摘要：A new study offers strong support for the hypothesis that pets increase human satisfaction and well-being.Pets do so similarly to
The Positive Value of Dogs and Cats on Human Well-Being
狗和猫对人类福祉的积极价值
New research examines the "net pet effect."
新的研究考察了“宠物净效应”。
Updated June 21, 2025 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods
更新于2025年6月21日 | Tyler Woods 审阅
A new study offers strong support for the hypothesis that pets increase human satisfaction and well-being.Pets do so similarly to family and friends and to some extent they are even a substitute for these people.Cat carers appear to be more open and dog carers appear to be more extroverted, agreeable, and less neurotic.Pet carers in general appear to be more open, conscientious, and extroverted than non-pet carers.
一项新的研究为宠物能提高人类的满意度和幸福感的假设提供了强有力的支持。宠物与家人和朋友的作用非常相似，在某种程度上，它们甚至可以替代这些人。猫护理者似乎更加开放，而狗护理者似乎更加外向、随和且不那么神经质。总体而言，宠物护理者比非宠物护理者更加开放、认真和外向。
This post is in response to Scientific Proof That Pets Can Make You Happy By Sebastian Ocklenburg, Ph.D.
这篇文章是为了回应 宠物可以让你快乐的科学证据 作者：Sebastian Ocklenburg 博士
Searching the web leads to countless studies that show that pets (a.k.a. companion animals) have various positive effects on many aspects of people's quality of life. Of course, this isn't so for all people.1 However, a new open access study by Michael W. Gmeiner and Adeline Gschwandtner titled "The Value of Pets: The Quantifiable Impact of Pets on Life Satisfaction" based on substantial data shows, "a pet companion increases life satisfaction by 3 to 4 points on a scale of 1 to 7... and having a pet companion is worth up to £70,000 (about $94,000) a year in terms of life satisfaction, similar to values obtained in the literature for meeting with friends and relatives on a regular basis."
在网上搜索，你会看到无数研究表明，宠物（又称伴侣动物）对人们生活质量的诸多方面有着积极的影响。当然，并非所有人都如此。1然而，Michael W. Gmeiner 和 Adeline Gschwandtner 开展的一项名为《宠物的价值：宠物对生活满意度的量化影响》的全新开放获取研究，基于大量数据，显示“在1到7的评分标准中，拥有宠物伴侣可将生活满意度提高3到4个百分点……拥有宠物伴侣每年可带来高达7万英镑（约合9.4万美元）的生活满意度提升，这与文献中定期与亲朋好友见面所获得的数值相当。”
Here, I expand on Sebastian Ocklenburg's essay by comparing some differences between dog carers and cat carers, and also from benefiting from emailing with Gmeiner for clarification of a few of their other results. Gmeiner and Gschwandtner's data also line up with the discussion in Stanley Coren's essay "Is Our Relationship to Dogs Friendship or Family?" posted yesterday.
在此，我扩展了Sebastian Ocklenburg的文章，比较了狗护理者和猫护理者之间的一些差异，并得益于与Gmeiner的邮件沟通，他们澄清了其他一些研究结果。Gmeiner和Gschwandtner的数据也与Stanley Coren昨天发表的文章《我们与狗的关系是友谊还是家庭？》中的讨论相符。
How the research was conducted
研究是如何进行的
Here is a summary of some of the massive amounts of data collected by the researchers that provide causal estimates—not merely correlations—of how happy pets can make us. The authors begin with a wide-ranging and highly valuable summary of scientific literature that focuses on how pets affect human well-being and self-esteem. Many are based on correlations between different variables and reported assessments of well-being. They also importantly note, "The positive effects of pets, however, could be offset by risks and problems associated with them, such as allergies, parasites, physical injuries, infections, financial stress and emotional distress (Smith, 2012; Brooks et al., 2018; Hui et al. 2020; Applebaum et al., 2021), making this study that aims to estimate the ‘net pet effect’, even more important." (References can be found in the original essay.)
