Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID- 19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. Journal Pre-proof The effects of the Spanish COVID-19 lockdown on people, their pets and the human- animal bond Jonathan Bowen, Elena García, Patricia Darder, Juan Argüelles, Jaume Fatjó PII: S1558-7878(20)30064-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.05.013 Reference: JVEB 1333 To appear in: Journal of Veterinary Behavior Received Date: 6 May 2020 Revised Date: 14 May 2020 Accepted Date: 19 May 2020 Please cite this article as: Bowen, J., García, E., Darder, P., Argüelles, J., Fatjó, J., The effects of the Spanish COVID-19 lockdown on people, their pets and the human-animal bond, Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.05.013. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1 The effects of the Spanish COVID- COVID-19 lockdown on people, their pets and the human- human-animal 2 bond 3 4 Jonathan Bowen1,2, Elena García1, Patricia Darder1, Juan Argüelles4, Jaume Fatjo1,3* 1 5 Chair Affinity Foundation Animals and Health, Department of Psychiatry and Forensic 6 Medicine, School of Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra 7 (Barcelona), Spain; jaume.fatjo@uab.es 2 8 Queen Mother Hospital for Small Animals, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead 9 Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK; jbowen@rvc.ac.uk 3 10 IMIM-Mar Health Park, Neuropsychiatry and Drug Addiction Institute (INAD), 08003 11 Barcelona,Spain. 4 12 Cardenal Herrera-CEU University C/Tirant lo blanc 7. 46115 Alfara del Patriarca, 13 Valencia Spain. 14 * Correspondence: jaume.fatjo@uab.es 15 16 Abstract 17 The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Spanish confinement for the 18 control of the COVID-19 pandemic on the behavior of pet cats and dogs, and the support that 19 pets provided to their owners. We found that the quality of life owners was strongly influenced 20 by the lifestyle and emotional effects of the confinement, and that pets provided them with 21 substantial support to mitigate those effects. However, pets showed signs of behavioral change 22 that were consistent with stress, with dogs that had pre-existing behavioral problems being the 23 most affected. 24 25 Keywords 26 COVID-19, confinement, SARS-CoV-2, dogs, cats, welfare, behaviour, human-animal bond. 27 28 Introduction 29 On January 30th 2020, the World Health Organization declared a Public Health Emergency 30 related to the outbreak of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Twelve days later the name for this 31 new disease was announced (COVID-19) and just four weeks after that, the outbreak was 32 upgraded to a pandemic. In response, many countries implemented unprecedented restrictions 33 on the movement, work and leisure activities of their citizens, with the aim of reducing the 34 reproduction number of the virus (R0). 35 36 This study looked at the effects of the initial confinement period on Spanish pet owners, their 37 pet cats and dogs, and on the relationship between them. We were interested in understanding 38 how the human-animal relationship might help pet owners to cope with the effects of the 39 confinement, given that approximately 24% of Spanish households have at least one dog and 40 11% have at least one cat (FEDIAF, 2018). 41 42 Previous studies have looked at the psychological consequences of different degrees of 43 quarantine and self-isolation related to infectious disease outbreaks, such as SARS, MERS and 1 44 Ebola. Separation from friends and relatives, the loss of freedom, fear of the disease and 45 boredom can all have negative effects on quality of life and health. Commonly reported effects 46 include stress, anxiety, low mood, depression, irritability, insomnia, and difficulties with the 47 resumption of normal life after the end of the period of confinement (Brooks et al, 2020; 48 Hawryluck, 2004). 49 50 Research on human-animal relationships suggests that companion animals can be a source of 51 social support for people and can help them to cope with difficult situations (McNicholas and 52 Collis, 2006; Wood et al, 2015). Most studies have focused either on very specific scenarios (e.g. 53 people suffering from specific illnesses, going through a process of bereavement, or animal 54 assisted interventions), or on pet owners, using scales that measure overall attitudes about 55 human-animal relationships. The ongoing COVID-19 crisis offers an opportunity to explore the 56 role of companion animals as sources of social support at a time when the vast majority of the 57 population is being exposed to the same social and environmental challenges. 58 59 However, companion animals can also experience the negative consequences of a period of 60 home confinement; the quality of life of dogs and cats is highly influenced by the characteristics 61 of their physical and social environment, and the behavior and lifestyle of their owners, all of 62 which would be substantially changed during an official lockdown (Fatjó and Bowen, 2020). 63 64 Spain was chosen as the subject of this survey because it had a well-defined confinement policy 65 that was strictly enforced. On March 14, 2020, an official lockdown act entered into force in 66 Spain, which included the following measures; social distancing, the closure of schools and 67 universities, banning of mass gatherings and public events and the suspension of all non- 68 essential economic activities (BOE-A-2020-3692). The lockdown act did allow dog owners to 69 walk their dogs, but only one person could walk the dog at a time, the animal had to be on a 70 leash at all times, and dogs were not allowed to interact with people or other dogs. 71 72 The effects of confinement in Spain were therefore likely to be more consistent than in other 73 countries. For example, in the UK there was a period of advisory isolation and social distancing, 74 followed by a gradual shutdown as businesses chose to close and furlough their staff, and finally 75 an official lockdown when all but essential shops and businesses were closed. However, 76 although there was a very stringent lockdown in Spain, many people chose to self-isolate in 77 Spain before the official announcement. 78 79 Materials and Methods 80 Subjects and recruitment 81 The study used an online survey to collect a convenience sample of respondents, which was 82 deemed the safest approach, given the movement restrictions and the risk of infection that 83 would result from a more traditional face-to-face public survey. A link to the online 84 questionnaire was circulated through social media and online forums for pet owners, veterinary 85 clinics, animal shelters and charities. 86 87 At the start of the survey respondents were asked to confirm that they were residents of Spain, 88 and that they agreed to the terms of the study. In addition, the survey tool was able to provide 2 89 information about the country of the respondent, and this information was used to exclude any 90 responses that were not from Spain. This was deemed to be important because the confinement 91 regulations differ markedly between countries. Respondents who were aged under 18 were also 92 excluded. 93 94 Materials 95 A questionnaire was developed by the authors to collect information from dog and cat owners 96 on the effect of confinement on both the family and the pet. The questionnaire included 97 multiple choice and Likert scale questions with options to enter additional text information for 98 some of the items. A full copy of the questionnaire can be found in the supplementary material 99 (Appendix A). The time required to complete the questionnaire was estimated to be 16 minutes. 100 101 The survey consisted of several sections. The first section collected information about the 102 respondent and their household; the respondent’s sex, age group, family role, the composition 103 of the household (numbers of 18-64 year-old adults, 65+ year-old adults, and different ages of 104 children), and the number of resident pet cats and dogs. Respondents were also asked about 105 their type of home (house or flat/apartment), size of home (small, medium or large), outdoor 106 space (garden, patio or balcony), whether the home was large enough for the residents to carry 107 out activities independently, and whether it provided sufficient light and fresh air. A subjective 108 rating of size of home was chosen instead of the size in square meters, because this was 109 considered to be an easier question to answer that was more reflective of the respondent’s 110 perception of their environment. 111 112 The second section asked about the effect of the confinement on the respondent and their 113 household; the number of weeks they had been confined, for how much longer they expected 114 the official confinement period to continue, and which people in the household were able to 115 work from home or had permission to go to work. It also asked about the negative financial, 116 emotional, health and lifestyle impact of the official confinement on the household, and the 117 effect the confinement had had on the respondent’s overall quality of life. 118 119 It would have been possible to calculate the duration of a respondent’s official confinement 120 from the date of completion of the survey and the date of the introduction of mandatory 121 confinement (official lockdown). However, it was expected that some people would have 122 engaged in voluntary self-isolation at home, in accordance with unofficial advice that preceded 123 the official lockdown by several weeks. Other people who initially had permission to work 124 outside the home might have entered confinement later (for example, due to emergence of 125 disease signs). So, it was decided only to use the respondent’s declared confinement period in 126 the study. 127 128 In the third section, the survey focused on one of the pets in the household, and the 129 respondent’s relationship with it. The major part of this section was a modified version of the 130 Cat/Dog-Owner Relationship scale (C/DORS), developed by the authors for the measurement of 131 the human-animal bond between cats or dogs and their owners (Howell, et al. 2017). C/DORS is 132 a development of the Monash Dog-Owner Relationship scale (MDORS; Dwyer et al., 2006), 133 which is based on Richard Emerson’s social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976). This theory 3 134 proposes that the stability of a relationship is the product of the balance between its perceived 135 costs and benefits. 136 137 MDORS and C/DORS measure three independent dimensions of the owner-pet relationship; 138 interaction between owner and pet, perceived emotional closeness and perceived costs. The 139 interaction dimension describes the way a person shares time with a pet in terms of day-to-day 140 activities like play, grooming and social activities. The emotional closeness dimension describes 141 how dependent on the pet the person is, and how much emotional support the person derives 142 from the relationship. The perceived costs dimension evaluates the degree to which the pet 143 affects the owner’s financial and time budgets, and overall lifestyle; for example how much it 144 costs to care for, and how it prevents the person from doing things they would otherwise want, 145 or need, to do. 146 147 Some items from C/DORS were removed because they related to activities that were not 148 permitted during the official lockdown, such as taking the pet to visit people. The item asking 149 about the respondent’s emotional reaction to the death of their animal was also removed, as this 150 was considered to be potentially distressing for people to answer during the present crisis. 