Respond to the prompt(s) for each item below using complete sentences and clear writing. You
may single-space your work, and a cover page or page numbers are not required. Cite and
reference only where indicated.
Return to the assignment page when you are ready to submit your assignment.
*To complete Item 5, you will need to download the article below from the assignment page.
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2012)
Collaboration on this assignment is allowed. But your work must be your own.
Item 1 (3 pts.)
Are all published studies valuable? Explain your answer and include a specific example to
support your argument.
Item 2 (4 pts.)
A researcher, who is also a high school psychology teacher, is interested in chocolate
consumption and reaction time. One day in class, she randomly assigns 16 of her most advanced
students to either an experimental or control group. The students are told that, as part of their
final grade in the course, they must be a subject in the study. After giving eight of the students 5
full-size chocolate bars each to eat (while she sits and watches to ensure they eat all of them), she
gives all 16 students a test for reaction time. When the students have completed the test, she
allows them to leave.
What are the general ethical principles violated in this study scenario? Explain the general ethical
issues you identify using the details from the study description. Be explicit in your identification
(e.g., label each of your examples with one the five general principles outlined in the APA ethics
document, such as Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, or Integrity, etc.)
Item 3 (5 pts.)
A researcher is investigating the relationship between self-concept beliefs and academic
performance. After signing an informed consent form, which states that the study involves no
psychological risks, participants are asked to complete a “personality measure.” Then they are
given bogus feedback (the so-called “personality measures” are never really scored) and told that
they either possess negative personality traits or possess positive personality traits. Everyone in
the study then completed SAT-style academic test questions.
What are the ethical issues raised by the study? Explain. Again, be sure to directly identify the
ethical principal corresponding to your ethical concerns. (4 pts.)
What would you advise this researcher to do in order to address the ethical concerns? (1 pt.)
Item 4 (2 pts.)
Johnson et al. (2009) argue that the Executive Dysfunction hypothesis for ADHD is difficult to
falsify. This hypothesis suggests that ADHD is caused by deficits in executive processes
resulting from irregularities in the brain structures and functions in the frontal lobe. Executive
functioning deficits are frequently used as markers of ADHD during the diagnostic process.
What research problems might arise if the Executive Dysfunction hypothesis is not falsifiable?
Think about this in terms of how we establish evidence. In other words, why is it so important in
science that we be able to falsify a hypothesis?
Item 5 (16 pts.)
Using the Zilcho-Mano et al. (2012) article you downloaded, respond to each of the questions
below. Please paraphrase the information from the article you use to support your responses,
with the exception of Item (j).
(a) (2 pts.)
Write the full reference in precise APA (7th) format. Don’t forget the DOI link!
(b) (2 pts.)
What deficits in the prior research were the researchers trying to improve upon, or in what way
were the researchers trying to extend the findings from prior research?
(c) (1 pt.)
What was the aim (i.e., purpose) of Study 1?
(d) (1 pt.)
How do the authors expect insecure pet attachment to influence Study 1 outcomes?
(e) (1 pt.)
Which of the three types of methodology were used by the researchers in Study 1? How do you
know? Explain.
(f) (1 pt.)
Which major research design would we use to classify Study 1? Explain your answer.
(g) (1 pt.)
Of the three major goals of scientific research, which goal does Study 1 represent? Explain your
answer.
(h) (1 pt.)
In study 2, what did the authors expect to find in the pet physical presence or cognitive presence
conditions?
(i) (2 pts.)
Across both studies, identify and describe two major findings related to the physical and/or
cognitive presence of a pet.
(j) (4 pts.)
Overall, how strong do you think the researchers’ evidence is for pets as secure bases and safe
havens for their owners? Consider the researchers’ interpretation of the findings as well as the
limitations of the study. Explain your answer using brief excerpts from the article to support your
arguments. [Note: The excerpts may be direct quotes and must have proper APA citation that
includes the page number.]
Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 571–580
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
Pets as safe havens and secure bases: The moderating role of pet
attachment orientations
Sigal Zilcha-Mano a,?, Mario Mikulincer a, Phillip R. Shaver b
a
b
School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 14 July 2012
Keywords:
Attachment
Human–animal interactions
Exploration
Stress
Cardiovascular reactivity
Pet
Human–animal bond
a b s t r a c t
We examined the extent to which a pet functions as an attachment ?gure. In Study 1, 165 pet owners
performed a goal exploration task, assessing the number of life goals generated and con?dence in goal
attainment. In Study 2, 120 pet owners performed a distress-eliciting task while assessing blood pressure.
