The Impact of Continuing Bonds Between Pet Owners and Their Pets Following the Death of Their Pet: A Systematic Narrative Synthesis

Grief as a destabilizing emotion

Nearly two thirds of respondents in one study described their animal as a “baby,” “child,” “best friend,” “companion,” or someone to be “loved” rather than just a “protector” or a “pet” (Archer & Winchester, 1994). Understandably, grief is a potentially destabilizing emotion which was exhibited in various behaviors ranging from numbness and/or disbelief to clinical depression, trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Archer & Winchester, 1994; Hunt et al., 2008; Hunt & Padilla, 2006; King & Werner, 2011; Luiz Adrian et al., 2009; Packman et al., 2014; Redmalm, 2015; Wrobel & Dye, 2003; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011). These feelings led to preoccupation with thoughts of the pet, poor concentration, avoidance behavior, loss of identity, self-reproach, and socialization (Archer & Winchester, 1994; Brown & Symons, 2016; Hunt et al., 2008; King & Werner, 2011; Krause-Parello & Gulick, 2013; Tzivian et al., 2015; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011).

The impact of continuing bonds on grief

The evidence showed CB can intensify the grieving process by focusing on negative bonds, leading to severe grief (Field et al., 2009; Lavorgna & Hutton, 2019; Rémillard et al., 2017). In these situations, CB with the dead pet led to somatizing symptoms of grief similar to those for family members and friends (King & Werner, 2011; Tzivian et al., 2014). Consequently, the five stages of grief outlined by Kübler-Ross (1969) are present in the literature about pet death (Adams et al., 1999; Antonacopoulos et al., 2010; Baydak, 2000; Chur-Hansen, 2010; Compitus, 2019; Kolodny, 1991; Sharkin & Knox, 2003; Stokes et al., 2002).

Conversely, there is the potential for CB to mitigate the effects of grieving by decreasing feelings of loneliness. Rituals, memorials, memories, and dreams were identified as helpful coping mechanisms by continuing levels of attachment and reducing the intensity of grief (Krause-Parello & Gulick, 2013; Packman et al., 2012).

The character of grieving owners

White owners tended to treat their pet more like a family member than non-white owners and so the bond between them was felt more strongly when the pet died (Hunt & Padilla, 2006). However, the literature indicated owners aged 18–35 and over 60 are more likely to experience grief (McCutcheon & Fleming, 2001). Children and adolescents may also experience more intense grief, depending on their age, previous experiences of death, and level of attachment to the pet (Brown et al., 1996; Schmidt et al., 2020). Most literature indicated females form a stronger bond with their pet and so do experience grief more intensely than males (Brown & Symons, 2016; Eckerd et al., 2016; McCutcheon & Fleming, 2001; Testoni et al., 2017; Wrobel & Dye, 2003). However, the conclusions drawn in the literature were based on studies in which most participants were White, adult females and therefore may be the only conclusions to draw. Consequently, there is little understanding about the impact of CB on grieving non-White, non-female, younger pet owners, or bereaved people who have owned pets other than cats or dogs.

Other individual factors were identified as equally important when considering the role of CB and pet grief. For example, grief intensity was reportedly greater if the death was sudden and the person lived alone (Archer & Winchester, 1994). There was disagreement in the literature regarding the length of time attachment continued after the death of a pet. Periods for the peak of emotions ranged from 2 to 6 months (Krause-Parello & Gulick, 2013; McCutcheon & Fleming, 2001; Tzivian et al., 2014) and possibly up to a year after the pet’s death (Tzivian et al., 2014; Wrobel & Dye, 2003). Other research indicated grief peaked again approximately a year after the pet died, with up to 20% of pet owners reporting grief symptoms a year after the death (Hunt & Padilla, 2006; Wrobel & Dye, 2003). Therefore, recognizing the individual’s unique situation and their bond with the pet is felt important to understand the intensity of grief and how long it is experienced.

Disenfranchised grief

Grief experiences were further complicated because of disenfranchised grief. Although memorialization and rituals helped reduced the intensity of grief and stimulated personal growth, pet death was widely recognized as disenfranchised grief which had implications for both level of support and access to available support (Archer & Winchester, 1994; Lavorgna & Hutton, 2019; Packman et al., 2012; Rémillard et al., 2017; Tzivian et al., 2014, 2015). The understanding of pet bereavement was generally poorer and more trivialized in affluent societies, where grief was also linked to a hierarchy of animals (Laing & Maylea, 2018; Wong et al., 2017). This hierarchy has sometimes recognized the loss of dogs and cats as significant but the loss of other animals, such as fish and rats, has not received the same validation (Laing & Maylea, 2018). Some bereaved pet owners have described a “double disenfranchisement” whereby their feelings of grief for the pet have not been widely recognized by society and, in addition, their emotional connection to an animal considered lower down the hierarchy is considered abnormal (Laing & Maylea, 2018). Therefore, the literature indicates grieving owners should be supported by recognizing their unique needs and understanding that CB can intensify grief in some situations while alleviating it in other circumstances.

Continuing bonds and religion as means of coping

Some owners maintained bonds with a dead pet through an existing or new pet (Redmalm, 2015; Wong et al., 2017). However, there was no conclusive evidence to indicate whether this reduced grief or simply delayed its onset. If the owner views their pet as a family member, replacement of one pet with another is also not as simple or as viable as it sounds. Focusing on “replanning” following the death of a pet was sometimes negative because of the permanent and inescapable nature of death (Green et al., 2018). Instead, owners who were oriented toward using CB as a method of self-compassion reported less intense grief, less frequent dismissive or negative social interactions, and better psychosocial functioning (Bussolari et al., 2018).