151 152 Respondents were also asked directly about the effect the confinement had had on their pet’s 153 quality of life, their relationship with their pet, and how much their pet had helped them 154 during the period of the confinement. They were also asked about whether they had been 155 angry with their pet more often recently, since the confinement. We wanted to get information 156 about tension between the owner and the pet, but we chose not to ask a direct question about 157 the use of punishment. This was because, in our experience, respondents are put off by such 158 questions and may not answer truthfully. So, we chose to ask the question “Recently, how often 159 have you been mad at your dog/cat”, with a 7-point response from “much less than before the 160 confinement” to “much more than before the confinement”. 161 162 It might be expected that the confinement period could lead to the development, or worsening, 163 of problem behavior in cats and dogs. Respondents were therefore presented with a short list of 164 behavior problems that were common to both cats and dogs, including family-directed 165 aggression, aggression toward resident conspecifics, destructiveness, house-soiling, and noise 166 fear. They were asked to indicate which problems had got better, stayed the same or got worse 167 during the confinement (with the option to indicate that the animal had never shown each 168 problem behavior). In addition, respondents were asked about species-specific behavior 169 problems; for example, cat owners were asked about urine marking, and dog owners about 170 aggression to other dogs during walks and problems with being left alone at home. 171 172 Apart from these specific behavioral problems, respondents were also asked to indicate which 173 of a set of general changes in behavior their cat or dog had exhibited, including being more 174 nervous, more stressed, more relaxed, more excitable, more calm, more attention-seeking, more 175 demanding, more frustrated and more irritable since the confinement. These are subtle changes, 176 some of which would be expected to lead to conflict between the pet and owner, and which 177 could, over time, lead to the development of behavior problems. It was expected that these 178 general changes would be more likely to be affected by the confinement than the prevalence of 179 the specific problem behaviors. 4 180 Respondents were not given specific guidance on how to assess these general changes, as this 181 would have lengthened the survey and we intended only to use the negative changes to 182 calculate a composite score to represent the owner’s overall impression. 183 184 Respondents were presented with a set of likely confinement-related concerns and asked which 185 of these were of concern to them. These included eight concerns that were common to both cat 186 and dog owners; concerns about the pet’s health, being able to obtain food for the pet, accessing 187 medicine and veterinary care, concerns about prohibitions on the pet going outside, as well as 188 concerns about weight gain, children not respecting the pet’s space and need for rest, the effect 189 that the loss of routine might have on their pet and how the pet might cope with going back to 190 normal life after the confinement. Prior to the study, the authors had been asked by their 191 clinical clients about how difficult it might be for their pets to adapt to normal life after the 192 confinement was over, so this was presented as one of the concerns in this section. One point 193 was given for each of the eight common owner concerns that were common to both dogs and 194 cats, and then summed to produce a composite score “owner concerns score” for each 195 respondent. 196 197 For the questions on problem behavior, general changes in behavior and concerns, respondents 198 were also given the opportunity to write any additional comments into a text box. 199 200 Dog owners were asked how often they walked their dogs each day before the confinement, as 201 well as for an approximate total duration of daily walks. Cat owners were asked about their cats’ 202 outdoor access before and during the confinement. 203 204 Respondents with multi-pet households were asked to answer the pet-specific questions about 205 the cat or dog whose name was first in alphabetical order. This was done in order to randomize 206 the selection of pet, to avoid bias toward a particular pet that the person felt strongly about or 207 was concerned about. 208 209 Statistical analysis 210 Normality of distribution was tested using a D’Agostino-Pearson test. When comparisons were 211 made between groups, an appropriate test was chosen; Chi square for binary variables, and 212 either a t-test or the non-parametric equivalent for continuous or ordinal data, depending on 213 the distribution of the data. Correlations were tested using Pearson correlation or Spearman 214 rank correlation, again depending on the distribution of data. All cluster analysis was carried 215 out using a two-step clustering method with the distance measure being log-likelihood, and the 216 clustering criterion being Akaike’s information criterion. Silhouette measure was used to assess 217 model quality. For binary logistic regression, the “enter” method was used. Omnibus measures 218 of model quality and overall percentage of correct classification were used to assess model 219 quality. The software packages used for the statistical analysis were SPSS version 25 (IBM) and 220 Prism version 8.4 (GraphPad). 221 222 Results 5 223 All responses with incomplete information were excluded from the initial population of 1329 224 responses from adults located in Spain, leaving a total of 1297 complete responses for the 225 analysis. 226 227 Demographics 228 Of the 1297 surveys, 794 owners reported about a dog (61.2%) and 503 about a cat (38.8%). As 229 is common in online surveys, the majority of respondents were female (90.5%). Figure 1 shows 230 the percentage of people in each age group. The majority of households had one or two 18-64 231 year-old resident adults, and 36.1% had one or more children from one of the age groups (see 232 Table 1 for complete breakdown of household age composition). 233 234 Age group 40 33.2% 30.3% 30 24.1% % 20 10 6.6% 4.6% 1.2% 0 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 Years of age 235 236 Figure 1. Age composition of the respondent population. 237 238 239 Number in each group None 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Children 0-5 yoa 83.7% 7.6% 0.06 1.2% 0.01 0.3% 0.1% Children 6-12 yoa 89.8% 7.3% 2.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% Children 13- 13-17 yoa 90.4% 8.2% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0 0 Adults 18- 18-64 yoa 2.5% 0.29 0.55 8.9% 0.04 0.2% 0.2% Adults 65+ yoa 90.4% 6.7% 2.7% 0.2% 0 0 0 240 241 242 Table 1. Breakdown of household composition of the sample population. 6 243 244 245 With regard to household role, 55.9% of respondents identified themselves as adults without 246 children, 32% as parents, 11.2% as son/daughter and 0.5% as grandparents. 247 248 Seventy-four-point three percent of households had at least one dog, and 57% at least one cat, 249 with the majority of households having one cat or dog (see Table 2). 250 251 Four hundred and four people reported having at least one dog and one cat (31.15%). 252 Respondents were free to choose whether to answer about a dog or a cat. Of the 404 people 253 who had both dogs and cats, 235 (58.2%) chose to report about a dog and 169 about a cat 254 (41.8%). 255 256 Number of pets None 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Dogs 25.8% 44.2% 17.8% 7.7% 1.8% 0.9% 1.9% Cats 43.1% 23.4% 20.0% 8.5% 3.1% 1.0% 2.0% 257 258 259 Table 2. Numbers of dogs and cats per household. 260 261 Most respondents lived in an apartment (74.7%) rather than a house (25.3%), with 56.9% 262 describing their home as medium sized, 21.3% as large and 21.8% as small. Ninety-two-point 263 six percent of respondents said that their home was large enough for all family members to have 264 the space to carry out activities separately, and 93.5% said that they had the feeling that they 265 had enough light and air at home. Most homes (72.3%) had some kind of outdoor space, be it a 266 garden, terrace, internal patio or balcony (see Table 3). 267 268 No outdoor space 27.7% Garden 18.0% Terrace 29.3% Indoor patio 9.6% Balcony 29.8% 269 270 271 Table 3. Availability of outdoor space at the respondent’s home. 272 273 Although the official lockdown applied to all residents of Spain, essential workers were 274 permitted to continue to go to work. In the present study, in only 8.1% of households were all 275 members still permitted to go out to work. In the largest proportions of households all residents 7 276 were confined and none were able to work from home (23.8%), and in 21.3% of households all 277 residents were confined and some were able to work from home (see Table 4). 278 We are all confined and none of us work from home 23.8% We are all confined and some of us work from home 21.3% We are all confined and we all work from home 15.7% Some of us are confined, and some of us have permission to go out to work 31.1% We all have permission to go out to work 8.1% 279 280 281 Table 4. Level of confinement for members of the household. 282 283 284 Weeks of confinement 70 61.3% 60 50 40 % 30 21.1% 20 10.3% 10 3.2% 2.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% 0 285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 286 287 Figure 2. Number of weeks of confinement at the time of the survey. 288 8 In your opinion, how much longer will the official confinement last (weeks)? 40 31.5% 30 25.5% % 20 11.0% 9.5% 10 8.5% 7.5% 2.2% 1.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 1.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0 289 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 16 20 290 Figure 3. Expected number of additional weeks of confinement at the time of the survey. 291 292 Some individuals would have self-isolated before the official lockdown, and some would have 293 experienced a change of working status during the lockdown; for example due to a change in 294 working role that would affect their right to go to work, or because of illness that would require 295 them to be quarantined. So, the duration of a respondent’s confinement period would not align 296 perfectly with the official date of lockdown. The mean duration of confinement reported was 297 3.2 weeks (SD 1.19), and the mean expected further duration of the lockdown was 4.6 weeks 298 (SD 2,37). Figures 2 and 3 provide a summary of the range of durations of confinement and 299 expected confinement respectively. 