UA studies how, and how much, we talk to our pets

For Tucson residents who talk through their day with a dog or cat, a new University of Arizona study suggests those conversations are far more common and varied than casual observers might assume. UA researchers found that people spend about one tenth of their speaking time talking to their pets. They are now using a new analysis tool to study whether the way people communicate with animals helps explain why pets can improve some owners’ sense of connection and well-being.

The project grew from a basic question: What do people actually say to their pets when nobody is asking them about their relationships with animals? Dr. Emily Bray, an assistant professor in the UA College of Veterinary Medicine, said pet owners often report that their animals make a meaningful difference in their lives, but scientific findings about the so-called “pet effect” have been inconsistent. Some studies connect pet ownership with lower loneliness and depression, while others find little or no clear benefit.

To gather more natural evidence, researchers combined expertise from the College of Veterinary Medicine and the Department of Psychology. They relied on the electronically activated recorder, or EAR, a smartphone application developed by psychology professor Matthias Mehl. The app turns on at random points during the day and records short portions of whatever is happening around a participant. The recordings used in this research came from four earlier studies and were collected without telling participants that their conversations with pets were the focus.

That design was intended to reduce the influence of people changing their behavior for a study. Participants agreed that their recordings could be used for research, but they did not know the specific research question. The team reviewed more than 5,000 audio clips involving a dog or cat, drawn from 240 participants. The app captured natural activity in short intervals, including recordings lasting 30 or 50 seconds, according to the study’s description.

The researchers created a coding system called AURAL-Pet, short for Audio-based Understanding of Relational Animal-directed Language. It allows trained reviewers to mark whether particular kinds of interaction appear in each clip. The categories include praise, questions, commands and expressions of frustration, along with other features of human and animal communication. The system also looks at details such as whether an owner uses a nickname, refers to themselves in a parental role or speaks to a pet as though the animal were another person.

Testing indicated that the system could be applied consistently. When two human coders independently evaluated the same recordings, 22 of 23 yes or no measures were found to be reliable. The researchers said the tool is designed to capture more than the number of times someone says “good girl” or asks whether a pet wants a treat. It can also identify whether an animal is treated as a confidant, whether the pet’s presence prompts an owner to talk with other people, and whether the animal becomes part of a person’s ordinary narration.

That narration can cover nearly anything. Owners may explain that they are going for a walk, preparing food, brushing their hair or reading a book. They may describe their own day, discuss what the pet has been doing or speak to the animal after returning from a difficult day at work. The study found substantial differences between owners. Some used a nickname in every recorded conversation with a pet, while others never used one. In a busy household with several human family members, conversations with pets still made up as much as 10 percent of all recorded conversations.

Those differences could be important for Tucsonans who live alone, older adults and others whose daily social contact is limited. Bray said researchers want to determine whether a pet sometimes serves as a substitute for human companionship, or instead helps an owner connect with other people. A dog, for example, might prompt conversations with neighbors, while a cat or dog at home might provide a regular listener for someone who would otherwise have no one nearby to hear about their day. The researchers are interested in potential connections with mental health, general well-being and even cognitive outcomes.

The team is already applying AURAL-Pet to the C.A.R.E. study, led by UA psychology professors Matthew Grilli and Jessica Andrews-Hanna. That project gathers mental health and well-being information from adults over 60. By comparing participants’ recorded interactions with their pets and their broader health information, researchers hope to learn whether certain communication patterns are linked to better outcomes. Lead author Dara Jonkoski, a psychology doctoral student, said the tool could help show how different interaction styles relate to well-being rather than relying only on people’s answers to questionnaires.

The study, published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, is intended as a foundation for further research rather than a final answer about whether pets make people healthier. Its value is that it measures behavior as it happens, instead of asking owners to remember or summarize their interactions. For Bray and her colleagues, that direct approach may help clarify why pets have a positive impact on some people and a smaller effect on others. In Tucson homes where a cat hears a running commentary or a dog is told every detail of the day, those ordinary conversations may offer researchers a new way to understand the human animal bond.