In both studies, participants were divided into three conditions: pet physical presence, pet cognitive presence, and no pet presence. As compared to no pet presence, physical or cognitive pet presence increased
the number of life goals generated and self-con?dence in goal attainment and reduced blood pressure
during the distress-eliciting task. The ?ndings con?rm the ability of a pet to provide a safe-haven and
a secure-base and the moderating role of attachment insecurities.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982) is an empirically
supported framework for explaining how close relationships
contribute to emotion regulation, mental health, and psychological
growth. Research has shown that relationship partners often serve
as attachment ?gures who provide a sense of safe haven in times
of need and a secure base for exploration, which in turn facilitates
distress reduction and goal pursuit (e.g., Feeney, 2004; Mikulincer,
Hirschberger, Nachmias, & Gillath, 2001). In the two studies reported
here, we examine the extent to which pets (i.e., dogs and cats) can
serve as attachment ?gures that facilitate distress reduction and
exploration. Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, and Shaver (2011a) conceptualized the human–pet relationship as an attachment bond and found
that attachment orientations toward pets are useful constructs for
understanding how pet owners relate to their pets. If the human–
pet relationship is an attachment bond, then proximity to a pet
should be bene?cial during a distress-eliciting task (by providing a
safe haven) or an exploration task (by providing a secure base), just
as proximity to human attachment ?gures does. In addition,
individual variations in pet attachment orientations may moderate
these effects. The present studies were designed to test these ideas.
1.1. An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships
According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982), social interactions with protective others (‘‘attachment ?gures’’) are
? Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sigalzil@gmail.com, zilcha.sigal@idc.ac.il (S. Zilcha-Mano).
0092-6566/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.005
internalized in the form of mental representations of self and
relationship partners (‘‘internal working models of self and
others’’), which affect psychological functioning and mental health
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Interactions with attachment ?gures
who are available and supportive in times of need foster the
development of a sense of attachment security and internal working models that are positive and optimistic (Bowlby, 1973). When
attachment ?gures are rejecting or unavailable in times of need,
the sense of attachment security is undermined, negative working
models are formed, and people tend to form insecure attachment
orientations that can be conceptualized in terms of two orthogonal
dimensions, attachment-related anxiety and avoidance (Brennan,
Clark, & Shaver, 1998).
A person’s location on the anxiety dimension indicates the degree to which he or she worries that an attachment ?gure will
not be available in times of need and adopts ‘‘hyperactivating’’
attachment strategies – energetic, insistent attempts to obtain
care, support, and love from relationship partners – as a means
of regulating distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). A person’s position on the avoidance dimension indicates the extent to which he
or she distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill, strives to maintain
behavioral independence and emotional distance from partners,
and relies on deactivating strategies, such as suppression of attachment-related thoughts and emotions (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
People who score low on both dimensions are said to be secure
with respect to attachment.
Originally, the concept of attachment orientations was used to
conceptualize child-parent relationships (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall, 1978). Bowlby (1988) claimed, however, that
attachment theory is relevant to other relationships across the life
572
S. Zilcha-Mano et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 571–580
span. In fact, following Bowlby’s (1982) lead, other scholars (e.g.,
Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994) argued that attachment theory can be applied to adolescent and adult relationships
that meet four criteria: (a) proximity maintenance – preferring to
be near an attachment ?gure, especially in times of need; (b) using
the attachment ?gure as a safe haven who relieves distress and
provides comfort and support; (c) using the attachment ?gure as
a secure base who sustains exploration, risk taking, and selfdevelopment; and (d) experiencing separation distress when the
attachment ?gure is unavailable. Research has shown that many
close friendships and romantic relationships during late adolescence and adulthood satisfy these four criteria (e.g., Fraley & Davis,
1997).
Although romantic partners often become adults’ principal
attachment ?gures (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994), there may also be actual or potential sources of support in speci?c milieus, such as
therapists in therapeutic settings (Mallinckrodt, Gantt, & Coble,
1995) and leaders in organizations (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver,
Izsak, & Popper, 2007). Moreover, recent studies have shown that
groups and symbolic personages (e.g., God) can sometimes be treated as attachment ?gures (Granqvist, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2010;
Rom & Mikulincer, 2003).