300 301 The effects effects of the confinement on the pet owner and the household 302 The confinement period would be expected to have economic, emotional, health and lifestyle 303 impact on households. In response to the question “what negative impact has the official 304 confinement had on your household, 49.2% of respondents indicated that there had been “a lot” 305 or “quite a lot” of negative lifestyle impact on their household. The levels of economic, 306 emotional and health impact were somewhat lower (see figure 4). 307 308 9 A lot Quite a lot Somewhat Little Very little None Financial impact 8 12 22 31 11 16 Emotional impact 7 12 31 36 10 3 Health impact 24 11 37 18 28 Lifestyle impact 24 25 33 12 51 309 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 310 311 Figure 4. Perceived negative impacts of the official confinement on the household. 312 313 Respondents were also asked to provide an overall indication of the effect of the confinement 314 on their quality of life. A summary of responses is presented in figure 5. 315 To what extent has the official confinement affected your quality of life? 50 44.6% 40 30 26.8% % 20 15.0% 8.3% 10 2.9% 2.2% 0.3% 0 It is moderately better It is no different It is slightly worse It is moderately worse It is much worse It is much better It is slightly better 316 317 Figure 5. Effect of confinement on the respondent’s quality of life. 318 319 The most common response was that the respondent’s quality of life was slightly worse (44.6%), 320 with 26.8% indicating no change. Comparing those who reported any change in quality of life, 321 61.8% said that their quality of life had got worse, and 11.4% that it had got better. 322 10 323 In order to understand the contribution these different impacts on the household might have 324 on overall individual quality of life, Spearman Rank correlation was carried out between these 325 variables (the data was not normally distributed). 326 327 While all correlations were significant, the strongest correlation was between household 328 lifestyle impact and overall quality of life (r= -0.38), followed by emotional impact (r= -0.34), 329 see Table 5. Although significant, the correlation between negative economic impact and 330 quality of life was very weak. 331 332 Correlation with “To what extent has 95% confidence the official confinement affected your Spearman r p (two- (two-tailed) quality of life?” interval Negative economic impact -0.1 0.0002 -0.16 to -0.05 Negative emotional impact -0.34 <0.0001 -0.39 to -0.29 Negative health impact -0.21 <0.0001 -0.27 to -0.16 Negative lifestyle impact -0.38 <0.0001 -0.43 to -0.33 333 334 335 Table 5. Contribution of the different dimensions of impact to the overall individual quality of 336 life. The sign of all these correlations is negative because the various household impacts were 337 scored positively according to the level of impact (none=0, a lot=5) 338 339 The effects of the confinement on the human- human-animal bond 340 Each item of C/DORs was scored from -2 to +2 (“much less than before the confinement” to 341 “much more than before the confinement”), with zero being “no more or less than before the 342 confinement”. A score for the three subscales of C/CORS (interaction, emotional closeness & 343 perceived costs) was calculated from the average of items for that subscale. Unlike in the 344 original MDORS and C/DORS scoring protocols, “Perceived costs” was scored so that high 345 scores indicated an increased negative effect on the owner. 346 347 The mean scores for the subscales were; interaction 0.58 (SD=0.45), emotional closeness 0.34 348 (SD=0.42), and perceived costs -0.16 (SD=0.382). This indicates a general increase in the 349 emotional bond in this population, together with an increase in interaction and an overall 350 reduction in perceived costs. All values were significantly different from zero; using a single 351 sample Wilcoxon signed rank test p was less than 0.0001 for all tests, sum of ranks (W) was 352 639050, 630332, -205155 respectively for interaction, emotional closeness, and perceived costs. 353 354 Values for the three subscales were also examined independently for cats and dogs and a 355 comparison was made between the two species. For both cats and dogs the values were found to 356 be significantly different from zero (no change) using a single sample Wilcoxon signed rank test 357 (p<0.0001 for all tests). There was also a significant difference between cats and dogs for the 358 values for all three subscales (Mann-Whitney test. p<0.0001 for all tests, with Mann-Whitney U 359 being 163029, 168375, and 152174 for interaction, emotional closeness, and perceived costs 360 respectively). Figure 6 shows the comparison of C/DORS subscale scores between cats and dogs. 11 1.125 0.75 0.375 0 -0.375 -0.75 Interaction (Cat) Emotional closeness (Cat) Perceived cost (Cat) Interaction (Dog) Emotional Closeness (Dog) Perceived Cost (Dog) 361 362 Figure 6. Comparing C/DORS subscale scores between cats and dogs. Columns show the mean 363 and whiskers the standard deviation. 364 365 We also asked respondents to answer the question “How much has your pet helped you during 366 the confinement compared with before?”, with a 7-point response from “much less” to “much 367 more”. Forty-seven percent of people indicated that their pet had helped them moderately more 368 or much more. For 25% of respondents there was no change, and for only 0.7% was there a 369 perceived reduction in support from the pet (see fig 7). 370 How much has your pet helped you during the confinement compared with before? 36 28.6% 30 27.3% 25.0% 24 18.4% % 18 12 6 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0 Moderately less Slightly more Moderately more Much more Much less Slightly less No more or less 371 12 372 Figure 7. Responses to the question “How much has your pet helped you during the 373 confinement compared with before?” 374 375 The concerns of owners 376 Owners were presented with a range of concerns about the effect of the confinement on pet 377 ownership. The commonest concern for dog owners was prohibition of going on walks (61.7), 378 and the commonest concern for cat owners was access to veterinary care and medication 379 (39.6%). See Table 6 for a summary. 380 People in Concerns Prohibition the house Loss of The pet None that Access to of outdoor (e.g. routine won't adapt (owner Getting walking the Type of veterinary access for Weight gain children) might to situation had no Pet's health food for the dog concern care and the pet (dog (pet) don't affects the after particular pet increasing medication walking or respect pet's pet's confinemen concerns) the risk of cats outside) space and behavior t ends infection rest Dog 8.6% 27.7% 15.9% 26.7% 61.7% 25.7% 2.9% 39.3% 39.0% 7.3% owners Cat 25.4% 27.6% 24.5% 39.6% 3.0& 7.4% 3.2% 16.3% 37.0% NA owners 381 382 383 Table 6. Percentage of owners reporting specific concerns about the effects of the confinement 384 on aspects of pet ownership. 385 386 Factors that influence the effect of the confinement on the quality of life of the owner 387 Binary logistic regression was used to identify which factors influence the owner’s quality of 388 life. To do this a comparison was made between people who rated their quality of life as having 389 got worse (n=801), versus those who rated their quality of life as having stayed the same or got 390 better during the confinement (n=496). 391 392 The model passed an omnibus test of model coefficients (Chi square=269.3, df=41, p<0.0001), 393 and had a correct classification rate of 72.9% (see Table 7). In this case the full table is 394 presented, to indicate which variables were not significant. 395 396 Odds ratio (QoL Same or 95% C.I.for Odds B S.E. Wald df p better ratio than pre- confinem ent) Lower Upper Age group (owner) 10.665 5 0.058 Sex (Female) 0.291 0.222 1.719 1 0.19 1.338 0.866 2.069 Number of children 0-5yoa 0.094 0.086 1.199 1 0.273 1.098 0.929 1.299 Number of children 6-12 yoa -0.012 0.131 0.009 1 0.926 0.988 0.764 1.278 Number of children 13-17 yoa 0.06 0.188 0.103 1 0.748 1.062 0.734 1.537 13 Number of adults 18-64 yoa -0.055 0.092 0.361 1 0.548 0.946 0.791 1.133 Number of adults 65+ yoa 0.074 0.2 0.136 1 0.712 1.076 0.728 1.592 Family role of owner 1.855 3 0.603 Number of resident dogs 0.073 0.063 1.321 1 0.25 1.076 0.95 1.218 Number of resident cats 0.088 0.06 2.116 1 0.146 1.092 0.97 1.229 Type of home (apartment) 0.198 0.196 1.02 1 0.312 1.219 0.83 1.788 Outdoor space score 0.09 0.042 4.532 1 0.033 1.094 1.007 1.189 Size of home 0.043 0.114 0.144 1 0.704 1.044 0.835 1.306 Perception of home environment 0.007 0.189 0.002 1 0.969 1.007 0.695 1.46 score Confinement level 2.398 3 0.494 Number of weeks of confinement 0.094 0.056 2.785 1 0.095 1.098 0.984 1.226 so far Expected further duration of -0.011 0.029 0.148 1 0.7 0.989 0.935 1.046 official confinement Negative economic impact 0.015 0.05 0.095 1 0.758 1.015 0.921 1.119 Negative emotional impact -0.189 0.074 6.481 1 0.011 0.827 0.715 0.957 Negative health impact -0.139 0.063 4.811 1 0.028 0.871 0.769 0.985 Negative lifestyle impact -0.508 0.065 61.495 1 0 0.602 0.53 0.683 Species (Cat) -0.426 0.201 4.488 1 0.034 0.653 0.44 0.969 Change in emotional closeness 0.075 0.256 0.086 1 0.769 1.078 0.652 1.782 (C/DORS) Change in interaction (C/DORS) 0.302 0.217 1.936 1 0.164 1.352 0.884 2.069 Change in perceived costs -0.005 0.21 0 1 0.982 0.995 0.66 1.501 (C/DORS) Effect of confinement on pet's 0.333 0.066 25.163 1 0 1.396 1.225 1.59 quality of life Effect of confinement on owner’s -0.141 0.097 2.114 1 0.146 0.869 0.718 1.05 relationship with their pet Frequency of getting mad with 0.035 0.088 0.16 1 0.689 1.036 0.872 1.23 the pet Degree to which pet helps owner -0.212 0.078 7.301 1 0.007 0.809 0.694 0.943 through the confinement Total number of problem -0.095 0.074 1.627 1 0.202 0.91 0.787 1.052 behaviors getting worse Total number of problem -0.04 0.035 1.321 1 0.25 0.961 0.898 1.028 behaviors present but unchanged Owner concerns score -0.051 0.05 1.062 1 0.303 0.95 0.861 1.047 14 General changes in behavior 0.018 0.066 0.078 1 0.78 1.019 0.895 1.159 score 397 398 Table 7. Binary logistic regression results for the comparison between owner quality of life 399 groups. Odds ratios indicate the likelihood of the respondent being in the group for which QoL 400 was the same or better than before the confinement. 401 402 BLR enables the influence of each variable to be quantified individually, even in the face of 403 multiple other potentially confounding factors within the dataset. Only variables with p<0.05 404 were significant in the model; other variables were not influential. 405 406 The reference outcome for the odds ratios in this table is “same or better owner quality of life 407 since the confinement”. Odds ratios relate to the increased, or decreased, likelihood of being in 408 that group. Odds ratios greater than one indicate that increased values for that variable were 409 associated with an increased likelihood of being in the reference group. For example, for every 410 one-point increase in outdoor space score, from 0 to 10, the respondent was 9.4% more likely to 411 be in the “same or better owner quality of life since the confinement” group. 