In their focal article, Hernandez et al. (Reference Hernandez, Melson-Silimon and Zickar2025) detail the merit of taking a more animal inclusive perspective in industrial-organizational psychology (I-O) psychology research, education, and policy decisions. They focus primarily on the role of animals as workers who labor for humans. As illustrated in Table 1 (Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez, Melson-Silimon and Zickar2025, p. 4), animals occupy various roles within the 21st century economy, including as therapy animals (i.e., recreational therapists), farm livestock (i.e., farmworkers and laborers), and military and security personnel (i.e., special forces and security guards). Overall, we fully support the authors’ argument that an expanded, interspecies view of “who” constitutes a worker—including nonhuman animals—is necessary. Rather than challenging any claims made by Hernandez et al. (Reference Hernandez, Melson-Silimon and Zickar2025), our objective is to augment their work by discussing additional avenues for human–animal research in the field of I-O psychology that positions animals as not just workers, but as essential members of the family unit in the form of pets Footnote 1 that have the potential to both enhance and inhibit desired work outcomes.
Pets, like work and workers, are ubiquitous in modern society. Indeed, more than half of the global population is estimated to own a pet (HealthforAnimals, 2022), with over 65.1 million households in the United States alone owning a pet dog (Megna, Reference Megna2025). The bonds that people form with their pets may help to explain their widespread popularity. Many endorse the “Pet Effect” (Herzog, Reference Herzog2011), or the notion that animal companionship improves the well-being of humans (Janssens et al., Reference Janssens, Eshuis, Peeters, Lataster, Reijnders, Enders-Slegers and Jacobs2020). Research indicates that many consider their pets to be integral members of their families (e.g., Coren, Reference Coren2017; McConnell et al., Reference McConnell, Paige Lloyd and Humphrey2019)—influencing decisions surrounding finances, relocation, family planning, and more (Coren, Reference Coren2023). These phenomena are not new; animals have lived alongside humans as pet companions for millennia, with members of ancient societies such as the Greeks and Romans keeping birds, cats, dogs, and other animals as pets (e.g., Lazenby, Reference Lazenby1949). Despite these long-standing and rich relationships, the role of pets as facilitators of psychological processes for workers has largely been overlooked outside of a handful of articles (e.g., Hughes et al., Reference Hughes, Guild, Lamb, LaRoche and Stewart2024; Junça-Silva, Reference Junça-Silva2023, Reference Junça-Silva2025).
Drawing from the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), our goal is to advance animal inclusive research in the field of I-O psychology by outlining areas of inquiry that focus on the role of pets within the work–nonwork interface. Specifically, we discuss the potential of and provide ideas for research that emphasizes the role of pets as facilitators of both positive (i.e., enrichment) and negative (i.e., conflict) nonwork–work processes. By doing so, we extend and complement the discussion on interspecies I-O research initiated by Hernandez et al. (Reference Hernandez, Melson-Silimon and Zickar2025). We begin by outlining the relevant components of the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012).
Pets as facilitators of nonwork–work processes
The work–home resources model
The work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), an extension of the broader conservation of resources (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989) framework, emphasizes the interconnectedness between the work and home (i.e., nonwork) domains. Central to the work–home resources model are resources, or stimuli that facilitate goal attainment, and demands, or stimuli that require sustained effort or energy. Contextual demands and resources are present in the two domains: there are demands (e.g., stressors) and resources (e.g., supports) nested within the social contexts of both work and home. The contextual demands and resources in one domain will impact one’s finite pool of personal resources—things proximal to the self, such as mood, health, and time (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2002). These personal resources, in turn, shape one’s ability to acquire or utilize contextual resources. It is through the depletion (via contextual demands) or bolstering (via contextual resources) of one’s personal resources that spillover from one domain to the other occurs. When contextual demands in one domain are high, personal resources are drained, resulting in negative outcomes in the other domain. Conversely, when contextual resources in one domain are high, personal resources are gained, contributing to positive outcomes in the other domain (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012). We contend that, under the lens of the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), pets can serve as either a contextual resource or contextual demand within the home domain. Their impact on work processes would be contingent upon this distinction. Below, we discuss several areas for future research that position pets as either supportive home resources or potential home demands.
