What Pet Loss Reveals About Attachment

For some people, losing a pet, as highlighted by a recent study (Hyland, 2026), can be as distressing, or even more distressing, than losing a human loved one. The study found that 7.5 percent of individuals grieving a pet met criteria for prolonged grief disorder (PGD). Similar rates are observed following the death of emotionally significant people, such as parents or children.

A characteristic of this study is its emphasis on the clinical relevance of grief following the death of a pet. As discussed by Hyland, studies on this topic can inform mental health professionals, helping them to approach experiences of pet loss with accurate information.

As a mental health professional myself, I can see the practical relevance of these findings. They are a reminder that attachment and the consequences of losing an attachment figure do not only apply to human relationships.

When some people lose a pet, the emotional responses may be so intense precisely because the animal carried deep emotional and relational importance in their lives. The findings, thus, may prompt reflection on a valuable question: What could we understand differently if we explored pet attachment long before the loss occurs?

A Simple Question With Clinical Impact

A study among health care providers is one of the few exploring the impact of asking people about their pets. Improved communication with clients, better understanding of the impact of the bond with the animal, and enhanced therapeutic alliance were some of the reported benefits associated with asking pet-related questions. The literature also highlights the soothing effects of pet-related conversations in primary care contexts and how asking about pets may improve rapport.

More research on this topic could inform clinical work by exploring not only what types of questions to ask but also how to assess when they are most clinically meaningful. Sometimes, it is not a matter of directly asking questions. These conversations about pets may organically emerge in clinical contexts, and paying attention to these remarks is essential. This often happens, for example, when clients are asked about their family composition and the meaningful relationships in their lives, and spontaneously mention their pets.

This means that, in some cases, holding space for conversations about the experiences clients share with their pets supports clinical attunement to what matters in clients’ everyday lives.

The clinical relevance of these spaces is sometimes related to the fact that pet loss often carries clinical weight, but not always. Even when the significance lies in understanding the bond with the animal itself, this can be helpful. Specifically, these conversations can provide information about the several ways the human-animal bond (HAB) can impact people’s lives.

These impacts may involve organizing routines, offering emotional support and comfort, and shaping a client’s sense of identity and belonging. Exploring the role of pets in a client’s life is part of understanding attachment, emotional regulation, and meaning in everyday life. Too often, though, the relationships shared with pets do not receive much clinical attention.

A Gap in Training

In many cases, as discussed in a study with practitioners in Canada, professionals are not aware of the impacts associated with the HAB. In fact, the vast majority of them never received specific training in topics related to the HAB. Consequently, even when the HAB is acknowledged, it is rarely adequately explored in clinical conversations.

However, the bond clients share with pets may warrant clinical attention long before grief. The emotional impact of pet loss is a reminder of the importance of animals in people’s lives. By making room for these relationships in assessment and formulation, mental health professionals may gain a clearer picture of the emotional and relational significance of these relationships long before loss becomes part of the conversation.