412 413 Odds ratios of less than one indicate that with increasing values for that variable there is less 414 likelihood of being in the reference group (in this case, greater likelihood of being in the “worse 415 owner quality of life since the confinement” group). For example, for every one point increase, 416 from 0 to 5, in score for negative emotional impact, negative health impact and negative 417 lifestyle impact the respondent was 20.1%, 14.8% and 66.2% less likely, respectively, to be in 418 the “same or better owner quality of life since the confinement” group (i.e. 20.1%, 14.8% and 419 66.2% more likely, respectively, to be in the “worse owner quality of life since the 420 confinement” group). These values can be calculated from the inverse of the odds ratio. 421 422 Dog owners were 53.2% more likely to be in the same/better quality of life group. For every 423 one-point improvement in the quality of life of the pet, from -3 to +3, the owner was 1.4 times 424 more likely to be in the same or better owner quality of life since the confinement group. For 425 every one-point increase in score for how much the pet had provided the respondent with 426 comfort since the confinement, from -3 to +3, the respondent was 23.5% more likely to be in 427 the worse owner quality of life group. 428 429 Factors influencing influencing the level of support the owner obtained from the pet during the confinement 430 A second general model including all respondents was created, with the level of support the 431 person obtained from their pet (“How much has your pet helped you during the confinement, 432 compared with before?”) as the outcome factor. A two-step cluster was performed for this 433 variable. The model was forced to generate two clusters (high and low support from the pet. 434 The high support made up 47% of the population (mean score 2.4), with 53% being in the low 435 support group (mean score 0.5). The silhouette value for the model was 0.7 (good). 436 437 Binary logistic regression was performed using the same variables as in the quality of life model, 438 but with “How much has your pet helped you during the confinement, compared with before?” 439 removed from the equation (because it was the outcome variable), and confinement effect on 440 general quality of life was included. 15 441 442 The model passed an omnibus test of model coefficients (Chi square=525.1, df=41, p<0.0001), 443 and had a correct classification rate of 75.6%. The summary table (8) below, only includes those 444 variables which were significant in the model. Full tables of the BLR results are available in 445 appendix B. 446 447 Odds ratio 95% C.I.for Odds B S.E. Wald df p (high support ratio group) Lower Upper Sex (Female) 0.54 0.253 4.545 1 0.033 1.716 1.045 2.819 Effect on overall quality of -0.297 0.081 13.541 1 0 0.743 0.635 0.871 life (owner) Change in emotional 2.535 0.289 76.78 1 0 12.62 7.158 22.25 closeness (C/DORS) Change in interaction 0.87 0.23 14.355 1 0 2.387 1.522 3.744 (C/DORS) Change in perceived costs -0.599 0.248 5.841 1 0.016 0.549 0.338 0.893 (C/DORS) Effect of confinement on 0.143 0.071 4.046 1 0.044 1.153 1.004 1.325 pet's quality of life Effect of confinement on owner’s relationship with 0.249 0.106 5.553 1 0.018 1.282 1.043 1.577 their pet 448 449 Table 8. Summary of binary logistic regression results for support the owner obtained from the 450 pet (only significant associations are reported). Odds ratios indicate the likelihood of the 451 respondent being in the group for which the pet provided more support during the 452 confinement. 453 454 Female respondents were 1.72 times more likely to be in the group that gained most support 455 from the pet. For every one-point improvement in the owner’s quality of life since the 456 confinement (from -3 to +3), the respondent was 34.5% more likely to be in the low support 457 from pet group. For every one-point increase in score for emotional closeness and interaction 458 the respondent was 12.6 times and 2.4 times more likely to be in the high support from pet 459 group respectively. For every one-point increase in score for perceived costs a respondent was 460 82.1% more likely to be in the low support from pet group. For every one-point increase in the 461 pet’s quality of life (from -3 to +3) a respondent was 1.15 times more likely to be in the high 462 support from pet group. For every one-point increase in the strength of the relationship with 463 the pet (from -3 to +3) a respondent was 1.28 times more likely to be in the high support from 464 pet group. 465 466 The effects of the confinement on the behavior and quality of life of dogs 467 Regarding the perceived effect of confinement on the dog’s overall quality of life, 62.1% of 468 respondents considered it had got worse, whereas 19.3% thought it was better. 469 16 470 For 65.4% of participants the relationship with their dog did not change, for 28.8% it improved 471 and for 5.8% it became worse during the confinement. 472 473 The commonest behavior problems that were getting worse were annoying or excessive 474 vocalization (24.7%), and fear of loud or unexpected noises (16.9%), see Table 9 for a summary 475 of behavior problems in the population and how they changed during the confinement. These 476 are presented graphically in figure 8. 477 478 Presence and severity of the problem in relation to confinement Never present Same as before Categories of problematic behavior Improved (%) Got worse (%) (%) (%) Aggression towards family members 78.5 14.9 2.8 3.9 Aggression towards people who do not live in the house 69.0 22.7 2.9 5.4 Aggression towards other dogs in the home 83.3 13.5 1.6 1.6 Aggression towards other animals living in the house 83.4 13.0 1.1 2.5 Aggressiveness towards other dogs during walks 46.0 37.4 5.2 11.5 Destructiveness 61.1 24.6 7.9 6.4 Urination/defecation in the house 64.1 19.9 5.4 10.6 Vocalization 35.1 37.4 2.8 24.7 Fear of loud or sudden noises 30.2 51.3 1.6 16.9 Problems being left alone at home 54.7 28.5 5.0 11.8 479 480 481 Table 9. The problematic behaviors of dogs and how they changed during the confinement. 482 483 484 17 Never present Present as before Improved Got worse Aggression towards family members Aggression towards people who do not live in the house Aggression towards other dogs in the home Aggression towards other animals living in the house Aggressiveness towards other dogs during walks Destructiveness Urination/defaecation in the house Vocalization Fear of loud or sudden noises Problems being left alone at home 485 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 486 487 488 Figure 8. Illustration of the problematic behaviors of dogs and how they changed during the 489 confinement. “Never present” indicates cases for which the behavior was not observed in the 490 animal either before or during the confinement. 491 492 493 We also asked owners to provide information about general changes in behavior that were not 494 specific behavioral diagnoses. With respect to these broader changes, 29.5% respondents 495 reported no significant changes in the dog’s behavior during confinement. The most common 496 general aspect of behavior reported to be higher during confinement was attention-seeking 497 (41.6%), followed by being more nervous (24.9%), being more excitable (20.8%), being more 498 frustrated (18.4%), being more stressed (16.4%), being more relaxed (11.3%), being more 499 deman 500 ding I have not detected any significant changes 29.5 More relaxed 11.3 501 (10.3% More calm 8.4 502 ), More attention-seeking 41.6 503 being More excitable 20.8 More nervous 504 calmer 24.9 More stressed 16.4 505 (8.4%) More demanding 10.3 506 and More frustrated 18.4 507 being More irritable 7.3 508 more 0.0 12.5 25.0 37.5 50.0 509 irritabl 510 e (7.3%). See figure 9. 511 512 513 18 514 515 516 Figure 9. General behavioral changes in dogs during the confinement, showing the percentages 517 of owners who reported an increase in each behavior. 518 519 Prior to the confinement, dogs went on an average of 3 walks per day (SD=1.14) compared with 520 2.5 walks per day during the confinement (SD=1.19). This difference was, however, not 521 significant. There was a clear reduction in the duration of walks during the confinement 522 (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, two-tailed p<0.0001, W=-75495). Figure 10 shows 523 the amount of time dogs spent outside before and during the confinement period. Pre-confinement During confinement 60 49.7% 50 40 33.4% 29.2% % 30 23.0% 20.9% 18.9% 20 10.7% 10 7.9% 3.8% 2.4% 0 <30 min 30-60 min 60-90 min 90-12 min >120 min 524 525 526 Figure 10. Amount of time each day that dogs spent outside before and during the confinement. 527 528 Factors associated with how dogs were coping with the confinement 529 A score for general negative changes in behavior was calculated, with one point awarded for 530 each of “more nervous”, “more stressed”, “more excitable”, “more attention-seeking”, “more 531 demanding”, “more frustrated” and “more irritable”. This created a score from 0 to 7 for each 532 pet. This score is reflective of underlying changes in behavior that could be indicative of the 533 pet’s ability to cope. 534 535 A two-step clustering procedure was performed using this general change score as the variable. 536 The model was forced to generate two clusters. Silhouette value was 0.7. Sixty-two-point eight 537 percent of dogs showed at least one general change in behavior. Those animals with high scores 538 were considered to be coping less well with the confinement. 539 19 540 A binary logistic regression model was created with membership of the low or high general 541 changes group as the outcome variable. The model passed an omnibus test of model coefficients 542 (Chi square=319.1, df=44, p<0.0001), and had a correct classification rate of 86.8% (see Table 543 10). 544 545 Odds ratio (of not 95% C.I.for Odds B S.E. Wald df Sig. coping ratio well) Lower Upper Age group (owner) 5.383 5 0.371 Sex (Female) 0.312 0.49 0.406 1 0.524 1.366 0.523 3.571 Number of children 0-5yoa -0.081 0.191 0.18 1 0.671 0.922 0.635 1.34 Number of children 6-12 yoa -0.053 0.269 0.038 1 0.845 0.949 0.56 1.608 Number of children 13-17 yoa -0.184 0.394 0.218 1 0.641 0.832 0.384 1.802 Number of adults 18-64 yoa -0.119 0.168 0.496 1 0.481 0.888 0.639 1.235 Number of adults 65+ yoa -0.071 0.32 0.05 1 0.823 0.931 0.497 1.742 Family role of owner 2.904 3 0.407 Number of resident dogs 0.015 0.138 0.012 1 0.912 1.015 0.775 1.329 Number of resident cats 0.165 0.111 2.198 1 0.138 1.179 0.948 1.466 Type of home (apartment) 0.323 0.389 0.689 1 0.406 1.381 0.644 2.962 Outdoor space score 0.077 0.081 0.904 1 0.342 1.08 0.921 1.267 Size of home -0.333 0.205 2.625 1 0.105 0.717 0.479 1.072 Perception of environment score 0.154 0.304 0.255 1 0.614 1.166 0.642 2.117 Confinement level 0.607 3 0.895 Number of weeks of confinement so -0.059 0.121 0.236 1 0.627 0.943 0.743 1.196 far Expected further duration of official 0.002 0.054 0.001 1 0.97 1.002 0.901 1.115 confinement Negative economic impact -0.13 0.092 2.008 1 0.157 0.878 0.733 1.051 Negative emotional impact -0.034 0.136 0.063 1 0.801 0.966 0.74 1.262 Negative health impact 0.235 0.11 4.618 1 0.032 1.266 1.021 1.569 Negative lifestyle impact 0.216 0.133 2.629 1 0.105 1.241 0.956 1.612 Effect on overall quality of life of 0.052 0.153 0.117 1 0.732 1.054 0.781 1.422 owner Change in emotional closeness 0.445 0.443 1.01 1 0.315 1.56 0.655 3.715 (C/DORS) Change in interaction (C/DORS) 0.709 0.391 3.285 1 0.07 2.033 0.944 4.376 Change in perceived costs (C/DORS) 0.118 0.402 0.086 1 0.769 1.125 0.512 2.472 20 Effect of confinement on pet's -0.553 0.134 17.144 1 0 0.575 0.443 0.747 quality of life Effect of confinement on owner’s -0.054 0.174 0.097 1 0.756 0.947 0.674 1.332 relationship with their pet Frequency of getting mad with the 0.6 0.181 11.005 1 0.001 1.822 1.278 2.598 pet Degree to which pet helps owner -0.157 0.14 1.252 1 0.263 0.855 0.649 1.125 through the confinement Total number of problem behaviors 0.663 0.095 48.289 1 0 1.941 1.61 2.34 getting worse Total number of problem behaviors 0.066 0.066 0.989 1 0.32 1.068 0.938 1.216 present but unchanged Owner concerns score 0.438 0.089 24.09 1 0 1.549 1.301 1.845 Walks per day during confinement 0.273 0.145 3.54 1 0.06 1.314 0.989 1.748 (dog) Duration of time spent outside 0.02 0.169 0.015 1 0.904 1.021 0.733 1.421 during confinement (dog) Change in number of walks per day -0.056 0.132 0.178 1 0.673 0.946 0.731 1.225 during confinement (dog) Change in duration of time outside -0.127 0.123 1.058 1 0.304 0.881 0.692 1.121 during confinement (dog) 546 547 Table 10. Binary logistic regression results for how dogs were coping during the confinement. 