Evidence also suggested that grieving owners needed someone to talk to and a means to express their grief (Brown et al., 1996). Many owners sought to maintain CB by incorporating their dead pet into religious belief (Testoni et al., 2017). In this way, owners discovered positive expressions of religious coping to deal with their loss through seeking God’s love and care (Lee, 2016). Belief in an afterlife for people and animals was associated with stronger attachment and improved grief response because of a communal sharing of the relationship; conversely, belief in an afterlife for only people led to more intense grief and was considered a less effective coping mechanism (Testoni et al., 2017). Other owners believed their pet’s soul was in a worse place, such as hell, and so they engaged in negative forms of religious coping because they felt punished by God (Lee, 2016; Lee & Surething, 2013). Therefore, religion was sometimes associated with feelings of guilt or comfort, depending on whether the owner felt punished or sought God’s love (Lee, 2016; Lee & Surething, 2013; Testoni et al., 2017). Overall, evidence suggested owners who drew on both positive and negative aspects of religion coped with grief more effectively because of their search for meaning (Lee, 2016). For this reason, spirituality, or a more subjective process of searching for connectedness and contextualizing one’s own existence, was helpful to cope more effectively (Lee & Surething, 2013).

Social and professional support as a support mechanism

Social support was also identified as an important mechanism in which to share CB and maintain the owner’s quality of life following the death of their pet and validate emotions (Field et al., 2009; Packman et al., 2012, 2017; Tzivian et al., 2015). The greater the perceived levels of social support, the lower the reports of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, and vice versa (Field et al., 2009; King & Werner, 2011). Social support was particularly important for people living alone (Archer & Winchester, 1994; Hunt & Padilla, 2006); those with family or friends unable to offer support (Tzivian et al., 2015); and for children (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2006; Schmidt et al., 2020).

Other literature indicated that social networks were was less important in pet death than in human death (Field et al., 2009; Green et al., 2018), suggesting not all pet owners have the same level of attachment to their pet, feel the same intensity of grief, or benefit from the same support. Yet there were situations when grieving individuals were shown to have benefitted from professional support and treatment (Luiz Adrian et al., 2009).

Although many vets shared similar emotions to grieving owners (Rujoiu & Rujoiu, 2015), perceived reactions of vets to the existence of CB further negatively impacted grief (Rémillard et al., 2017). Vets were often the initial contact for owners and literature indicated they should be available to help owners self-manage their emotions, as well provide initial support and contacts, make phone calls the day after the death, and send a condolence letter (Morris, 2012; Rémillard et al., 2017; Tzivian et al., 2014, 2015). Social workers may provide additional support as a conduit between vets and owners (Dunn et al., 2005). However, evidence suggested a barrier to accessing support was created because healthcare professionals did not always accept the death of a pet family member in the same way they accepted the death of human family member (Wrobel & Dye, 2003). Consequently, professionals can sometimes reduce intensity of grief by recognizing CB and facilitating access to support. Conversely, they may amplify grief and create an obstacle to support by failing to understand the role of CB in pet bereavement.

Religion and spirituality

Appreciation for life was also reflected in psychological or spiritual growth. Bereavement highlighted the owner’s personal strength and so provided a meaning to life (Packman et al., 2017). Although the death was painful, facing difficult decisions around euthanasia or discovering coping mechanisms for the death helped some owners identify resilience they did not realize they had. Pet death encouraged other owners to channel their energies into being creative or productive and so helped refocus their attention. Coming to terms with death enabled the grieving to offer support and information to other people or volunteer to work with animals (Packman et al., 2014, 2017; Wong et al., 2017). Some owners also reported the death of a pet led to a strengthening of bonds with existing pets (Wong et al., 2017).

The multifaceted positive layers of religion and spirituality helped the search for meaning and validated feelings of purpose, although religious faith itself did not seem to be strengthened (Lee, 2016; Packman et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2017). Yet reflections on life and death provided meaning and inspiration to cherish what life still had to offer. For example, a strong bond with a pet helped bring some owners closer to other family members after the pet died (Packman et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2017).

Continuing bonds, attachment, and growth

Despite previous research indicating the negative impact of pet bereavement, evidence suggested CB might be beneficial for encouraging post-traumatic growth. CB helped the bereaved find value in the death of a pet and, in doing so, facilitated the search for comfort (Habarth et al., 2017; Packman et al., 2011; 2017). In this sense, CB acted as a regulating and adapting process (Packman et al., 2011).

A strong bond with a pet was a considerable factor in other aspects of personal growth. Using a range of positive CB associations was shown to have an impact on wider aspects of health, wellbeing, and relationships with the wider world (Habarth et al., 2017). Growth was reported in the expression of emotions such as empowerment, happiness, love, positive thinking, and coping behaviors (Rémillard et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2017). Higher levels of post-traumatic growth were also associated with lower levels of somatization and functional impairment (Habarth et al., 2017).

The bereaved also expressed meaning through verbal discussions and poetry (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2006), writing a eulogy (Rennard et al., 2019); and engaging in pet loss support groups and counseling (Dunn et al., 2005; Laing & Maylea, 2018; Lavorgna & Hutton, 2019; Rujoiu & Rujoiu, 2015; Tzivian et al., 2014; Wong et al., 2017). The strength of attachment to the pet reflected these expressions and fostered empathy and compassion for other people, as well as recognition and acceptance of the sympathy that was offered in the period after the pet had died (Packman et al., 2017). Validating expressions of CB also helped minimize symptoms of grief and their duration (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2006).