results in this
paper are restricted to female participants residing in the United States who were between
18 and 69 years old. We e-mailed personalized invitations to 1,229 individuals who had pre-
viously participated in studies conducted by the Canisius Canine Research Team (CCRT).
We sent a reminder e-mail to these individuals one week after the initial e-mail. Due to the
nature of the CCRT’s previous studies, most of the individuals contacted had multiple dogs
or at least one dog and one cat in their household. The initial and reminder e-mails included
a link to the survey that we asked recipients to share with their friends via e-mail and social
media sites. In addition, we advertised the survey on the CCRT’s Facebook page (www.face-
book.com/canisiuscanines).
Measures & Procedures
We built the survey and collected responses via the online survey platform Qualtrics.
Participants could complete the survey on a computer, smartphone, or tablet. The survey
was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Canisius College (protocol number IRB
2015-16#86). Participation was entirely voluntary, and there was no compensation asso-
ciated with completing the survey. The first page of the survey included a consent form
describing the nature of the study and the associated risks and benefits of participating.
Anthrozoös

Before beginning the survey, participants had to check a box on this page acknowledg-
ing that they were over 18 years old and were providing consent to participate. Study-
related e-mails, Facebook postings, and the consent form noted the survey would take
15–25 minutes to complete.
The survey asked participants what time they generally went to bed on nights preceding
713

workdays (or weeknights if they were not employed) and on nights preceding days they did
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 714

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership…

not work (or weekends if they were not employed). Participants also indicated what time they
woke up on workdays and non-workdays. In addition, participants were asked whether they
had psychological or medical conditions that negatively impacted their sleep. Participants who
indicated they had at least one dog or cat were asked where their dog(s) and/or cat(s) slept.
At the end of the survey, participants provided information regarding their gender, age, coun-
try of residence, employment status, race/ethnicity, and whether their community was rural,
suburban, or urban.
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: Participants completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index
(PSQI), a self-report questionnaire commonly used to assess individuals’ sleep quality over a
one-month period (Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989). The first four questions
of the PSQI ask about bedtimes and wake times, the number of minutes it takes to fall asleep,
and the number of hours of sleep per night. The next 10 questions ask participants to rate the
frequency at which they experience various types of sleep disturbances (e.g., needing to go to
the bathroom, having bad dreams). The three questions that follow ask participants the
frequency at which they take sleep medications, the frequency at which they have difficulty
staying awake, and the frequency at which they have trouble keeping up their enthusiasm for
getting things done. The final question asks participants to rate their sleep quality overall.
Answers to the questionnaire yield the following seven component scores: subjective
sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use
of sleep medication, and daytime dysfunction. In addition, the seven component scores are
combined to generate a global score. Global scores range from zero to 21, and scores
exceeding five are indicative of sleep quality deficits. These seven component scores show
high internal consistency, and the measure’s test-retest reliability and validity have been
established (Buysse et al., 1989).
Development of Comfort and Security and Disturbance Scales: When applicable, participants
indicated their level of agreement with statements focused on the ways in which their adult
human bed partner, dog(s), and/or cat(s) had impacted their sleep within the past month. Par-
ticipants answered questions about their dogs and/or cats even if their pets did not sleep on
their bed. Four of the seven statements were identically worded, regardless of whether
participants were referencing humans, dogs, or cats. Wording in the other three statements
differed slightly depending upon whether the statement was referencing humans, dogs, or
cats. The statements are included in Table 1. Factor analyses were performed to determine
how these questions should be grouped, and whether they could be grouped the same way
for questions specific to humans, dogs, and cats.
The Kaiser eigenvalue rule indicated that two factors each could be extracted from the
adult human bed partner, dog, and cat scales. The seven items had a KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) of 0.740 in reference to humans, 0.739 in reference to
dogs, and 0.770 in reference to cats. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity values were 882.03 for hu-
mans, 1356.12 for dogs, and 1399.65 for cats (for all, p < 0.001), indicating that correlations
Anthrozoös

were large enough to justify performing factor analysis. Factors were extracted using a princi-
pal components analysis and rotated using varimax rotation. By removing the items “I sleep
better when my partner is not home” from the human scale, and “I would sleep better if I did
not have a dog/cat” from the dog and cat scales, the groupings that emerged were compa-
rable for participants’ ratings of humans, dogs, and cats. Details about the factors are included
714

in Table 1. The two factors were each comprised of three statements and accounted for 62.6%
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 715

Hoffman et al.