548 Odds ratios indicate the likelihood of the dog being in the group that was coping less well with 549 the confinement (high score for general behavior change). 550 551 For every one-point in health impact on the owner, from 0 to 5, the dog was 1.3 times more 552 likely to be in the coping-poorly group (higher score for general changes). For every one-point 553 increase in the pet’s quality of life, as evaluated by the owner, the dog was 74% more likely to 554 be in the coping-better group. For every one-point increase in score for how often the 555 respondent was getting mad with their dog, the dog was 1.8 times more likely to be in the 556 coping-poorly group. For every additional behavior problem that was getting worse, dogs were 557 1.9 times more likely to be in the coping-poorly group, and for every one-point increase in 558 owner concerns, from 0 to 8, the dog was 1.5 times more likely to be in the coping-poorly 559 group. 560 561 Factors associated with worsening behavior in dogs 562 Dogs were given a score of 1 for every behavior problem that was worsening, giving a score 563 from 0 to 10. The list of behaviors included were aggression toward family members, aggression 564 to non-resident people, aggression to resident conspecifics, aggression to other species in the 565 home, aggression to other dogs on walks, destructiveness, elimination problems, problematic 566 vocalization, fear of loud of unexpected noises, and problems being left alone at home. Only 567 one dog obtained the maximum score of 10. Two-step clustering was used to split the 568 population, with two clusters emerging naturally (the model was not forced). The silhouette 569 value was 0.8, which was very good. The two clusters were dissimilar in size, with one 21 570 including 75.7% of dogs, and the other 24.3%. In the larger cluster the mean score for the 571 number of worsening behaviors was 0.28. For the smaller group the mean score was 3.04. 572 573 A binary logistic regression model was created to compare these two groups. The model passed 574 an omnibus test of model coefficients (Chi square=312.77, df=43, p<0.0001), and had a correct 575 classification rate of 84.0%. The variables in this model were the same as in the previous model 576 of how dogs were coping, but behavior problems scores were excluded as they related to the 577 outcome variable. Only those variables which were significant are presented in Table 11. 578 579 Odds ratio (group with 95% C.I.for B S.E. Wald df p more behavior EXP(B) problems worsening) Lower Upper Confinement level 9.349 3 0.025 Confinement level: All at home, none working from 1.602 0.565 8.042 1 0.005 4.961 1.64 15.006 home. Confinement level: All at home, some working from 1.563 0.532 8.638 1 0.003 4.771 1.683 13.526 home. Confinement level: All at 1.413 0.517 7.46 1 0.006 4.108 1.49 11.325 home, all working from home. Change in emotional closeness 1.633 0.407 16.065 1 0 5.117 2.303 11.368 (C/DORS) Frequency of getting mad with 0.398 0.167 5.698 1 0.017 1.489 1.074 2.063 the pet General behavioral changes 0.793 0.093 72.366 1 0 2.21 1.841 2.654 score 580 581 Table 11. Summary of binary logistic regression results for worsening problems in dogs during 582 the confinement. (only significant associations are reported). Odds ratios indicate the likelihood 583 of the dog being in the group whose behavior problems were worsening more during the 584 confinement (high score for number of worsening behaviors). 585 586 In this model confinement status was influential. Dogs in homes with all family members at 587 home, either none working from home, some working from home or all working from home, 588 were 4.9, 4.8 and 4.1 times more likely to be in the group with more behavior problems that 589 were getting worse, respectively. 590 591 For every one-point increase in score for emotional closeness, from -2 to +2, a dog was 5.1 times 592 more likely to be in the group with more behavior problems that were getting worse. Likewise, 593 for every one-point increase in how often the respondent was getting mad with their dog, the 594 dog was 1.5 times more likely to be in the group with more behavior problems that were 595 getting worse. For every one-point increase in general changes score the dog was 2.2 times 596 more likely to be in the group with more behavior problems that were getting worse. 22 597 598 Factors associated with worsening specific behaviors in dogs 599 Most behavior problems in dogs and cats were not common, and even fewer got worse during 600 the confinement. So, it was not possible to create meaningful models to assess associations with 601 worsening problems. However, 196 out of the 794 dogs in the study (24.7%) showed an increase 602 in problematic vocalization. This was a large enough group to merit further analysis. 603 604 A binary logistic regression model was created to compare dogs with an increase in problematic 605 vocalization with those that showed no change. The model passed an omnibus test of model 606 coefficients (Chi square=266.45, df=43, p<0.0001), and had a correct classification rate of 82.4%. 607 The variables in this model were the same as in the previous model of how dogs were coping, 608 but with behavior problems scores excluded as they related to the outcome variable. Only those 609 variables which were significant are presented in Table 12. 610 611 Odds ratio (vocalization 95% C.I.for B S.E. Wald df Sig. getting EXP(B) worse) Lower Upper Number of adults 18-64 yoa 0.322 0.147 4.789 1 0.029 1.38 1.034 1.842 Change in emotional closeness 0.836 0.391 4.569 1 0.033 2.307 1.072 4.965 (C/DORS) Frequency of getting mad 0.31 0.155 3.998 1 0.046 1.363 1.006 1.847 with your pet Number of walks per day -0.278 0.129 4.617 1 0.032 0.757 0.588 0.976 during confinement General behavioral changes 0.738 0.089 68.985 1 0 2.092 1.758 2.49 score 612 613 Table 12. Summary of binary logistic regression results for worsening problem vocalization in 614 dogs during the confinement. (only significant associations are reported). Odds ratios indicate 615 the likelihood of the dog being in the group that was showing worsening problems of 616 vocalization. 617 618 For every additional person aged 18-64 yoa in the household, a dog was 1.4 times more likely to 619 be in the worsening problematic vocalization group. For every one-point increase in increased 620 emotional closeness, from -2 to +2, a dog was 2.3 times more likely to be in the worsening 621 vocalization group. For every one-point increase in score for how often the respondent was 622 getting mad with their dog, the dog was 1.4 times more likely to be in the worsening 623 vocalization group. A dog was 32% less likely to be in the worsening vocalization group for 624 every additional walk they went on each day (from 0 to “9 or more” walks each day). For every 625 one-point increase in general changes in behavior score, from 0 to 7, a dog was 2.1 times more 626 likely to be in the worsening vocalization group. 627 628 The effects of the confinement on the behavior and quality of life of cats 629 Regarding the perceived effect of confinement on the cat’s overall quality of life, 57.3% of 630 respondents considered it better, whereas 8.4% thought it was worse. 23 631 632 For 52.1% of participants the relationship with their cat did not change, for 46.3% it improved 633 and for 1.6% it became worse during the confinement. 634 635 Table 13 summarizes the behavior problems in the cat population and how they changed during 636 the confinement. Figure 11 presents this information graphically. 637 638 Presence and severity of the problem in relation to confinement Never present Same as before Got worse Categories of problematic behavior Improved (%) (%) (%) (%) Aggression towards family members 78.3 16.5 3.6 1.6 Aggression towards people who do not live in the house 85.5 13.3 0.8 0.4 Aggressiveness towards other cats living in the house 64.4 29.4 4.0 2.2 Destructiveness (e.g. scratching furniture) 37.4 57.7 3.4 1.6 Urination/defecation in the house outside the litterbox 70.8 20.9 5.6 2.8 Fear of loud or sudden noises 19.7 70.6 3.4 6.4 Hiding and avoiding contact with people 44.3 49.5 3.6 2.6 Aggression towards other cats outside the house 81.7 17.5 0.4 0.4 Urine marking 84.9 11.1 2.6 1.4 639 640 641 Table 13. The problematic behaviors of cats and how they changed during the confinement. 642 Never present Present as before Got better Got worse Aggression towards family members Aggression towards people who do not live in the house Aggressiveness towards other cats living in the house Destructiveness (e.g. scratching furniture) Urination/defaecation in the house outside the litterbox Fear of loud or sudden noises Hiding and avoiding contact with people Aggression towards other cats outside the house Urine marking 643 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 644 645 24 646 Figure 11. Illustration of the problematic behaviors of cats and how they changed during the 647 confinement. “Never present” indicates cases for which the behavior was not observed in the 648 animal either before or during the confinement. 649 650 651 652 Respondents were asked to report on the same general behavior changes for cats and dogs. In 653 cats, 46.3% respondents reported no general changes in the cat’s behavior during confinement. 654 The most common general aspect of behavior that was reported to be higher during 655 confinement was attention-seeking (36.4%), followed by being more relaxed (21.7%), being 656 calmer (9.7%), being more demanding (7.4%) and being more nervous (7%). See figure 12. 657 I have not detected any significant changes 46.3% More nervous 7.0% More stressed 4.6% More relaxed 21.7% More excitable 5.6% More calm 9.7% More attention-seeking 36.4% More demanding 7.4% More frustrated 1.8% More irritable 2.2% 658 0.0 12.5 25.0 37.5 50.0 659 660 661 Figure 12. General behavioral changes in cats during the confinement, showing the percentages 662 of owners who reported an increase in each behavior. 663 664 Outdoor access for cats did not differ between before and during the confinement period. 