Following this line of thinking, Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a)
argued that the human–pet bond can be viewed as an attachment
relationship and that pets often meet the four prerequisites for an
attachment ?gure. Studies show that pet owners feel emotionally
close to their pets and seek and enjoy this closeness (e.g.,
Kurdek, 2009). Moreover, pet owners often feel that their pets
constitute a source of support, comfort, and relief in times of need
(e.g., Allen, Balscovich, & Mendes, 2002; McConnell, Brown, Shoda,
Stayton, & Colleen, 2011). Losing a pet triggers feelings of distress
and often initiates a grieving process (e.g., Hunt, Al-Awadi,
& Johnson, 2008; Kwong & Bartholomew, 2011). Pets also provide
a secure base from which their owners can more con?dently
explore the world (e.g., Kurdek, 2008).
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a) constructed a self-report scale tapping individual differences in attachment orientations toward a
pet (Pet Attachment Questionnaire, or PAQ), which includes two
subscales to measure the two major dimensions of attachment
insecurity in human-pet relationships. One subscale, pet attachment avoidance, taps the extent to which people feel discomfort
with physical and emotional closeness with their own pets and
strive to maintain emotional distance from them. The second subscale, pet attachment anxiety, assesses the extent to which people
have intense and intrusive worries that something bad might happen to their pet, a strong desire for closeness to the pet, and serious
doubts about their (the pet owners’) own value in their pets’ eyes.
The two PAQ subscales were differentially related in theoryconsistent ways with measures of other relevant psychological
constructs (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011a). Speci?cally, anxious attachment to a pet was positively associated with psychological distress,
whereas avoidant attachment to a pet was negatively related to
extraversion. In addition, Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a) found a moderate correspondence between people’s attachment orientations in
human–pet relationships and their attachment orientations in human–human relationships: The higher their scores on measures of
attachment insecurities (anxiety and/or avoidance) in human–
human relationships, the higher their scores on the PAQ insecurity
scales.
Using the PAQ, Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a) also found theoretically predicted links between pet attachment orientations and cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in human–pet relationships.
Individuals who reported higher levels of pet attachment anxiety
or avoidance held more negative expectations regarding their pet
at both explicit (self-report) and implicit (reaction time in a cognitive task) levels. In addition, individuals reporting higher levels of
pet avoidant attachment also expressed less distress following the
death of a pet. In contrast, individuals reporting higher pet attachment anxiety were more likely to exhibit chronic, unresolved grief
after the pet death. All of these ?ndings were uniquely explained
by pet attachment orientations, and not by attachment orientations in human relationships, global personality traits, or existing
self-report measures of emotional strength of attachment to pets,
highlighting the importance of speci?c within-relationship working models (e.g., Klohnen, Weller, Luo, & Choe, 2005).
1.2. Secure base and safe haven functions of human–pet relationships
Following up this line of research, a recent study began to document the bene?ts pet owners can derive from their relationship
with a pet (McConnell et al., 2011). As compared to non-owners,
pet owners fared better on several well-being measures mainly
when their pet ful?lled important social needs. Together with previous ?ndings regarding pets’ capacity to provide comfort and relief in times of need, McConnell et al.’s (2011) ?ndings support
our conceptualization of a pet as an attachment ?gure in the mind
of its owner. However, McConnell et al.’s research did not provide
any information about the role of pet owners’ attachment orientations toward their pets in moderating a pet’s ability to act as a
security provider. In fact, from an attachment perspective, a pet,
like other human attachment ?gures, might fail to provide a safe
haven and secure base to its owner if he or she is not securely attached to it. Therefore, we designed two experimental studies
examining (a) the extent to which pets are able to function as a secure base and safe haven for their owners, and (b) the extent to
which an owner’s pet attachment orientation moderates a pet’s
ability to ful?ll these two attachment functions.
A safe haven is the kind of support that meets a person’s needs
for comfort, reassurance, assistance, and protection in times of
danger or distress (Bowlby, 1988). A large body of research indicates that people tend to seek safe-haven support in times of need
and that receiving this kind of support, or feeling con?dent that it
will be available when needed, helps individuals cope more effectively with stressful life events and has long-term bene?cial effects
on physical and mental health (see Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason
volume, 1996, for extensive reviews).