Table 1. Factor loadings for the questions that comprised the Comfort and Security and
Disturbance scales for human partners, dogs, and cats.
Factor Loadings
Human Dog Cat
Factor 1: Comfort and Security ␣ = 0.70 ␣ = 0.76 ␣ = 0.83
Because of my partner/dog/cat, I have fallen asleep faster than I
would have otherwise. 0.796 0.848 0.905
Having my partner in my home helps me feel secure when I sleep;
Having a dog/cat nearby helps me feel secure when I sleep. 0.783 0.786 0.844
My partner/dog/cat has positively impacted the quality of my sleep. 0.749 0.825 0.853
Factor 2: Disturbance ␣ = 0.68 ␣ = 0.69 ␣ = 0.80
I wake up at least once during the night because of my partner/dog/cat. 0.840 0.843 0.845
My partner’s snoring, breathing, tossing and turning, and/or talking has
negatively impacted my sleep; My dog’s snoring, breathing, tossing and
turning, scratching, and/or vocalizing has negatively impacted my sleep;
My cat’s snoring, breathing, movements, scratching, and/or vocalizing
has negatively impacted my sleep. 0.754 0.748 0.824
My partner/dog/cat has woken me up earlier than I would have
woken up otherwise. 0.714 0.754 0.859

of the common variance in item scores related to humans, 65.4% for dogs, and 73.7% for
cats. Factor 1 reflects comfort and security associated with the human, dog, or cat, and Factor
2 reflects disturbances created by the human, dog, or cat. The internal consistency of each
factor was calculated using Cronbach’s ␣ and is reported in Table 1. Both cat-related factors
had adequate reliability, as did the Comfort and Security factor for partners and dogs. The ␣
for the Disturbance factor was somewhat low for both humans and dogs.
Data were analyzed in IBM SPSS 22.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) and JMP Pro 12 (SAS Institute
Inc., Cary, NC, USA). p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results
A total of 1,271 participants completed the online survey between May 31, 2016 and June 12,
2016. An additional 237 individuals started but did not complete the survey, yielding an 84.2%
completion rate. Seven hundred sixty-six participants (60.3%) used an e-mailed link to com-
plete the survey, and 505 (39.7%) completed the survey via the link shared on the Canisius
Canine Research Team’s Facebook page. The current analysis excluded incomplete surveys,
the relatively small number of male participants, participants from outside the United States,
and individuals over 69 years of age, leaving a sample of 962 female participants between the
ages of 18 and 69 years who resided in the United States and completed the entire survey.
This sample included participants from 42 states, and 58% of participants resided in New
York State. Table 2 provides a more detailed description of the sample.
There was no association between whether a participant shared her bed with another
Anthrozoös

human and the likelihood that her household included a dog or cat (dog: ␹2 (956) = 0.685,
df = 1, p = 0.408; cat: ␹2 (956) = 0.068, df = 1, p = 0.794). Amongst dog owners, there was a
significant association between sharing one’s bed with a human and sharing one’s bed with
a dog ( ␹2(770) = 13.048, df = 1, p < 0.001). Individuals who shared their bed with a human part-
ner were significantly less likely to share their bed with a dog than those who did not share their
715

bed with a human partner (62.5% vs. 74.8%). Among cat owners, there was no association
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 716

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership…

Table 2. Summary of the sample’s characteristics. Numbers of participants in each category

are provided, and percentages are in parentheses.
Variable n
Age
18–29 years 150 (15.6%)
30–39 years 261 (27.1%)
40–49 years 199 (20.7%)
50–59 years 222 (23.1%)
60–69 years 130 (13.5%)
Race/Ethnicity
Asian 10 (1.0%)
Black/African American 7 (0.7%)
Caucasian 900 (93.6%)
Hispanic 24 (2.5%)
Other/opted not to answer 21 (2.2%)
Occupation
Employed, including self-employed 777 (80.8%)
Out of work 28 (2.9%)
Retired 89 (9.3%)
Stay-at-home mother or homemaker 29 (3.0%)
Student 39 (4.0%)
Community Type
Rural 202 (21.0%)
Suburban 553 (57.5%)
Urban 201 (20.9%)
Other 6 (0.6%)
Companion Animals
One or more dogs, no cats 415 (43.1%)
One or more cats, no dogs 122 (12.7%)
One or more dogs & one or more cats 360 (37.4%)
No dogs or cats 65 (6.8%)
Bed Sharing*
Human partner only 171 (17.8%)
Human partner and one or more dogs 216 (22.5%)
Human partner and one or more cats 99 (10.3%)
Human partner, one or more dogs, and one or more cats 64 (6.7%)
No human, no dogs, and no cats 91 (9.5%)
No human and one or more dogs 186 (19.3%)
No human and one or more cats 74 (7.7%)
No human, one or more dogs, and one or more cats 55 (5.7%)
*Two participants who slept with one or more dogs; two who slept with one or more cats; one who slept with
one or more dogs and one or more cats; and one who slept with no dogs or cats did not disclose whether
they slept with a human partner.

between sharing the bed with a human partner and likelihood of sharing the bed with a cat
(␹2(478) = 1.394, df = 1, p = 0.255).
Anthrozoös