665 Figure 13 shows the percentages of cats with not outdoor access, limited and free outdoor 666 access. 667 Pre-confinement During confinement 90 83% 85% 72 54 % 36 18 10% 8% 6% 7% 0 Never allowed out Allowed out at certain times Free outdoor access 668 669 25 670 Figure 13. Outdoor access of cats before and during the confinement. 671 672 Factors associated with how cats were coping with the confinement 673 A two-step clustering procedure was performed using this general change score as the variable. 674 The model was forced to generate two clusters. Silhouette value for the model was 0.8, which is 675 very good. 676 677 Forty-three-point three percent of cats showed at least one general change in behavior. As with 678 dogs, those animals with high scores were considered to be coping less well with the 679 confinement. 680 681 A binary logistic regression model was created with membership of the low or high general 682 changes group as the outcome variable. The model passed an omnibus test of model coefficients 683 (Chi square=150.6, df=42, p<0.0001), and had a correct classification rate of 71.0%. The same 684 variables were included in this model as the one for dogs, except that the variables relating to 685 dog walks were replaced with the equivalent variables for outdoor access during the 686 confinement and change in outdoor access (from prior to the confinement). Table 14 only 687 presents those variables which were significant in the model. 688 689 Odds ratio (of 95% C.I.for Odds B S.E. Wald df p not coping ratio well) Lower Upper Number of resident cats -0.256 0.112 5.237 1 0.022 0.775 0.622 0.964 Change in emotional 0.927 0.443 4.383 1 0.036 2.527 1.061 6.017 closeness (C/DORS) Total number of problem 1.426 0.34 17.619 1 0 4.164 2.139 8.105 behaviors getting worse Owner concerns score 0.242 0.09 7.304 1 0.007 1.274 1.069 1.519 690 691 Table 14. Summary of binary logistic regression results for how cats were coping during the 692 confinement. (only significant associations are reported). Odds ratios indicate the likelihood of 693 the cat being in the group that was coping less well with the confinement (high score for 694 general behavior change). 695 696 For every additional cat in the household, cats were 30% more likely to be in the coping-better 697 group (low number of general changes). For every one-point increase (from -2 to +2) in 698 emotional closeness, cats were 2.5 times more likely to be in the coping-poorly group. For every 699 additional behavior problem that was getting worse, cats were 4.2 times more likely to be in the 700 coping-poorly group. For every one-point increase in owner concerns (from 0 to 8), a cat was 701 1.3 times more likely to be in the coping-poorly group. 702 703 Factors associated with worsening behavior in cats 704 The percentage of cats with worsening behavioral problems of each type was generally very 705 low, and the gross dissimilarity in group sizes made analysis likely to be misleading. 26 706 707 Discussion 708 Being a convenience sample, the population for this study has a number of biases. The majority 709 of respondents were female, which is similar to previous studies of pet ownership in which 710 recruitment was voluntary (Diverio et al., 2016; Dwyer et al., 2006; Elzerman et al, 2019). There 711 is evidence that women are more willing to participate in online surveys than men (Smith, 712 2008), and that they may use social media differently (Joinson, 2008; Duggan & Brenner, 2012). 713 In addition, in a study of communication between veterinarians and clients in companion 714 animal practice, a similar female bias was found in respondents, with the implication that 715 women were more engaged with issues related to the pet (Shaw, 2012). All age groups were 716 represented in the study; quite often there is an over-representation of a younger demographic 717 in online surveys, which was not the case in this study. 718 719 Of the total of 9.4 million cats and dogs in Spain in 2018, the split was 67% dogs to 33% cats 720 (FEDIAF, 2018), which is quite similar to the split of percentages of the respondents in this 721 study; 61.2% responded about a dog and 38.8% about a cat. 722 723 In Spain, the lockdown was strictly imposed, with police enforcement of restrictions on who 724 could leave the house and for what purposes. For example, only one person from a household 725 could go shopping for food or other essentials, such as medication. Dog owners could go out to 726 walk their dogs, but only for short periods. The majority of people in the survey lived in an 727 apartment with a limited amount of outdoor space. So, for this population confinement 728 represented a substantial change in lifestyle and we would expect that there would be 729 significant pressure on relationships within households, including between people and their 730 pets. 731 732 When the data was collected for this study, the average time of confinement was 3.2 weeks, 733 which may be regarded as quite short. However, previous studies indicate that periods of 734 quarantine and home confinement as short as 10 days have been associated with negative 735 psychological consequences (Hawryluck et al., 2004). Respondents in this study also reported 736 having been confined for periods that did not match with the official lockdown. This indicates 737 that many people chose to self-impose restrictions on the amount of contact they had with 738 other people, which could be related to the feelings of anxiety and uncertainty surrounding the 739 disease. In addition, three weeks is sufficient time for people to get a sense of the effect of the 740 confinement on them, but without any certainty about when the confinement might end; on 741 average, people expected to be confined for a further month and a half, but more than ten 742 percent of people indicated that they expected to be confined for a further 8 or more weeks. So, 743 we would propose that even though the duration of confinement was quite short, it is highly 744 likely that people would already have been experiencing considerable stress. 745 746 After only a few weeks, we might not expect a dramatic change in the behavior of pets, such as 747 the development of new behavior problems like owner-directed aggression, but we might 748 expect changes in existing problem behaviors and this is what we found. For example, owners 749 reported that 24.7% of dogs that already had a problem of excessive or annoying vocalization, 750 became worse, and this could be due to a number of reasons from territoriality to stress and 27 751 frustration. However, it is possible that the main reason for the perceived increase in 752 problematic vocalization was that people were at home to hear it. 753 754 However, we must accept that the lockdown will not suddenly end, with people going back to 755 their previous lifestyles. It will go on, in some form, for months. For example, according to 756 current estimates from the Spanish Government, children would not be able to return to school 757 out until September 2020, and it may be even longer before dogs are able to interact with each 758 other, or with people, on walks. We should be aware that more general changes in the animals’ 759 disposition could, over time, lead to more serious problems. So, we included a panel of questions 760 about changes in the pet’s general behavior. 761 762 As a result, we observed an increase in underlying, general dimensions of behavior such as 763 being more excitable, nervous, irritable, demanding or attention-seeking that could easily lead 764 to other problems if the lockdown continued or these changes were mishandled by owners. 765 766 Animals that were showing more of these signs could be considered to be coping worse, and at 767 greater risk of worsening behavior or the development of new problems, so we compared 768 groups with more versus less general behavioral changes, and more versus less problem 769 behaviors using binary logistic regression. 770 771 In the BLR model of general behavioral changes in dogs, there was a positive association 772 between the dog not coping well and negative health impact of the confinement on the owner, 773 frequency of the owner getting mad with the pet, the number of behavior problems getting 774 worse and the owner concerns score. There was a negative association with the effect of the 775 confinement on the pet’s quality of life, as evaluated by the owner (i.e., pets with improved 776 quality of life were less likely to be in the group that was coping less well). 777 778 It is interesting that negative health impact on the household was a factor in general changes, as 779 health would be a substantial source of stress for households. Not only are people concerned 780 about the risk of infection and any potential signs of infection they might observe in household 781 members, but also about how to deal with existing health problems and new, non-COVID, 782 related health problems. The implication is that such household stresses are having an effect on 783 pets. 784 785 The owner concerns score relates to a range of potential problems that could arise from the 786 confinement, such as difficulty accessing veterinary care, obtaining food for the animal, the 787 animal gaining weight, and having difficulty adapting to normal life after the confinement. 788 Apart from pointing to specific problems that pet owners might face, it could be considered that 789 these are also an indication of an underlying state of worry or anxiety; people who have a 790 greater number of concerns, and therefore have a higher score for this variable in the analysis, 791 could be suffering from increased anxiety. The current COVID-19 outbreak has created levels 792 of uncertainty unparalleled in our recent history, being a reflection of a combination of fear of 793 the disease and anxiety about its short and long-term potential consequences. Fear of the 794 unknown has been described as one of the basic elements of anxiety and a fundamental 795 component of anxiety-related disorders (Carleton, 2016). 796 28 797 Our results point to a pattern of increased general behavioral changes, that probably result from 798 household stress and a reduced quality of life, which could lead to greater conflict with the 799 owner, a potential increase in anger and punishment from the owner, and therefore to an 800 increased likelihood of worsening behavior over time. The owner’s psychological status and use 801 of punishment have already been found to be associated with problem behavior (Dodman et al., 802 2018). 803 804 Overall, cats seem to be coping much better than dogs with the situation of confinement. One 805 reason may be that most cats in our sample were already indoor cats; the confinement had little 806 or no effect on their physical environment. Dogs, on the other hand, have experienced a 807 significant reduction in the duration of walks and, due to the confinement act, cannot interact 808 with people and dogs when they are outside. However, both cats and dogs are now sharing 809 their homes with people for a much greater amount of time, and the range of people they 810 interact with is much reduced. An alternative explanation is related to the salience of effects: 811 behavior changes in cats, particularly those related to stress, are often expressed as a reduction 812 in the frequency and/or intensity of certain behaviors, which may be less obvious to owners 813 (van der Leij, 2019). 