Pets as home resources
The literature on human–animal interaction provides ample evidence that pets can (and often do!) positively influence the general health and well-being of their owners. Indeed, research has found that pet ownership is often associated with outcomes such as reduced loneliness and depression, increased social skills, and more frequent physical activity (e.g., Friedman & Krause-Parello, Reference Friedman and Krause-Parello2018). Ergo, under the lens of the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), it is reasonable to conceptualize pets as valuable contextual home resources that may enrich the work domain. That is, pets may contribute to desirable work outcomes (and protect against undesirable ones) by enhancing one’s pool of personal resources through positive experiences at home. Despite this theoretical plausibility, research exploring the positive work-related phenomena stemming from pet experiences in the home domain is scant (e.g., Hughes et al., Reference Hughes, Guild, Lamb, LaRoche and Stewart2024).
A useful first step in this area may be to identify the kinds of pet-owner experiences most strongly associated with personal resource acquisition—the key ingredient for nonwork–work enrichment. The literature on human–animal interaction suggests that key personal resources (i.e., positive affect, energy, and psychological capital) are frequently acquired during various human–animal exchanges (e.g., Wang et al., Reference Wang, Xue, Zuo, Zhang and Xu2025). These exchanges range from simple, momentary acts, such as petting, holding, or being near one’s pet (e.g., Janssens et al., Reference Janssens, Eshuis, Peeters, Lataster, Reijnders, Enders-Slegers and Jacobs2020), to routine acts of care, such as walking or grooming one’s pet (e.g., Christian et al., Reference Christian, Westgarth, Bauman, Richards, Rhodes, Evenson, Mayer and Thorpe2013). Burgeoning organizational research has found support for the potential of pets as catalysts of personal resource gain. For example, Junça-Silva (Reference Junça-Silva2023) found that daily interactions with pets was associated with increased self-regulatory resources in a telework context.Footnote 2 To deepen our understanding of pets as contextual home resources and facilitators of nonwork-to-work enrichment, it is important to further examine the types of experiences and interactions with pets that may lead to gains in personal resources. Might some experiences, such as those that require more contact and quality time with the pet (e.g., taking one’s dog to a dog park), yield more personal resources than others? Additionally, identifying the specific personal resources involved (e.g., discrete positive emotions, physical, or cognitive energy) would offer theoretical value under the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), as the nature of these resource gains may shape the outcomes observed in the work domain.
In addition, we also encourage future research determine the role of key resources in shaping the potential for personal resource gains via pet interactions in the home domain. According to the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), key resources are those personality traits that facilitate more active and efficient styles of coping (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2002). Regarding pets and their status as contextual home resources, it would be worthwhile to uncover which key resources magnify (or buffer) the relations between positive pet interactions and personal resource gain. One such resource may be openness to experience; Hughes et al. (Reference Hughes, Guild, Lamb, LaRoche and Stewart2024) found that the relations between morning quality time with pets and outcomes (i.e., workday negative affect, after work incivility) were strengthened by higher levels of this trait. Revealing which key resources serve as a boundary condition for the acquisition of personal resources would have important theoretical and practical implications. For instance, such knowledge could inform low-cost, personalized strategies for enhancing employee well-being, and work functioning among pet-owning employees.
Pets as home demands
Although pets can be contextual home resources, there are circumstances where they can also be contextual home demands. Indeed, though the bulk of the human–animal interaction literature revolves around the benefits of pet ownership, there is evidence to suggest that pets can be a burden on well-being (Herzog, Reference Herzog2011). Per the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), when functioning as a contextual home demand rather than a resource, pets would facilitate nonwork–work conflict instead of enrichment. Akin to research on positive work experiences stemming from pet phenomena, there is little research documenting how pet-related demands influence the domain of work (e.g., Scholtz, Reference Scholtz2022).