Nearly all participants (98.5%) reported routinely going to bed between 19:00 and 02:00.
Eight hundred and nine participants (84.1%) indicated they had no psychological condition that
impacted their sleep, and 768 (79.8%) indicated they had no medical condition that did. Chi-
square tests revealed no relationships between whether participants had a dog or cat and the
likelihood of reporting a psychological or medical condition that impacted their sleep (for both,
716

p > 0.05). Furthermore, amongst dog and cat owners, sharing one’s bed with a pet did not
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 717

Hoffman et al.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of bedtimes and wake times by pet ownership
category.
Dog Owners Cat Owners Dog and Cat Non-pet
(no cats) (no dogs) Owners Owners
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Bedtime Preceding Workdays 22:33 1:24 22:55 1:25 22:28 1:30 22:36 1:01
Bedtime Preceding Non-workdays 23:19 1:07 23:41 1:21 23:15 1:09 23:25 1:08
Wake Time on Workdays 6:33 1:32 6:58 1:43 6:37 1:54 6:26 1:07
Wake Time on Non-workdays 7:46 1:22 8:16 1:38 7:48 1:45 8:12 1:12
Difference in Bedtimes Preceding
Non-workdays and Workdays 0:46 1:11 0:46 0:39 0:46 1:14 0:48 0:41
Difference in Wake-up Times on
Workdays and Non-workdays 1:12 1:28 1:18 0.58 1:11 1:51 1:45 1:09

impact the likelihood of reporting a psychological or medical condition (for both, p > 0.05).
Consequently, we did not exclude from our analyses participants who indicated they had one
or both of these conditions.
Impact of Dog and Cat Ownership on Bedtimes and Wake Times
Repeated measures mixed models were used to analyze group differences in bedtimes and
wake-up times, with day (workday vs. non-workday) modeled as a repeated effect to account
for correlated observations within participants. These models included fixed effects for pet own-
ership and day and an interaction between pet ownership and day. Tukey HSD was used for
post-hoc multiple comparisons. Age was also included as a covariate in these models. Table 3
shows the mean bedtimes and wake times for participants who had no pets, dogs only, cats only,
and both dogs and cats, as well as the difference in bedtimes preceding workdays and non-
workdays, and in wake times on workdays and non-workdays. For both bedtimes
(F(3,951) = 4.108, p = 0.007) and wake times (F(3,954) =2.768, p = 0.041), there was a statistically
significant effect of pet ownership. Dog owners (either dog only or dog and cat) had consistently
earlier bedtimes as compared with cat-only owners (p = 0.025 and p = 0.003, respectively).
Similarly, dog owners (either dog only or dog and cat) had consistently earlier wake times as
compared with cat only owners (p = 0.027 and p = 0.050, respectively). There was also a sig-
nificant effect of day on both bedtimes (F(1,957) = 267.893, p < 0.001) and wake times
(F(1,955) = 425.009, p < 0.001), with later bedtimes and wake times on days preceding non-workdays
compared with those preceding workdays. There were no statistically significant interactions
between pet ownership and day type on bedtimes (p = 0.994) or wake times (p = 0.053).
Participants who reported sharing their bed with a dog or cat were asked to report whether
they slept better if their dog or cat was in physical contact with them, and were also asked what
percentage of the night they believed their dog or cat remained on the bed. Two hundred and
eleven participants (40.3%) indicated their sleep was unaffected by whether their dog was
touching them; 174 (33.3%) reported sleeping better when their dog was touching them; and
Anthrozoös

138 (26.4%) believed they slept better when their dog was not touching them. Amongst cat
owners, 120 (40.8%) reported their sleep was not impacted by whether their cat was touch-
ing them; 113 (38.4%) indicated they slept better when their cat was not touching them; and
61 (20.7%) believed they slept better when their cat was touching them. Table 4 shows the
percent of the night owners who shared their bed with their dog and/or cat believed their pets
717

were in their bed.

AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 718

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership…

Table 4. Percent of night participants reported their dogs and cats were in their bed.
Numbers of participants in each category are provided, and percentages are in parentheses.
Dog Cat
0–25% 43 (8.2%) 50 (16.9%)
26–50% 57 (10.9%) 88 (29.8%)
51–75% 68 (13.0%) 76 (25.8%)
76–100% 339 (64.8%) 49 (16.6%)
Participant Selected “I do not know” 16 (3.1%) 32 (10.8%)