814 815 In the BLR model for cats, there was a positive association between the cat not coping well and 816 an increase in emotional closeness (C/DORS), the total number of problem behaviors getting 817 worse, and owner concerns score. There was a negative association with the number of resident 818 cats, meaning cats were more likely to be doing well if there were other cats in the household. 819 820 Evidence from a study by Ramos et al (2013) suggests that many cats find certain forms of 821 human contact stressful, which would support the finding that increased emotional closeness 822 was associated with cats coping less well in the present study. The emotional closeness subscale 823 includes items like “How often do you kiss your pet”, “I would like to have my pet near me all 824 the time”, and “My pet is there whenever I need to be comforted”. The majority of cats in the 825 present study live entirely indoors, making them unable to avoid this increased human contact. 826 827 The association between cats doing better and the number of resident cats is puzzling but in the 828 same study by Ramos, the authors found no difference in glucocorticoid metabolites between 829 cats living in single, double or group housing. There is also the possibility that some of the signs 830 of not coping that we included in the composite measure are behaviors that are inhibited in 831 stressful situations. 832 833 Taken as a whole, our findings suggest that general changes in behavior such as excitability and 834 being more attention seeking or demanding, could be seen as risk factors or even early 835 indicators of more serious future behavior problems. 836 837 Our study did not attempt to look at behavioral changes in detail, only as part of an overall 838 impression of the situation; a detailed study on the behavioral effects of the confinement is 839 definitely needed. 840 29 841 However, in the BLR model there was a positive association between worsening behavior and 842 confinement level of the household, increase in emotional closeness (C/DORS), increase in 843 frequency of getting mad with the pet and score for general behavioral change. 844 845 Again, there were associations with the frequency of the owner getting mad with the dog and 846 general behavioral changes. However, in this model we also see a link with level of 847 confinement; dogs were more likely to show worsening behavior if everyone in the household 848 was confined at home, with the effect being strongest in households in which nobody was 849 working from home. This may reflect the level of household tension due to all household 850 members being confined with little to do, but it may simply be the result of increased 851 opportunities for interaction, and therefore misbehavior. 852 853 Excessive or annoying vocalization was the only specific problem behavior that worsened in a 854 sufficiently large number of dogs that there was a large enough group to analyze statistically. In 855 the BLR model, there was a positive association between worsening problems of vocalization 856 and number of 18-64 year-old adults at home, increase in emotional closeness (C/DORS), 857 frequency of getting mad with the pet and general behavioral changes score. There was a 858 negative association with number of walks per day during the confinement; dogs that were 859 walked more often during the confinement were less likely to have worsening problems of 860 vocalization. It appears that a lack of frequency of exercise was a significant factor, indicating 861 that taking dogs for more walks, even if they are shorter than prior to the confinement, could 862 be a useful preventative intervention for excessive vocalization. 863 864 In both the models for increased score for number of worsening behavior problems in dogs and 865 worsening vocalization in dogs, but not the model of poor coping, emotional closeness was a 866 factor. This suggests that an intensification of this aspect of the human-animal bond may place 867 additional stress on dogs that already have behavior problems. An additional factor that could 868 be important in this context is that behavior problems may be secondary to, or influenced by, 869 disease or suboptimal health (Fatjó and Bowen, 2020), particularly given that pets may be 870 lacking medication or veterinary care. 871 872 This brings us to the issue of the effect of the confinement on the quality of life of owners and 873 how they use their pets are a source of support. 874 875 As a crude measure of support, we asked respondents to answer the direct question “How much 876 has your pet helped you during the confinement compared with before?”, on a 7-point Likert 877 scale from much less than before to much more than before. Seventy-four-point three percent 878 of respondents indicated that they had some level of increased support from their pet. 879 880 With respect to the human-animal bond, there were significant increases in C/DORS subscales 881 scores for emotional closeness and interaction with the pet, but a decrease in perceived costs. 882 “Perceived costs” measures the extent to which the presence of the pet interferes with the 883 owner’s freedom of choice to perform other activities. During the confinement the person’s 884 freedom of choice was already restricted, and we would expect the pet to have less effect. These 885 changes in C/DORS offer an insight into the dynamic nature of the human-animal bond, and 886 how it can be affected by changes of circumstance. 30 887 888 For this study, we needed to have a measure of change of QoL due to the confinement. 889 Although there are single question measures of QoL, such as Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale, 890 these measure the individual’s current situation rather than QoL relative to a previous period. 891 Also, measures like Cantril’s Scale have been found to be more influenced by a person’s income 892 rather than their emotional wellbeing (Kahneman and Deaton, 2010). Had we used such a 893 measure in the current situation, this could have given a very limited perspective of the effect 894 of the confinement. However, people’s perception of quality of life is likely to have been quite 895 distorted by the confinement situation, particularly after a period of several weeks. Even 896 measures like Cantril’s scale may not represent the same thing now as they did before the 897 confinement. Given these problems, and the broad range of effects of the confinement, we 898 decided to use our own single question about quality of life change for the individual 899 respondent, supported by four additional measures of the negative effect of the confinement on 900 the household (economic, emotional, health and lifestyle impact). We believe that this provides 901 a good indication of the meaning of quality of life for people within the context of such a major 902 change of circumstances. 903 904 When we looked at the correlation between the main question on QoL, and the four additional 905 questions, the strongest associations were with the negative impact on lifestyle and emotional 906 impact, followed by negative health impact, and finally negative economic impact. It is perhaps 907 surprising that economic impact was so poorly correlated with self-reported QoL, but this 908 supports our decision to try to characterize QoL; within this study, and at this moment in time, 909 QoL is largely a measure of the effect the confinement has had on an individual’s lifestyle and 910 emotional wellbeing. It is possible that as the confinement continues, the economic impact will 911 increase and the perceived character of QoL will change. This requires further study. 912 913 Most respondents (61.8%) indicated that the confinement had negatively affected their QoL. 914 However, 11.4% of people reported an improvement in their QoL, which is quite surprising in 915 the current situation. We did not explore the specific reasons why some people might have an 916 improved QoL, but our measure of QoL is largely influenced by lifestyle and emotional factors; 917 so, perhaps these people lived in locations where the risk of disease was low, or they had fewer 918 family members and dependents to be concerned about, or perhaps they were able to do more 919 of the things they usually enjoyed because they had more time available to them. 920 921 In the BLR model that compared factors between people who reported a negative change in 922 QoL and those reporting no change or an improvement in QoL, there was a positive association 923 between owner QoL group and the amount of outdoor space available at home, and with the 924 pet’s QoL. Negative lifestyle, emotional and health impacts on the household were all 925 negatively associated with owner quality of life. Of these, the strongest association was with 926 impact on lifestyle. However, as mentioned previously, this may reflect perception of what 927 makes up quality of life in the current circumstances. The degree to which the person gained 928 support from the pet during the confinement was negatively associated with quality of life, 929 which we interpret as meaning that the more severely affected the person’s quality of life, the 930 more they gained support from the pet. In studies of the effect of social support on the negative 931 effect of anxiety disorders on quality of life and perceived stress, a similar inverse association 932 was found between support and wellbeing. The implication was that, as in our study, distress 31 933 activates different coping strategies, including increased seeking of emotional support 934 (Panayiotou and Karekla, 2013). 935 936 Dog owners were 53.2% more likely to be in the same/better QoL change group. This could be 937 explained by the fact that in Spain, one of the only permitted reasons for someone to leave the 938 home was to walk a dog. Anecdotally, this has led to cases of people borrowing dogs from 939 neighbors and family members, so that they had an excuse to go outside. Dog ownership, as 940 opposed to cat ownership, would seem to have a specific advantage in the type of confinement 941 implemented in Spain, that could explain the association between species of pet and owner 942 QoL. 943 944 Many specific variables that might be expected to be associated with the owner’s quality of life 945 were not; these included age group, sex, the numbers of different ages of people at home, the 946 level of confinement, and the duration of confinement. 