We contend that pets may serve as contextual home demands when they deplete key personal resources, such as financial resources (e.g., money, credit). After all, owning a pet often involves significant financial investment (e.g., King et al., Reference King, Mueller, Dowling-Guyer and McCobb2022). A large contributor to this cost is routine veterinary care, with nine in ten dog owners indicating that they visit an established veterinarian regularly (Larkin, Reference Larkin2024). Aside from routine veterinary care, emergency care—such as unforeseen injuries and medical troubles—is also a large strain on financial resources. Other needs such as food, supplies, training, travel planning, and daily care (e.g., daycare, pet sitter, dog walker) also contribute to the financial burden owners may experience. On average, dog owners spend above $1,700 every year, with cat owners spending just below $1,350 yearly (Larkin, Reference Larkin2024). Considering these factors—in tandem with the knowledge that the movement of even modest amounts of money can significantly impact perceptions of financial stress (Bazzoli & Hughes, Reference Bazzoli and Hughes2025)—it would be worthwhile to investigate how financial stress and monetary resource depletion stemming from pet ownership influences worker attitudes, behavior, and effort. For example, following an emergency veterinary bill, might owners work more hours to offset this cost—perhaps reporting greater levels of work–family conflict? Alternatively, might pet-related financial strain may lead employees to seek supplementary income sources, such as gig or freelance work, thereby compounding strain?
Another personal resource potentially depleted by pets in the home domain is time. Time, intuitively, is a finite and valuable resource (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2002). When time is spent on activities that are considered undesirable (i.e., time perceived as being wasted), people tend to experience negative outcomes (e.g., Holtz et al., Reference Holtz, Harold, Puranik and Gardner2024). To the extent that daily caretaking in the home domain (e.g., feeding, walking, and cleaning up after one’s pet)—which may take hours per day—is viewed as burdensome or otherwise taxing, pets may deplete the personal resource of time and serve as demands. Owners may reduce sleep hours, limit recovery time, or give up on personal goals to keep up with their pets’ basic care. This may be especially pronounced for owners caring for new pets; indeed, recently adopted dogs or cats may require extra attention, training, assistance, or support as they acclimate to a new home environment. Additionally, pets’ needs can make owners miss out on positive social experiences (e.g., time spent with friends). In cases of emergency, a pet may require their owner to take off work to bring them to veterinary appointments, monitor them at home, or administer medication at regular intervals. Over time, the accumulation of pet-related time-based demands may lead owners to report strain outcomes at work, such as burnout and withdrawal.
Relatedly, pets may also serve as a cognitive-attentional demand in the home domain—particularly in telework settings, where the boundaries between home and work are often blurred. For example, pets who are destructive, anxious, beg for attention, or need to be walked throughout the day may divert their owners’ attention away from their work tasks, disrupting focus and flow. Even passive pet behavior—such as vocalizations (e.g., barking, meowing) and movement—can break up one’s attention and decrease concentration, particularly when engaging in cognitively or attentionally demanding tasks (e.g., video communications). Gradually, this attentional fragmentation may contribute to reduced productivity, increased errors, or cognitive fatigue. Future research should clarify when, and for whom, pet-related attentional demands most impact work outcomes.
Building from this point, key resources, per the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012), are also likely to play a role in shaping the impact of pets as contextual demands on nonwork–work conflict. It seems intuitive that select traits, such as resilience and conscientiousness—both of which facilitate healthy coping in the face of demands (e.g., Bartley & Roesch, Reference Bartley and Roesch2011)—would have the potential to buffer against the impacts of pets as contextual demands in the home domain. We strongly encourage future research to investigate potential key resources when exploring the role of pets as contextual home demands.
Concluding remarks
Hernandez et al. (Reference Hernandez, Melson-Silimon and Zickar2025) highlight the value of adopting an interspecies perspective on work and workers within I-O psychology—sentiments we wholeheartedly support. Focusing on animals as just workers, however, overlooks one of their most prevalent roles in contemporary life: that of pet companions and family members. I-O psychologists are well positioned to advance the literature on human–animal interaction by applying their expertise in work–nonwork dynamics. Frameworks such as the work–home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, Reference Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker2012) offer promising avenues for exploring how pets shape (both positively and negatively) work-related processes. It is our hope that this commentary, in conjunction with Hernandez et al. (Reference Hernandez, Melson-Silimon and Zickar2025), catalyzes this kind of work.
Open access