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for the subscales of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality
Index (PSQI) and the global PSQI score by pet ownership category.
Dog Owners Cat Owners Dog and Cat Non-pet
(no cats) (no dogs) Owners Owners
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Subjective Sleep Quality 1.10 0.663 1.22 0.686 1.18 0.623 1.17 0.782
Sleep Latency 1.23 1.027 1.42 1.051 1.39 0.986 1.46 0.953
Sleep Duration 0.61 0.764 0.56 0.693 0.60 0.749 0.62 0.744
Habitual Sleep Efficiency 0.55 0.849 0.64 0.951 0.59 0.863 0.68 0.845
Sleep Disturbances 1.32 0.531 1.39 0.554 1.33 0.505 1.29 0.522
Use of Sleep Medication 0.66 1.104 0.72 1.137 0.53 1.004 0.75 1.132
Daytime Dysfunction 0.97 0.767 1.20 0.768 1.10 0.793 0.89 0.812
Global PSQI Scale 6.43 3.446 7.16 3.718 6.73 3.322 6.87 3.770

PSQI
Global PSQI scores ranged from 0 to 20 (M = 6.664, SD = 3.362). For our sample, Cron-
bach’s alpha was 0.68. The mean scores of the seven subscales of the PSQI and the global
PSQI are shown in Table 5 for participants who had dogs only, cats only, dogs and cats, and
no companion animals. Fifty-five percent of participants had global PSQI scores that exceeded
5, suggesting a high percentage of study participants experienced sleep quality deficits. An
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess the effects of companion animal own-
ership status on PSQI scores. Age and whether participants slept with their pets or slept with
human partners were included in the model as covariates. Sleeping with a human partner had
no effect on any PSQI subscales or the global PSQI score (for all, p > 0.05). Age was associ-
ated with sleep disturbances (F(4,950) = 3.889, p = 0.004) and use of sleep medication
(F(4,950) = 3.701, p = 0.005). There were no significant relationships between companion ani-
mal ownership status and any PSQI scale (for all, p > 0.05), with the exception of daytime
dysfunction (F(3,950) = 4.927, p = 0.045). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons did not show any
significant differences in daytime dysfunction across any of the pet ownership and non-pet
ownership categories (for all, p > 0.05). Pet in bed status had significant associations with
Anthrozoös

sleep disturbances (F(3,950) = 2.63, p = 0.049). Those who slept with a dog and cat had lower
mean sleep disturbance scores (mean score = 1.216, 95% CI = 1.102–1.133) than those who
did not have a pet in bed (mean score = 1.395, 95% CI = 1.325–1.465, p = 0.047).
Follow-up analyses were conducted separately in dog-owning and cat-owning participants
to examine the impacts of bedsharing with pets on sleep quality. Dog-owning participants
718

who shared their bed with at least one dog reported significantly fewer sleep disturbances
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 719

Hoffman et al.

Table 6. Results from repeated measures mixed model (reported as Type III fixed effects)
examining the effects of human bed partners and pet ownership on the Comfort and Security
scale scores. p < 0.05 indicates a significant relationship between a given fixed effect and
scores on the Comfort and Security scale.
Measure F df (num, den) p
Age 4.372 4,870 0.002
Pet Ownership 7.711 3,781 < 0.001
Pet in Bed 8.306 3,735 < 0.001
Human Bed Partner 5.663 1,752 0.018
Human Bed Partner ⫻ Pet in Bed 2.276 2,547 < 0.001
Type of Comfort and Security Scale 110.696 3,820 0.078

than dog-owning participants who did not sleep with a dog (F(1,766) = 7.595, p = 0.015), but
there was no relationship between where the dog slept and any other PSQI subscales or the
global PSQI score. Cat owners who shared their bed with their cat did not differ on any PSQI
measures from cat owners who did not sleep with their cats (for all, p > 0.05).
Disturbance and Comfort and Security Scales
Regarding human bed partners, dogs, and cats, Comfort and Security and Disturbance scale
scores ranged from 1 to 5. We used repeated measures mixed models to examine the effects
of bed partners and pet ownership on sleep-related Comfort and Security and Disturbance
scales. Pet ownership, having dog/cat in bed, sharing bed with human, and age were included
as fixed effects. Because participants had the potential to have multiple Comfort and Security
and Disturbance scores (for human bed partner, dog, and cat), type of scale was considered
a repeated effect, with participant identity as a subject-level (random) effect. Interactions be-
tween human bed partners and pet in bed status were also included in the model. Tukey HSD
was used for post-hoc multiple comparisons.
The model used to examine Comfort and Security scale scores is specified in Table 6. Com-
fort and Security scores significantly differed due to age (p = 0.002). Specifically, 18–29-year-
olds (mean score = 3.400, 95% CI = 3.262–3.537) had significantly higher scores than those
aged 30–39 (mean score = 3.181, 95% CI = 3.061–3.301, p = 0.019), 40–49 (mean score =
3.174, 95% CI = 3.050–3.299, p = 0.027), 50–59 (mean score = 3.182, 95% CI = 3.060–3.303,
p = 0.027), and 60–69 (mean score = 3.058, 95% CI = 2.911–3.205, p < 0.001). Having a dog
(mean score = 3.217, 95% CI = 3.100–3.334, p < 0.001), a cat (mean score = 3.208, 95%
CI = 3.032–3.354, p = 0.026), or a dog and a cat (mean score = 3.388, 95% CI = 3.231–3.545,
p < 0.001) in the bed was associated with higher Comfort and Security scores compared with
not having a pet in the bed (mean score = 2.949, 95% CI = 2.820–3.079). Participants with
human bed partners reported less Comfort and Security (mean score = 3.123, 95%
CI = 23.027–3.220) compared with those who completed the measure regarding pets but had
no human bed partners (mean score = 3.260, 95% CI = 3.139–3.377, p = 0.018). Regarding
Anthrozoös