947 948 In the BLR model that examined factors relating to the support the person got from the pet, 949 there was a positive association between getting more support from the pet and the respondent 950 being female, increased emotional closeness (C/DORS) and interaction (C/DORS) with the pet, 951 improvement in the pet’s quality of life and improvement in the relationship with the pet. 952 There was a negative association between getting more support from the pet and improved 953 owner quality of life and increased perceived costs. Of these, there was a very strong association 954 with increased emotional closeness (C/DORS). This subscale of C/DORS includes items such as 955 “My pet gives me a reason to get up in the morning”, “My pet helps me get through tough 956 times”, “My pet is there whenever I need to be comforted”, “How often do you tell your pet 957 things you do not tell anyone else?”, and “How often do you kiss your pet”. The interaction 958 subscale includes “how often do you talk to your pet”, “how often do you cuddle/hug your pet”, 959 and “How often do you pet your pet”. Taken together, the emotional closeness and interaction 960 subscales include many aspects of contact that form part of social support. Social support is a 961 broad construct embracing the positive benefits on health and quality of life derived from 962 interpersonal transactions and provisions derived from social relationships (McNicholas and 963 Collis, 2006). One key feature of a close relationship that is picked up in the C/DORS items is 964 the role of the confidant, someone with whom to share things that are not shared with anyone 965 else. In humans and other gregarious species, the tactile element of social interactions plays a 966 fundamental role in buffering physiological and psychological stress (Pawling et al., 2017). 967 968 It is likely that many people experience loneliness during the confinement. Loneliness can be 969 divided into two main dimensions: social and emotional. Social loneliness is related to an 970 impoverished or negligible social network, whereas emotional loneliness is linked to the 971 absence of access to close relationships. Both dimensions are important, but it is the latter that is 972 more strongly correlated with adverse health and QoL outcomes, and which may be relevant to 973 the situation of confinement when social and physical contact is limited. Loneliness is not a 974 trivial matter; the quantity and quality of social relationships can be considered, by itself, to be 975 a risk factor for mortality (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). Our results suggest that during the current 976 outbreak, the relationship people have with their dogs and cats is helping to compensate for the 977 dramatic reduction in their social and physical interactions with people. This is supported by a 32 978 study on social support (Sarason et al., 1983), which found that pets fulfill many social support 979 functions. 980 981 Conclusions 982 Our study found that pet owners gained substantial support from their pets, and that support 983 was increased when the owner’s quality of life was more impaired. Support was also associated 984 with increased emotional closeness and interaction with the pet. We also found interesting 985 associations between behavioral problems, general behavioral changes and aspects of the 986 confinement, but some indication that the increased emotional needs of owners could 987 negatively affect pets that had existing behavioral problems. The findings of the study point to 988 ways in which we may be able to minimize the effects of the confinement period. 989 990 However, this study represents a general snapshot of the effects of a particular kind of official 991 confinement in one country. It points to the need for more detailed investigations of behavioral 992 change in dogs and cats during the confinement, and international comparisons. 993 994 Acknowledgments: 995 We would like to thank the Affinity Foundation, AVEPA (Asociación de Veterinarios Españoles 996 Especialistas en Pequeños Animales), the Grupo de Especialidad de Etología Clínica de Avepa 997 (GrETCA), the Fundación para el Asesoramiento y Acción en Defensa de los Animales 998 (FAADA), Single Track Ltd, and the veterinary clinics who helped us to promote the survey. 999 1000 Ethics statement 1001 Permission to perform this study was obtained from the Social Sciences Research Ethical 1002 Review Board (SSRERB) at the Royal Veterinary College (URN SR2020-0171). 1003 1004 Survey participants were fully informed about the purpose and background of the study. 1005 Although the survey was anonymous, informed consent was required to participate, and 1006 participants were able to abandon the survey at any point. Participants were also provided with 1007 a link to official information about issues relating to the official confinement, which they could 1008 consult should any questions or concerns arise out of the study. 1009 1010 Conflicts of interest 1011 The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 33 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 References 1036 BOE (Official Gazettes), Real Decreto 463/2020, March 14, 2020, 67, 25390-25400. 1037 https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2020/03/14/463 1038 1039 Brooks, S.K., Webster, R.K., Smith, L.E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg. N., Rubin, G.J., 1040 2020. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the 1041 evidence. The Lancet 395(10227), 912–920. 1042 1043 Carleton, R.N., 2016. Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models 1044 involving uncertainty. J. Anxiety Disord. 39, 30-43. 1045 1046 Diverio, S., Boccini, B., Menchetti, L., Bennett, P.C., 2016. The Italian perception of the ideal 1047 companion dog. J. Vet. Behav.: Clin. Appl. Res. 12, 27–35. 1048 1049 Dodman, N.H., Brown, D.C., Serpell, J.A., 2018. Associations between owner personality and 1050 psychological status and the prevalence of canine behavior problems. PLoS ONE. 13, e0192846, 1051 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192846 1052 1053 Duggan, M., Brenner, J., 2013. The demographics of social media users– 2012. Pew Research 1054 Center 2013. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/02/14/the-demographics-of-social-media-users- 1055 2012/. Accessed April 2020. 1056 1057 Dwyer, F., Bennett, P.C., Coleman, G.J., 2006. Development of the Monash Dog Owner 1058 Relationship Scale (MDORS). Anthrozoös. 19(3), 243–256. 1059 1060 Elzerman, A.L., DePorter, T.L., Beck, A., Collin, J.F., 2019. Conflict and affiliative behavior 1061 frequency between cats in multi-cat households: a survey-based study. J. Feline Med. Surg. 1062 https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X19877988 1063 1064 Emerson, R.M., 1976. ”Social Exchange Theory”. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2, 335–362. 1065 doi:10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003 1066 1067 Fatjó, J. Bowen, J., 2020. Making the Case for Multi-Axis Assessment of Behavioral Problems. 1068 Animals 10(3), 383. 1069 34 1070 FEDIAF (European Pet Food Industry Federation) Facts and Figures 2018 Report. 1071 http://www.fediaf.org/who-we-are/european-statistics.html 1072 1073 Hawryluck, L., Gold, W., Robinson, S., Pogorski, S., Galea, S., Styra, R., 2004. SARS Control and 1074 Psychological Effects of Quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 1206-1212. 1075 1076 Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., Layton, J.B., 2010. Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A 1077 Meta-analytic Review. PLoS Med. 7(7), e1000316. 1078 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 1079 1080 Howell, T.J., Bowen, J., Fatjó, J., Calvo, P., Holloway, A., Bennett, P.C., 2017. Development of 1081 the cat-owner relationship scale (CORS). Behav. Process. doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.02.024 1082 1083 Joinson, A.N., 2008. ‘Looking at’, ‘looking up’ or ‘keeping up with’ people? Motives and uses of 1084 Facebook. CHI 2008 Proceedings-Online Social Networks, 1027-1036. 1085 1086 Kahneman, D., Deaton, A., 2010. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional 1087 well-being. PNAS. 107(38), 16489-16493. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107 1088 1089 McNicholas, J., Collis, G., 2006. Animals as Social Supports: Insights for Understanding Animal- 1090 Assisted Therapy. In: Fine, A.H. (Ed), Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical 1091 Foundations and Guidelines for Practice. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 49-71 1092 1093 Panayiotou, G., Karekla, M., 2013. Perceived social support helps, but does not buffer the 1094 negative impact of anxiety disorders on quality of life and perceived stress. Soc. Psychiatry 1095 Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 48:283–294. DOI 10.1007/s00127-012-0533-6 1096 1097 Pawling, R., Cannon, P.R., McGlone, F.P., Walker, S.C., 2017. C-tactile afferent stimulating 1098 touch carries a positive affective value. PLoS ONE. 12(3), e0173457. 1099 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173457 1100 1101 Ramos, D., Reche-Junior, A., Fragoso, P.L., Palme, R., Yanasse, N.K., Gouvêa, V.R., Beck, A., 1102 Mills, D.S., 2013. Are cats (Felis catus) from multi-cat households more stressed? Evidence from 1103 assessment of fecal glucocorticoid metabolite analysis. Physiol. Behav.. 122, 72-75. DOI: 1104 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.08.028 1105 1106 Shaw, J., Bonnett, B., Roter, D., Adams, C., Larson, S. 2012. Gender differences in veterinarian- 1107 client-patient communication in companion animal practice. J. Am. Vet. Med. Associ. 241, 81- 1108 88. 10.2460/javma.241.1.81 1109 1110 Smith, G., 2008. Does gender influence online survey participation?: A record-linkage analysis 1111 of university faculty online survey response behavior. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 1112 No. ED 501717. 1113 35 1114 van der Leij, W.J.R., Selman, L.D.A.M., Vernooij, J.C.M., Vinke, C.M., 2019. The effect of a 1115 hiding box on stress levels and body weight in Dutch shelter cats: a randomized controlled trial. 1116 PLoS ONE. 14(10). e0223492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223492 1117 1118 Wood, L., Martin, K., Christian, H., Nathan, A., Lauritsen, C., Houghton, S., Kawachi, I., 1119 McCune, S., 2015. The pet factor - Companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, 1120 friendship formation and social support. PLoS ONE. 10(4). e0122085. 1121 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122085 36 Ethics statement Permission to perform this study was obtained from the Social Sciences Research Ethical Review Board (SSRERB) at the Royal Veterinary College (URN SR2020-0171). Survey participants were fully informed about the purpose and background of the study. Although the survey was anonymous, informed consent was required to participate, and participants were able to abandon the survey at any point. Participants were also provided with a link to official information about issues relating to the official confinement, which they could consult should any questions or concerns arise out of the study. • During COVID-19 confinement in Spain 61.8% of respondents said that their quality of life had deteriorated. • Poorer self-reported personal quality of life was associated with the lifestyle and emotional impacts of the confinement on the household. • People whose quality of life had been more severely affected reported that their pet provided proportionately more help for them during confinement. • The emotional bond between people and their pets strengthened during the confinement. • Thirty-seven percent of dogs showed signs of difficulty coping with the confinement, but cats were less affected. • Dogs with pre-existing behavior problems were more likely to have difficulty coping with the confinement.