Although the need for safe-haven support is assumed to be universal, individuals differing in attachment orientations differ greatly
in seeking this type of support and feeling supported by others in
times of need (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). For
example, individuals scoring higher on avoidant or anxious attachment tend to be more reluctant to seek safe-haven support from parents, close friends, romantic partners, or other kinds of attachment
?gures (e.g., teachers) than more secure individuals (e.g., Berant,
Mikulincer, & Florian, 2001; DeFronzo, Panzarella, & Butler, 2001).
In addition, insecure people are less likely than their secure counterparts to bene?t from supportive interactions when coping with
stress, and even from mere proximity to a close relationship partner
(e.g., McGowan, 2002; Mikulincer & Florian, 1997). Moreover, insecurely attached people tend to perceive and remember a partner’s
helpful behavior as less supportive than secure people (e.g., Collins
& Feeney, 2004). Overall, the research conducted so far supports
the hypothesis that insecurely attached people are less likely to perceive their relationship partners as a source of safe haven support
and tend to dismiss or misinterpret a partner’s actual provision of
comfort and support in times of need.
With regard to the human–pet bond, several studies have found
that physical or cognitive proximity to a pet can be a source of
comfort and support in times of need and can alleviate stress and
distress (see Walsh, 2009, for a review). For example, Allen et al.
(2002) have shown that, as compared to the presence of a friend
or spouse, the physical presence of a dog results in lower blood
S. Zilcha-Mano et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 571–580
pressure and heart rate reactivity during a demanding task.
Although these ?ndings are promising, the available evidence is
somewhat inconsistent (e.g., Virues-Ortega & Buela-Casal, 2006)
and no study has examined the extent to which individual differences in pet attachment orientations moderate the stress-buffering
effect of proximity to a pet. We believe this is likely to be a critical
factor in explaining variability in the capacity of a pet to serve as a
safe haven. As in human–human relationships, we hypothesize
that owners of dogs or cats who are insecurely attached (either
anxiously or avoidantly) to their pet are less likely to seek support
from their pet in times of need, bene?t from proximity to their pet
when coping with stress, and perceive and remember their pet’s
presence as supportive and comforting. Therefore, the presence
of a pet should have a stronger stress-buffering effect on securely
attached pet owners than on insecurely attached ones.
Secure base support is the type of support that meets another
person’s needs for exploration, autonomy, and growth when exploration is safe and desirable. According to Bowlby (1988), a secure
base allows a relationship partner to ‘‘make sorties into the outside
world’’ (p. 11) with con?dence that he or she can return for assistance and comfort should obstacles arise. With this sense of being
protected when needed, a person can take sensible risks, engage in
challenging activities, and pursue new goals (Feeney, 2004; Feeney
& Thrush, 2010). Moreover, an attachment ?gure’s non-intrusive
emotional support for one’s aspirations leads to stronger feelings
of self-ef?cacy and higher self-con?dence in one’s ability to attain
important goals (e.g., Feeney & Thrush, 2010). Indeed, there is
accumulating evidence that the provision of a secure base has bene?cial effects on recipients’ mental health and social adjustment
(e.g., Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006; Feeney,
2004; Feeney & Thrush, 2010).
To date, there is no systematic study examining attachment-related differences in the extent to which people seek secure-base
support, feel supported by others during exploration, or bene?t
for receiving secure-base support. The single relevant hint we have
has been provided by Feeney and Thrush (2010), who found that
people scoring higher in either attachment anxiety or avoidance
had spouses who were less emotionally available and less encouraging (as coded by external judges) during exploration of future
plans and goals. Different post hoc interpretations of these ?ndings
can be suggested. For example, a person’s attachment insecurities
may have resulted in less secure-base support from his or her relationship partner. Alternatively, it is also plausible that a person
who receives less secure-base support from his or her relationship
partner might become less securely attached.
With regard to the human–pet bond, there is no good experimental study examining the extent to which pet owners bene?t
from actual or symbolic proximity to their pet during exploration.