pet ownership, those who had either a dog (mean score = 3.218, 95% CI = 3.116–3.320,
p = 0.007) or a cat (mean score = 3.38, 95% CI = 3.214–3.534, p < 0.001) had higher Comfort
and Security scores than those who had a dog and a cat (mean score = 3.019, 95%
CI = 2.945–3.091). Comfort and Security scores for those with a dog in the bed (dog scale:
mean score = 3.514, 95% CI = 3.408-3.620) were higher than for those with a cat or human
719

partner in the bed (cat scale: mean score = 2.717, 95% CI = 2.600–2.833, p < 0.001; human
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 720

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership…

Figure 1. Comfort and Security scores for human, dog, and cat bed partners. Error bars represent
95% confidence intervals. ***p < 0.001 from Tukey HSD test for pairwise comparisons.

Table 7. Results from repeated measures mixed model (reported as Type III fixed effects)
examining the effects of human bed partners and pet ownership on the Disturbance scale
scores. p < 0.05 indicates a significant relationship between a given fixed effect and scores
on the Disturbance scale.
Measure F df (num, den) p
Age 2.140 4,852 0.074
Pet Ownership 2.447 3,788 0.063
Pet in Bed 4.475 3,743 0.004
Human Bed Partner 3.366 1,758 0.067
Human Bed Partner ⫻ Pet in Bed 0.429 3,831 0.732
Type of Disturbance Scale 6.888 2,530 0.001

scale: mean score = 3.343, 95% CI = 3.236–3.451, p < 0.001; Figure 1). Comfort and Security
scores associated with having a cat in the bed were lower than those associated with having
a human bed partner (p < 0.001). There was no interaction between having pets in the bed and
having a human bed partner (p > 0.05).
The Disturbance scale model is specified in Table 7. There was no relationship between
Disturbance scale scores and age (p = 0.074) or pet ownership (p = 0.063). Compared with
not having a pet in the bed (mean score = 2.610, 95% CI = 2.460–2.764), having a cat in the
bed (cat only: mean score = 3.000, 95% CI = 2.820–3.172, p = 0.003; dog and cat: mean
score = 2.610, 95% CI = 2.709–3.083, p = 0.036) was associated with higher Disturbance
scores; however, Disturbance scores associated with having only a dog in the bed (no cat) did
not differ significantly (mean score = 2.778, 95% CI = 2.638–2.918, p = 0.155) from those
associated with having no pet in the bed. While those with a human bed partner had higher
Disturbance scores (mean score = 2.887, 95% CI = 2.770–3.003) compared with those with-
out (mean score = 2.753, 95% CI = 2.610–2.897, p = 0.067), this difference did not reach
Anthrozoös

statistical significance. Disturbance scores associated with having a cat in the bed (cat scale:
mean score = 2.825, 95% CI = 2.681–2.969) did not differ from Disturbance scores associated
with having a human bed partner (human scale: mean score = 2.923, 95% CI = 2.793–3.053,
p = 0.343; Figure 2), but Disturbance scores associated with having a dog in the bed (dog
scale: mean score = 2.711, 95% CI = 2.582–2.839) were lower than those associated with
720

having a human bed partner (p < 0.001). Disturbance scores associated with having a dog in
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 721

Hoffman et al.

Figure 2. Disturbance scores for human, dog, and cat bed partners. Error bars represent
95% confidence intervals. ***p < 0.001 from Tukey HSD test for pairwise comparisons.

the bed did not significantly differ from those associated with having a cat in the bed
(p = 0.200). There was no interaction between having pets in the bed and having a human bed
partner (p > 0.05).