以下是研究人员收集的海量数据中的部分摘要，这些数据提供了宠物如何让我们快乐起来的因果估计，而不仅仅是相关性。作者首先对科学文献进行了广泛且极具价值的总结，这些文献重点关注宠物如何影响人类的福祉和自尊。许多文献基于不同变量之间的相关性以及报告的幸福感评估。他们还特别指出：“然而，宠物的积极作用可能会被与之相关的风险和问题所抵消，例如过敏、寄生虫、身体伤害、感染、经济压力和情绪困扰（Smith，2012；Brooks 等人，2018；Hui 等人，2020；Applebaum 等人，2021），这使得这项旨在估算‘宠物净效应’的研究显得尤为重要。”（参考文献可在原文中找到。）
Their data are based on 2,617 observations from 1980 households—some individuals appear in different analyses—and 769 unique individuals aged 16-99. Life satisfaction was measured from responses to the following question: "Please choose the number which you feel best describes how dissatisfied or satisfied you are with the following aspects of your current situation: Life overall." They used a seven-point scale with one denoting that a person is not satisfied at all and seven denoting that a person is completely satisfied. They also used the "Big Five" personality traits, openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeability, and Neuroticism (OCEAN).
他们的数据基于对1980个家庭（部分个体出现在不同的分析中）以及769名年龄在16-99岁之间的个体的2617次观察。生活满意度是通过对以下问题的回答来衡量的：“请选择一个您认为最能描述您对当前生活状况的以下方面感到不满意或满意程度的数字：总体生活。” 他们使用了一个七点量表，其中1表示完全不满意，7表示完全满意。他们还使用了“大五人格特质” ——开放性、尽责性、外向性、亲和性和神经质（OCEAN）。
Because "social capital" is one of the most important determinants of life satisfaction, they asked questions about an individual's relationship with neighbors because they are a good proxy for social capital. Physical health was determined by asking, “In general, would you say your health is: poor”, and one that asks whether the respondent is long-time sick or disabled. Mental health was assessed by the answer to the question: “During the past four weeks, how much of the time have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily activities as a result of any emotional problems (such as feeling depressed or anxious)” measured from 1 (all of the time) to 5 (none of the time)."
由于“社会资本”是决定生活满意度最重要的因素之一，他们询问了个人与邻居的关系，因为邻居关系是衡量社会资本的良好指标。身体健康状况的评估是通过询问“总体而言，您认为您的健康状况是：差”以及询问受访者是否长期患病或残疾来判断的。心理健康的评估是通过回答以下问题来评估的：“在过去四周内，您在工作或其他日常活动中，有多少时间因情绪问题（例如感到沮丧或焦虑）而遇到以下问题？”，评分范围从1（一直）到5（从未）。
What did this study reveal?
这项研究揭示了什么？
The relationship between age and life satisfaction is shown in this figure.
年龄与生活满意度的关系如图所示。
The Value of Pets: The Quantifiable Impact of Pets on Life Satisfaction, open access.
宠物的价值：宠物对生活满意度的量化影响，开放获取。
Source: The Value of Pets: The Quantifiable Impact of Pets on Life Satisfaction, open access.
The graph is often called the "life satisfaction smile" because older females and males tend to show greater satisfaction after around the mid-40s, when mid-life crises are most common.
该图表通常被称为“生活满意度微笑”，因为年龄较大的女性和男性往往在 40 岁左右之后表现出更高的满意度，而此时中年危机最为常见。
Interestingly, when the presence of companion dogs and cats is considered, the results showed that the life satisfaction of dog and cat carers was lower than general life satisfaction, similar to what other studies have reported. The researchers also found that the life satisfaction of cat and dog carers was not significantly different (their Table 2), which is similar to the results of other studies. They write, "Even though on average the mental and physical health of pet carers and non-pet carers appear to be very similar, it could be that lower life satisfaction of pet carers is driven by other dimensions of mental health not captured by our data, making it even more important to account for the direction of causality."