Moreover, there is no evidence that individual differences in pet
attachment orientations moderate the ability of a pet to serve as
a secure base for exploration. The present research is designed to
address these issues. Based on existing correlational ?ndings
(e.g., Kurdek, 2008), we hypothesized that owners of dogs or cats
would bene?t from physical or symbolic proximity to their pet
during exploration. We also hypothesized that pet owners who
were less securely attached to their pets would bene?t less from
proximity than more secure pet owners. As in human–human relationships, insecurely attached pet owners may be less satis?ed
with the support they received from a pet (in the case of anxiously
attached people who demand extreme closeness and encouragement for being independent) or be more reluctant to accept such
a support (in the case of avoidant attachment people who prefer
emotional distance and self-reliance). In both cases, insecure people may be less able than their more secure counterparts to engage
in relaxed exploration and enjoy pet presence and the secure-base
support it can provide.
573
2. Study 1
Study 1 examines the extent to which a pet (dog, cat) acts as a secure base for exploration and the moderating role played by pet
attachment orientations in explaining the extent to which pet owners bene?t from physical or symbolic proximity to their pets during
exploration. Speci?cally, owners of dogs or cats completed the PAQ,
a measure tapping pet attachment orientations, performed an
exploration activity (thinking about future goals), and were randomly divided into three conditions during the activity according
to the presence of their pet: physical presence (the pet was in the
room and participants were asked to think about their pet), cognitive
presence (the pet was not in the room but participants were asked to
think about their pet), and no pet presence (the pet was not in the
room and participants were not asked to think about their pet).
The dependent variables were the number of goals participants generated and the con?dence they reported in achieving these goals in
the future. Our predictions were as follows:
1. Participants in the pet physical presence or pet cognitive presence will generate more goals and feel more con?dent in attaining these goals than participants in the no pet presence
condition, implying that proximity to a pet has bene?cial effects
during exploration.
2. These bene?cial effects of physical or cognitive proximity to a
pet during exploration will be less evident when participants
score higher on attachment anxiety or avoidance to their pet.
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
The sample in Study 1 consisted of 165 Israeli owners of dogs or
cats (90 women and 75 men, ranging in age from 18 to 68,
M = 32.3, SD = 11.7) who volunteered to participate in the study
without compensation. Participants’ mean years of education was
13.09 (SD = 1.70). Participants were recruited in parks, animal food
and equipment stores, universities, malls, and streets of cities in
the central area of Israel. All participants were current pet owners
(82.7% were dog owners and 17.3% were cat owners).1
2.1.2. Materials and procedure
The study was conducted in participants’ homes in order to provide an ecologically appropriate and comfortable stress-free familiar environment for both participants and their pets. For each
participant, the experimenter and the participant selected a quiet
room judged as appropriate to conduct the experiment. Usually,
this was a living room or family room. According to prearranged
instructions, no other individuals were present at home during
the study except for the experimenter, the participant, and his or
her pet.
All participants received general instructions stating that they
would complete various measures tapping relationships with pets,
close human relationships, and personal goals. Half of the participants were randomly selected to ?rst complete the self-report
measures and then to perform the goal-generation task. The
remaining participants ?rst performed the goal-generation task
and then completed the self-report measures.2
1
In both studies, no signi?cant difference was found between men and women or
between dog and cat owners in the study variables and the correlations between age
and all the variables were not signi?cant. In addition, statistical analyses revealed that
sex, cat/dog ownership, and age did not signi?cantly moderate the ?ndings reported
in the two studies.
2
No signi?cant difference was found on any measures between the two groups
that completed the tasks and measures in different orders. In addition, the inclusion
of the order factor in other statistical analyses did not alter the reported ?ndings and
did not result in signi?cant interactions with other individual-difference variables.
574
S. Zilcha-Mano et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 571–580
Table 1
Means, SDs, Cronbach alphas, and Pearson correlations for all variables of Study 1.