Discussion
Our results indicate there are associations between pet ownership and human sleep routines
and sleep quality, and that cats and dogs may impact human sleep in different ways. Dog
owners tended to wake up earlier than cat owners, perhaps as a result of differences in dogs’
and cats’ sleep patterns (Campbell & Tobler, 1984; Lucas et al., 1977) and dogs’ needs to go
outside in the morning to toilet. The wake times on workdays and non-workdays varied less
for dog owners than for non-pet owners, suggesting that dog ownership and its associated
responsibilities may cause individuals to adhere to a stricter routine. Keeping to a consistent
sleep schedule may be beneficial to dog owners. Consistent bedtimes and wake times help
strengthen circadian rhythms (Taylor & Roane, 2010), whereas inconsistent sleep-wake
schedules are associated with daytime sleepiness (Manber, Bootzin, Acebo, & Carskadon,
1996) and insomnia (Taylor & Roane, 2010).
For owners whose dogs and/or cats slept in bed with them, there was no consensus
regarding whether they preferred to sleep in physical contact with their dogs and/or cats, but
differences emerged regarding the percentage of the night dogs and cats remained on the bed.
According to participants’ reports, dogs commonly spent more than 75% of the night on the
bed, but cats rarely did. This difference may relate to previous findings that the major sleep
period in dogs, which occurs between 2100 hr and 0400 hr (Lucas et al., 1977), more closely
coincides with sleep patterns in humans than does the primary sleep period for cats, which is
between 1200 hr and 1800 hr (Lucas, 1978). Differences in dogs’ and cats’ daily activity
patterns may also help explain why participants rated dogs in the bed, but not cats in the bed,
as less disruptive to sleep than human bed partners.
Over half of our participants had a global PSQI score indicative of sleep quality deficits.
Anthrozoös

While this suggests that many participants in our sample did experience sleep-related prob-
lems, it is not uncommon for community-based samples of adult women to have average
scores above the global score cutoff value of five (Mollayeva et al., 2016). Elevated PSQI scores
were present across pet ownership and non-pet ownership categories, and there was no
relationship between these categories and global PSQI scores or any PSQI subscale scores,
721

with the exception of the sleep disturbance subscale. Overall, connections between pet
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 722

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership…

ownership and perceptions of sleep quality as assessed by the PSQI were limited. Although
a previous study reported that those who sleep with a pet took longer to fall asleep than those
who did not (Smith et al., 2014), this was not found in the current study, even when
distinguishing pets who slept in the bed from those who did not.
The data suggest that dogs in the bed may be less disruptive to sleep than dogs who are
not in the bed. Dog owners who shared their bed with their dog reported significantly fewer
sleep disturbances on the PSQI than dog owners who did not. The PSQI sleep disturbance
subscale focuses primarily on sleep disturbances intrinsic to oneself, such as feeling too hot
or cold, having bad dreams, being disturbed by one’s own coughing or snoring, waking up dur-
ing the night, and experiencing pain. Thus, it is possible that having the dog in bed may reduce
the severity of these disturbances. For instance, having the dog in one’s bed may reduce the
prevalence of bad dreams, a finding previously reported in relation to veterans with PTSD who
slept with service dogs (Newton, 2014). It may also be, as has been suggested by Thompson
and Smith (2014), that dogs who are not allowed on the bed are more likely to be active at night
and exhibit barking and other attention-seeking behaviors that are disruptive to both human
and dog sleep. The impacts of co-sleeping with dogs on subjective and objective measures
of sleep quality require further investigation, particularly since a recent actigraphy-based study
concluded that individuals who co-sleep with their dogs show lower sleep efficiency than those
who do not (Patel et al., 2017).
Dogs as bed partners scored higher on the Comfort and Security scale and lower on the
Disturbance scale than human bed partners. This indicates that bedsharing with a dog may
benefit human sleep in ways not addressed by the PSQI. That dogs who slept with their own-
ers scored higher than cats on the Comfort and Security scale may be related to dogs’ abilities
to deter intruders and warn their owners of potential threats in ways that cats cannot. As our
study found, and others (e.g., Krahn et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2014) have suggested, that hav-
ing either a dog or cat in bed is associated with greater comfort and security than not having a
pet in bed, pets may contribute to an owner’s ability to relax and feel secure in ways unrelated
to threat deterrence. For example, the quality of the human–pet relationship may be an impor-
tant factor impacting a dog or cat’s ability to facilitate relaxation. For an in-depth discussion of
the role pet attachment may play in the decision to co-sleep, see Smith et al. (2017).
Limitations and Future Directions
Most of the individuals who participated in this study had taken part in previous online stud-
ies conducted by the CCRT or learned about the study via advertisements posted to the
CCRT’s Facebook page. As such, the vast majority of participants lived with dogs, cats, or
both, and comparatively few participants resided with no companion animals. There was also
a lack of gender and ethnic diversity amongst the participants who completed the survey, and
although participants from 42 states completed the survey, more than half of the participants
resided in New York State. Follow-up studies are needed to better characterize non-pet
owners’ sleep habits, and to explore the effects of dogs and cats on people representing
Anthrozoös

diverse backgrounds. In addition, follow-up work is needed to determine whether dogs and
cats impact men’s and women’s sleep in different ways.
As this was the first study to compare how dogs, cats, and adult human bed partners are
perceived to impact human sleep quality, we developed a novel set of questions about the
perceived impacts of dogs, cats, and human bed partners on sleep quality. Factor analyses
722

indicated the questions grouped into two scales: (1) Comfort and Security and (2) Disturbance.
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 723

Hoffman et al.

