The respondents in the owner survey population consisted of 34.2% husbands, 52.9% wives, and 12.9% other, ranging in age from 19 to 71. The veterinarians responding were predominantly male (83%), and within the first three years after their graduation from veterinary school. The sample sizes were considered adequate to compensate for particular practice irregularities or great variances in responses. The clients reported that 77.4% visit their veterinarians two or more times per year per pet (compared with 70.9%, as estimated by the veterinarians), 59.8% rated exceptionally satisfied with the veterinary services (veterinarians thought only 23.2% would be exceptionally satisfied); 34.4% usually celebrated the pet's birthday (veterinarians predicted 17.4%); 53.1% displayed pictures of their pet at home (compared with 44.2% as estimated by the veterinarians) and 50.4% stated their pet was extremely important to their family (the veterinarians predicted only 26.7% would rate pets this high on the importance scale).

Questions were included in an attempt to quantify the reasons why the animal is less important to some persons. Housing limitations were ranked by clients and veterinarians as the most frequent reason for non-ownership, inconvenience was ranked second by both, client reason number three was too much time required for care (veterinarians rated this 8 on a scale of 10) and the number 10 client reason was undesirable behavior (veterinarians estimated this would be number 6).

The veterinarians predicted that 23.8% would spend $100 or more per year per pet for other than food, but 37.8% of the clients reported that they spent $100 or more. The veterinarian and client responses agreed on what children gained from being associated with a pet, in order of most important to least: learning responsibility, companionship, pleasure, respect for life, gentleness, and education in life processes.

In evaluating the changes associated with bringing a pet into a household, the survey addressed family interaction changes. The factors and changes were shown in Table 1. A better comparison was expected when discussing potential animal problem areas; however, Table 2 shows this was not the case.

Table 1. Changes in family interaction with the introduction of a pet

Table 2. Expected problems associated with pet ownership

To evaluate why certain people used certain veterinarians, 14 reasons were provided and respondents were asked to rate them in order of importance (Table 3), with 1 being most important and 14 being least important reason for using their current civilian veterinarian. Veterinarians predicted well the reasons for selection of a practice, but their estimates of the importance of a pet diverged largely from the responses of the clients. When clients were asked to evaluate how important their pet was to their family, 50.3% reported extremely important, 33.8% reported very important, and 12.4% reported important; veterinarians predicted only approximately half this response rate. To better evaluate the importance of the companion animal, the line scale was used for twelve specific situations (see Table 4).

Table 3. Reasons for clients selecting a civilian veterinarian

Table 4. Evaluation of the importance of the pet in specific situations

Note: The percentages on each line are of the total population, and show those that recorded their X on the right or left 20% of the answer line; the percentage unaccounted for was in the center 60%, considered neutral for this study.

In addition to questions concerning the importance of the pet to the family, other questions were posed to evaluate the anthropomorphic tendencies of the respondents. When asked how the companion animal fit into the family, 68.3% of the clients stated that the pet had full family member status, whereas only 38.4% of the veterinarians predicted this degree of bonding. Later in the survey, the questions were rephrased and the client was asked whether the pet was afforded people status in the family. The line scale was used and the respondent was asked to rate the status from always through usually and sometimes to never. The results showed 38.8% of the clients believed their pet was always afforded people status (veterinarians predicted 16.3%), with 71.7% believing their pets were usually to always afforded people status (veterinarians though 52.3%) and 3% of the clients reported that their pet was never afforded people status (the veterinarians predicted 8.1%).

Many traits or attributes are credited to the companion animal during daily conversations, so the survey asked specifically what special characteristics the pet displayed within the family. The responses were placed on the line scale, as shown in Table 5. In evaluating the responsiveness of the pet within the family, clients reported usually quick positive responses 86% of the time for parents and 48% of the time for children, whereas the veterinarians estimated 89% for parents and 62% for children. To consider negative interactions, the question was rephrased and 23% of the respondents reported usually quick negative responses to the parents and 25% toward the children. The veterinarians estimated 30% usually quick negative responses toward the parents and 29% toward the children. Respondents reported about half the pets never showed a quick negative response to adults, whereas the veterinarians estimated that only one-third would never show a quick negative response. Clients reported that less than 1% of the pets never showed a quick positive response, and veterinarians basically agreed by estimating that all pets would show a quick positive response at some time.

Table 5. Reported special characteristics shown by companion animals

Note: The percentages on each line are of the total population, and show those that recorded their X on the right or left 20% of the answer line; the percentage unaccounted for was in the center 60%, considered neutral for this study.

A question was posed concerning the pet's response when family members showed affection toward each other. The clients reported that 78.7% of the pets wanted active involvement (veterinarians estimated 68.6%) whereas 6.8% of the pets never responded (veterinarians estimated 9.3% would never respond). When asked about the pet's response during times of high anxiety or crisis within the family, 59.2% of the owners reported their pet usually wanted interaction with the family, whereas the veterinarians estimated only 37.2% would want interaction. The companion animal's response to a new addition in the family group was surveyed; 38.3% of the family animals showed positive behavior changes, whereas only 16.3% showed negative behavior changes, with 45.4% showing no change. The veterinarians predicted only 15.1% would show positive change, 12.8% would show a negative change, and 72.1% would show no change in behavior. The pet's role as a third party in arguments or in stress relief was surveyed by the question, "When tension between two persons exceeds a certain level, it has been noted that a third party is brought into the discussion to dissipate the intensity of the tension; does this occur with your pet becoming that third party?" The survey revealed that 8.2% of the respondents said the pet was always the third party involved, 43.8% reported that it occurred sometimes to always, and 38.4% reported that it never occurred. The veterinarians estimated it would always occur in 2.5% of the cases, it would occur sometimes to always in 46.9%, and it would never occur in 28.4%.

With the highly mobile, fast food, life style seen in today's work place, it was thought to be important to ask what would happen to the pet at times of family relocations or household moves. The scope of choices and responses are shown in Table 6. To further evaluate the strength of the family/pet bond, respondents were asked what they would do if their pet became seriously ill; the results are shown in Table 7.

Table 6. Expected disposition of animal when family relocates

Table 7. Expected client action when pet becomes seriously ill

Respondents were asked to describe the degree of loss felt by the family if they ever had a pet that was lost, that had died, or that was killed. Almost all clients reported important to extreme loss (94.4%) and 58.8% of those said it was an extreme loss; only 0.1% of the clients reported no loss was felt. Whereas the veterinarians' estimate for important to extreme loss approximated the clients (93.8%), they said only 27.2% would feel an extreme loss; also, the veterinarians estimated no client would report no loss felt. Another question was asked dealing with the disposition of the deceased companion animal, and the results are in Table 8. Almost 70% of the clients wished to bury their animal in some way.

Table 8. Preferred companion animal remains disposition methods.