Mean
SD
Cronbach alphas
1. PAQ anxiety
2. PAQ avoidance
3. ECR anxiety
4. ECR avoidance
5. Number of goals
generated
6. Appraisal of goal
achievement
*
**
1
2
3
4
5
6
2.44
0.91
.86
1.99
0.77
.82
3.23
1.09
.87
3.04
0.98
.85
5.35
2.41
5.79
0.87
.89
.03
.36**
.03
.05
.19*
.13
.05
.06
.07
.13
.02
.14
.10
.28**
.18*
p < .05. p < .01. While the self-report measures were being completed, the pet was placed in another room and participants completed the measures with the experimenter present in the study room. Speci?cally, they completed two measures of attachment orientations towards pets and attachment orientations in close human relationships. The order of these two measures was randomized across participants. Attachment orientations in relationships with pets were assessed with the 26-item Pet Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ; Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011a). Participants were asked to think about their relationship with their current pet and to rate the extent to which each item described their feelings in that relationship. Ratings were made on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Thirteen items tapped pet attachment anxiety (e.g., ‘‘I’m often worried about what I’ll do if something bad happens to my pet,’’ ‘‘I often feel that my pet doesn’t allow me to get as close as I would like,’’ ‘‘I get frustrated when my pet is not around as much as I would like it to be’’) and 13 tapped pet avoidant attachment (e.g., ‘‘I prefer not to be too close to my pet,’’ ‘‘Often my pet is a nuisance to me,’’ ‘‘I get uncomfortable when my pet wants to be close to me’’). The reliability and validity of the scale have been demonstrated by Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a). In the current sample, Cronbach alphas were high for both the pet anxiety items and the pet avoidance items (see Table 1), and a factor analysis with varimax rotation revealed two main factors explaining 54% of the variance and corresponding to the anxiety and avoidance subscales. We therefore computed two total scores for each participant by averaging items from each subscale. Higher scores re?ected higher attachment anxiety or avoidance towards a pet. These two scores were not signi?cantly correlated (see Table 1), con?rming the intended independence of the two pet attachment dimensions. Attachment orientations in close human relationships were assessed with the Hebrew version of the Experiences in Close Relationships inventory (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998), a 36-item measure of attachment anxiety and avoidance (18 items per dimension). Participants rated the extent to which each item was descriptive of their feelings in close human relationships on a 7point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Cronbach alphas were high for anxiety and avoidance subscales (see Table 1). Two total scores were computed by averaging items from each subscale. Higher scores re?ected higher attachment anxiety or avoidance in close human relationships. Pearson correlations indicated that attachment anxiety in close human relationships had signi?cant associations with both pet attachment anxiety and pet attachment avoidance (see Table 1). Avoidant attachment in the ECR was not signi?cantly associated with pet attachment insecurities (see Table 1). Between the self-report measures and the goal-generation task, we inserted a ?ller 5-min anagram task and a 15-min rest period in order to minimize in?uences of the ?rst part of the study on the second part. To avoid unnecessary stress, participants were also told that we would not record the number of anagrams they solved. Before the goal-generation task, participants were randomly divided into three experimental conditions. A third of the participants (n = 55) were asked to bring their pet into the study room and to write a brief description of their pet and their relationship with it. Then, they performed the goal-generation task while their pet was physically present in the room (pet physical presence condition).3 Another third of the participants (n = 55) performed the same task while their pet was in another room, but they were also asked to write a brief description of their pet and their relationship with it in order to activate mental representations of their pet (pet cognitive presence condition). The remaining participants (n = 55) performed the goal-generation task while their pet was in another room and were asked to write a brief description of a person they knew super?cially, was not close to them, and did not in?uence their lives (identical to McGowan’s, 2002, instructions), and their relationship with this person (control condition). No signi?cant differences between these three groups were found in socio-demographic variables (gender, age, education, pet type) or the self-report measures. Immediately following this manipulation, all of the participants performed Feeney’s (2004) goal generation task. In this task, they were asked to list their personal goals for the future (i.e., goals that were personally relevant to them, such as developing a new hobby or switching jobs). Participants were instructed to list as many or as few goals as they actually had (see mean and SD in Table 1). They were then asked to rate the perceived likelihood of achieving each goal on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely to achieve that goal) to 7 (almost certain that I’ll achieve that goal). For each participant, we computed the number of generated goals and the average rated likelihood of achieving the goals. 2.2. Results and discussion Data from the goal-generation task were analyzed in two steps. In the ?rst step, we conducted one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) examining differences between the three experimental conditions (pet physical presence, pet cognitive presence, control) in number of generated goals and appraised likelihood of achieving the goals. These analyses revealed signi?cant differences in the two measures, F(2, 162) = 9.05, p < .01, eta2 = .10, for number of generated goals, and F(2, 162) = 5.02, p < .01, eta2 = .06, for appraised likelihood of achieving the goals. Scheffé post hoc tests revealed that participants in the pet physical presence and pet cognitive presence conditions generated more personal goals and were more con?dent in achieving these goals than participants in the control condition (see means and SDs in Table 2). No signi?cant difference was found between the pet physical presence condition and the pet cognitive presence cond