The only human partners referenced in the questions were adults who shared a bed with
participants, whereas questions about pets were inclusive of all dogs and cats in the home.
Reliability analyses suggested the Comfort and Security scale had respectable degrees of
internal consistency for dogs, cats, and humans. However, by asking more questions about
the impacts of human bed partners and companion animals on sleep, it may be possible to
disentangle the effects of co-sleeping on feelings of comfort versus security; that is, a human
bed partner or companion animal might not need to be viewed as a protector to facilitate
relaxation and feelings of comfort.
Internal consistency was acceptable for the cat Disturbance scale but weak for the dog and
human partner Disturbance scales. The Disturbance scales might be refined and strength-
ened by asking more questions regarding ways in which dogs, cats, and human partners may
disrupt sleep. Because pets are thought of as surrogate children in some households (Turner,
2006), it would also be helpful to develop a measure that compares the ways in which children
and pets may enhance or disturb sleep. Future research could also explore how attachment
to one’s pet impacts co-sleeping decisions and perceptions of the pet’s impact on sleep
disturbances or feelings of comfort and security.
Although the self-report data described in this manuscript provide some valuable insights
into relationships between pet ownership and human sleep, studies that use actigraphy and
sleep diary data are necessary to gain a more objective understanding of the impact that pets
have on sleep. Patel and colleagues (2017) have published an actigraphy-based assessment
of the impacts of dogs in the bedroom and bed on human sleep, but more in-depth assess-
ments are required. Research modeled after actigraphy studies that have examined the effects
of human partners on sleep (e.g., studies by Dittami et al., 2007; Meadows et al., 2009;
Pankhurst & Horne, 1994) would provide additional insights into the impacts of pets on sleep.
Moreover, fine-grained analyses of dog and human actigraphy data could tell us more about
what specific types of dog movement lead to disruptions in human sleep, and vice versa.
When the appropriate, species-specific algorithms are in place, actigraphy is a valid and reliable
method for measuring movement in dogs (Clarke & Fraser, 2016; Ladha, Hammerla, Hughes,
Olivier, & Plötz, 2013; Yam et al., 2011).

Conclusions
Our findings did not show a strong relationship between pet ownership status or bedsharing
conditions and sleep quality as assessed by the PSQI; however, given that a high percent-
age of study participants experienced sleep quality deficits and that all but 7% of participants
resided with dogs and/or cats, it is possible that pet ownership contributed to the high global
PSQI scores we observed. Other measures included in this study suggest that dogs and
cats, and where they sleep, may indeed affect sleep habits and perceptions of sleep quality.
Differences in dog and cat owners’ sleep behaviors may be due to differences in dogs’ and
cats’ daily activity patterns. People who have dogs tend to have earlier bedtimes and wake
times than people who have cats and no dogs. Furthermore, compared with sleeping with
Anthrozoös

human partners, sleeping with dogs is perceived to cause less disruption and to bring about
a greater sense of comfort and security. Cats on the bed, on the other hand, are as disrup-
tive as human bed partners and are associated with less comfort and security than human
bed partners. Additional research is needed to refine survey measures associated with sleep
disturbance and comfort and security and to objectively measure the impacts of pets on
723

sleep quality.
AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 724

An Examination of Adult Women’s Sleep Quality and Sleep Routines in Relation to Pet Ownership…