有趣的是，当考虑到伴侣犬和猫的存在时，研究结果显示，猫狗照护者的生活满意度低于总体生活满意度，这与其他研究报告的结果相似。研究人员还发现，猫狗照护者的生活满意度并没有显著差异（表2），这与其他研究的结果相似。他们写道：“尽管宠物照护者和非宠物照护者的身心健康状况平均而言非常相似，但宠物照护者生活满意度较低的原因可能是由我们数据未涵盖的其他心理健康维度所致，因此，解释因果关系的方向就显得尤为重要。”
There also were differences in personality traits. They report that cat carers "appear to be more open [while] dog carers appear to be more extroverted, agreeable and less neurotic." When compared to people living without dogs or cats, pet carers are more open, conscientious, and extroverted and also are more likely to be married with more children living with them.
性格特征也存在差异。研究报告显示，养猫的人“似乎更加开放，而养狗的人则更加外向、随和，神经质程度更低”。与没有养猫或狗的人相比，养宠物的人更加开放、认真、外向，而且结婚并有更多孩子的可能性也更大。
The researchers also report positive and significant monetary effects of pet companionship. The overall monetary values they report can be as high as £70,000 (about $94,000) for both cats and dogs, and dogs had larger health benefits than cats. They note, "It may be that a larger value for dogs is expected. However, one needs to consider that dogs also have higher ‘maintenance costs’ compared to cats."
研究人员还报告了宠物陪伴带来的积极且显著的经济效益。他们报告称，宠物陪伴对猫和狗的总体经济效益最高可达7万英镑（约合9.4万美元），而且狗的健康效益比猫更大。他们指出：“狗的价值预期可能更高。然而，需要考虑的是，狗的‘维护成本’也比猫更高。”
I found these data to be a bit confusing, and Michael Gmeiner clarified them for me by writing: "It's an estimate of how much income would need to go up to have the same effect on life satisfaction as owning a pet.'" (See note 2 for more details.)
我发现这些数据有点令人困惑，Michael Gmeiner 通过以下文字为我澄清了这些数据：“这是对需要增加多少收入才能对生活满意度产生与拥有宠物相同的影响的估计。”（有关更多详细信息，请参阅注释 2。）
Coda: Who's actually taking care of who?
尾声：究竟是谁在照顾谁？
This study shows overall that dogs and cats, and perhaps other companion animals, are good for many people. The researchers also note that pet companionship can potentially be viewed as a substitute for family relationships. It remains possible that other companion animals are positively associated with life satisfaction, but they didn't have enough information for animals such as fish, hamsters, rabbits, reptiles, or horses.
这项研究总体表明，狗、猫以及其他伴侣动物对许多人有益。研究人员还指出，宠物陪伴可能被视为家庭关系的替代品。其他伴侣动物可能与生活满意度呈正相关，但他们对于鱼类、仓鼠、兔子、爬行动物或马等动物的研究数据不足。
All in all, the researchers write:
总而言之，研究人员写道：
The value of pets for their human caregivers appears to be very high, comparable to the one that has been obtained in other studies for meeting with friends and relatives on a regular basis or even with being married (Clark & Oswald, 2002; Powdthavee, 2008). We have used throughout the paper the term ‘human caregivers’ but in light of the results obtained in the present study the question can be raised regarding who is actually taking care of who."
宠物对其人类照护者的价值似乎非常高，与其他研究中得出的结论相当，例如定期与亲朋好友见面，甚至与结婚（Clark & Oswald，2002；Powdthavee，2008）。我们在整篇论文中一直使用“人类照护者”一词，但根据本研究的结果，可以提出一个问题：究竟谁在照顾谁。
I hope others will continue to study how various companion animals increase human life satisfaction and well-being and how robust this relationship truly is. They are not claiming that dogs and cats have positive effects on all humans, but for some, perhaps many, they really do help their humans along both psychologically and monetarily.
我希望其他人能够继续研究各种伴侣动物如何提升人类的生活满意度和幸福感，以及这种关系究竟有多牢固。他们并非声称猫狗对所有人类都有积极的影响，但对一些人来说，或许对很多人来说，它们确实在心理和经济上帮助了他们的主人。
每天一测，模拟答题：
来源：柚子茶
