The Emotional Bond Between Pets and Their Humans
Exploring Two Perspectives
Aligned with Phase 2: Emotional Elevation
For many people, pets are more than animals—they're beloved companions, protectors, and family members. Some even go so far as to call their pets their “kids,” a term rooted in deep affection and emotional connection. But not everyone feels the same. Many parents, especially those raising human children, push back on this comparison, citing the profound responsibility and unique emotional journey that comes with parenthood.
Rather than view these perspectives as opposing, it’s more helpful—and more compassionate—to explore the emotional and psychological foundations behind each. What we find is a rich and complex picture of love, identity, and care.
The Power of the Human–Animal Bond
The connection between people and their pets is backed by science. Research has shown that interacting with animals can increase oxytocin levels—a hormone linked to bonding, trust, and affection. This same hormone is released during parent–infant bonding, helping explain why pet owners often feel such strong emotional ties to their animals (Beetz et al., 2012, Frontiers in Psychology).
For individuals without children, or those whose children are grown, pets often step into an emotional space of caregiving and companionship. This role isn’t imagined—it’s felt deeply and reinforced by the positive emotional benefits pets bring, from easing loneliness to lowering stress and improving overall well-being.
Parenting and the Pushback
For parents, the emotional and physical demands of raising a human child are in a league of their own. From infancy through adulthood, parenting involves continuous emotional labor, complex decision-making, and a lifetime of responsibility. Comparing that journey to caring for a pet can, to some, feel reductive.
This viewpoint is reinforced by psychological research in parenting. According to developmental psychologist Marc H. Bornstein, raising a child involves a depth of emotional investment that spans social, cognitive, and ethical domains—requiring constant attunement to the child’s changing developmental needs (Handbook of Parenting, 2015). From this perspective, the difference isn’t just emotional—it’s experiential.
Understanding Emotional Fulfillment
While the responsibilities are different, both relationships offer genuine emotional fulfillment. Pet owners who refer to their pets as “fur babies” often identify with the caregiving role they’ve taken on. This may be particularly meaningful for those who thrive in nurturing environments or who identify strongly with being a caregiver.
Attachment styles also come into play. According to research in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, individuals with secure or caregiving-focused attachment styles are more likely to form close, familial bonds with their pets (Kurdek, 2009). Meanwhile, parents tend to frame their attachment in the context of social development and long-term life outcomes, which may feel incomparable.
Identity and Belonging
Our relationships with those we care for often shape how we see ourselves. For pet owners, calling a pet a “child” can be an expression of love—but also identity. It’s a way of saying: this being matters to me, and I matter to them. The label reflects a shared bond that brings comfort, structure, and even a sense of purpose.
Parents, on the other hand, may find their identity tightly woven with the responsibilities of human caregiving. The intense, often self-sacrificial nature of parenthood can make the comparison to pet ownership feel frustrating or even dismissive of their lived experience.
Two Truths Can Coexist
One experience doesn’t have to invalidate the other. Emotional closeness comes in many forms, and both human and animal caregiving relationships can shape us in profound ways. What matters most is acknowledging that love, connection, and purpose are not limited to one kind of relationship.
Rather than debating whether pets are children, perhaps the better question is: What role do they play in our emotional lives? And how can we honor that role—whether it includes fur, feathers, or fingerprints?
Final Thought
Whether you’re a parent to a child or a caregiver to a cherished pet, your experience of connection is real and valid. The debate over pets as “kids” highlights not just emotional differences, but the depth of love humans are capable of. By making space for both perspectives—with compassion, not comparison—we affirm that all forms of care and commitment matter. In doing so, we deepen our understanding of what it means to love, to nurture, and to belong.
Citations
Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human–animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00234
Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
Kurdek, L. A. (2009). Pet dogs as attachment figures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(2–3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509360700
This article was developed with AI assistance and carefully edited by our team to ensure alignment with the values and vision of Iram Mehal Coaching.
