An Examination of the Relations between Social Support, Anthropomorphism and Stress Among Dog Owners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTAlthough it is well documented that pet ownership has a number of benefits, the psychological characteristics of the pet–owner relationship that may affect human subjective well-being are not well understood. The purpose of the present study was to examine the relations between owners' perceived social support from their dog, anthropomorphism, and stress. Although studies have found that owning a pet is linked to stress reduction, this research has not examined whether engaging in anthropomorphism of dogs influences pet owners' stress levels. We hypothesized that, if dog owners are receiving social support through anthropomorphism of their pets, it is likely to lead to a reduction in stress. One hundred and seven dog owners completed a questionnaire package which included an Anthropomorphism Scale, the Perceived Stress Scale and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Correlations revealed that pet owners who perceived themselves as having low levels of social support were more likely to engage in high levels of anthropomorphic behavior (r = −0.21, df = 91, p < 0.05, one-tailed). However, our results also revealed an unexpected, small positive relation between anthropomorphic behavior and stress (r = 0.17, df = 92, p < 0.05, one-tailed). Explanations for the potential role of anthropomorphism as a coping mechanism to enhance social support are provided.Keywords: anthropomorphismAnthropomorphism ScaledogsMultidimensional Scale of Perceived Social SupportPerceived Stress Scalesocial supportstress
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it