Acknowledgements
We thank Vanessa Krisza-Hayes with assistance creating the survey. KS received funding for
this project from the Canisius Earning Excellence Program.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References
Alvarez, G. G., & Ayas, N. T. (2004). The impact of daily sleep duration on health: A review of the literature.
Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing, 19, 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0889-7204.2004.02422.x.
American Veterinary Medical Association. (2012). U.S. pet ownership & demographics sourcebook.
Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association.
Breslau, N., Roth, T., Rosenthal, L., & Andreski, P. (1996). Sleep disturbance and psychiatric disorders: A
longitudinal epidemiological study of young adults. Biological Psychiatry, 39, 411–418. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0006-3223(95)00188-3.
Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality
Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research, 28, 193–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4.
Campbell, S. S., & Tobler, I. (1984). Animal sleep: A review of sleep duration across phylogeny. Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral Reviews, 8, 269–300.
Clarke, N., & Fraser, D. (2016). Automated monitoring of resting in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
174, 99–102.
Coppinger, R., & Coppinger, L. (2001). Dogs: A startling new understanding of canine origin, behavior &
evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dittami, J., Keckeis, M., Machatschke, I., Katina, S., Zeitlhofer, J., & Kloesch, G. (2007). Sex differences in the
reactions to sleeping in pairs versus sleeping alone in humans. Sleep and Biological Rhythms, 5, 271–276.
Foley, D. J., Ancoli-Israel, S., Britz, P., & Walsh, J. (2004). Sleep disturbances and chronic disease in older adults:
results of the 2003 National Sleep Foundation Sleep in America Survey. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
56, 497–502.
Foley, D. J., Monjan, A. A., Brown, S. L., Simonsick, E. M., Wallace, R. B., & Blazer, D. G. (1995). Sleep
complaints among elderly persons: An epidemiologic study of three communities. Sleep, 18, 425–432.
Krahn, L. E., Tovar, M. D., & Miller, B. (2015). Are pets in the bedroom a problem? Mayo Clinic Proceedings,
90, 1663–1665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.08.012.
Kryger, M. H., Roth, T., & Dement, W. C. (2010). Principles and practice of sleep medicine (5th ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Ladha, C., Hammerla, N., Hughes, E., Olivier, P., & Plötz, T. (2013). Dog’s life: Wearable activity recognition for
dogs. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous
Computing (pp. 415–418). Association for Computing Machinery.
Lucas, E. A. (1978). A study of the daily sleep and waking patterns of the laboratory cat. Sleep Research,
7, 142.
Lucas, E. A., Powell, E. W., & Murphree, O. D. (1977). Baseline sleep-wake patterns in the pointer dog.
Physiology & Behavior, 19, 285–291.
Manber, R., Bootzin, R. R., Acebo, C., & Carskadon, M. A. (1996). The effects of regularizing sleep-wake
schedules on daytime sleepiness. Sleep, 19, 432–441.
Meadows, R., Arber, S., Venn, S., Hislop, J., & Stanley, N. (2009). Exploring the interdependence of couples’
rest-wake cycles: An actigraphic study. Chronobiology International, 26, 80–92.
Anthrozoös

Middelkoop, H. A., Smilde-van den Doel, D. A., Neven, A. K., Kamphuisen, H. A., & Springer, C. P. (1996).
Subjective sleep characteristics of 1,485 males and females aged 50–93: Effects of sex and age, and factors
related to self-evaluated quality of sleep. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and
Medical Sciences, 51(3), M108–M115.
Mollayeva, T., Thurairajah, P., Burton, K., Mollayeva, S., Shapiro, C. M., & Colantonio, A. (2016). The Pittsburgh
sleep quality index as a screening tool for sleep dysfunction in clinical and non-clinical samples: A systematic
724

review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 25, 52–73.

AZ 31(6)_Layout 1 11/2/18 11:31 AM Page 725

Hoffman et al.

Newton, R. (2014). Exploring the experiences of living with psychiatric service dogs for veterans with
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (Unpublished master’s thesis). Adler School of Professional Psychology, USA.
Pankhurst, F. P., & Horne, J. A. (1994). The influence of bed partners on movement during sleep. Sleep, 17,
308–315.
Patel, S. I., Miller, B. W., Kosiorek, H. E., Parish, J. M., Lyng, P. J., & Krahn, L. E. (2017). The effect of dogs on
human sleep in the home sleep environment. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 92, 1368–1372. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.06.014.
Power, E. R. (2012). Domestication and the dog: Embodying home. Area, 44, 371–378.
Reyner, L. A., Horne, J. A., & Reyner, A. (1995). Gender-and age-related differences in sleep determined by
home-recorded sleep logs and actimetry from 400 adults. Sleep, 18, 127–134.
Smith, B. P., Hazelton, P. C., Thompson, K. R., Trigg, J. L., Etherton, H. C., & Blunden, S. L. (2017). A
multispecies approach to co-sleeping. Human Nature, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-017-9290-2.
Smith, B. P., Thompson, K., Clarkson, L., & Dawson, D. (2014). The prevalence and implications of human–
animal co-sleeping in an Australian sample. Anthrozoös, 27, 543–551. https://doi.org/10.2752/
089279314X14072268687880.
Taylor, D. J., & Roane, B. M. (2010). Treatment of insomnia in adults and children: A practice-friendly review of
research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66, 1137–1147.
Thompson, K., & Smith, B. P. (2014). Should we let sleeping dogs lie … with us? Synthesizing the literature and
setting the agenda for research on human–animal co-sleeping practices. Humanimalia, 6, 114–127.
Turner, W. G. (2006). The role of companion animals throughout the family life cycle. Journal of Family Social
Work, 9, 11–21.
Urponen, H., Vuori, I., Hasan, J., & Partinen, M. (1988). Self-evaluations of factors promoting and disturbing
sleep: An epidemiological survey in Finland. Social Science & Medicine, 26, 443–450. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0277-9536(88)90313-9.
Yam, P. S., Penpraze, V., Young, D., Todd, M. S., Cloney, A. D., Houston-Callaghan, K. A., & Reilly, J. J. (2011).
Validity, practical utility and reliability of actigraph accelerometry for the measurement of habitual physical
activity in dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 52, 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
5827.2010.01025.x.

Anthrozoös
725