\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Comparison of Adolescent with and without Pets Personality and
Intelligence Responses}



\author[1]{Naveed Shibli}%
\author[2]{Amina Aslam}%
\affil[1]{Department of Psychology Riphah International University Faisalabad}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 20, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Personality and intelligence test responses of 200 adolescents belonging
to same vicinities those were having pets and were without pets were
compared to assess effect of pet. Ten-Items Personality Inventory and
Multiple Intelligence Assessment were administered. The responses of the
participants compared with SPSS (22). Analysis revealed variance between
the personality responses by pet owners as compared with participants
without pet, with pet (\emph{M} = 2.34, \emph{SD} = .755) without pet
(\emph{M} = 1.66, \emph{SD} = .923). \emph{p} = .000). A similar
variance was observed in intelligence, pet owners (\emph{M} = 2.24,
\emph{SD} = .740) without pet (\emph{M} = 1.69, \emph{SD} = .895).
\emph{p} = .000). Results are sweeping more cross cultural studies
recommended.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Introduction}

The studies to improve the understanding about human animal interaction
are increasing day by day (McCune, et al, 2020). Human animal
interaction is ancient and is related with human health (Serpell, 2006).
This relationship provided bases for the discovery of human animal bound
(Hines, 2003). Biological impact of human animal interaction is a focus
of modern researchers (Pendry \& Vandagriff, 2020). Because animals even
strayed maintain meaning for human beings around the globe (Davey, Zhao
\& Khor, 2020). The human animal relationship is so strong that the
experts of robotics develop robots getting insights from human animal
interaction (Grollman, 2014).

A human personality study is a multi-dimensional area. In this area the
relationship of human personality dimensions with human orientation
towards animal and its relationship with animal have been reported in a
few studies (Herzog \& Mathews, 1997). Some studies have studied animal
contribution and utility relationship with human attitudes towards the
animals (Serpell, 2004a). Another study examined a similarity in human
attitudes towards animals (Batt, 2009). Human attitudes towards animals
with reference to our empathy towards the animals have also been studied
(Taylor \& Signal, 2005). However a few studies found that having a pet
is not related with our personality (Belk, 1996). However, some studies
studied close relationship between personality and pet keeping (Kidd \&
Kidds, 1980: Perrine \& Osbourne, 1998: Cameron \& Mattson, 1972).

The study of the relationship between personality and intelligence in a
known area and the relationship between these two important
psychological constructs have been established in various studies (Goff
\& Ackerman, 1992), because, these are related with our day to day
living, function and social relationship (Lopes, Salovey \& Straus,
2003). Personality and intelligence also influence our attitudes towards
life (Vakola, Tsaousis \& Nikolaou, 2004) to the extent that these
predict our success in life (Laidra, Pullmann \& Allik, 2007) and about
our skills (Bastian, Burns \& Nettelbeck, 2005).

There could be a question that how keeping a pet could be related with
abient intelligence (Augusto \& McCullagh, 2007: Belk, 1996)) if it is
so, than is intelligence and pet keeping related? ``Mentalizing'' is a
known human feature and we use mentalizing for ours pets (Epley,
Schroeder \& Waytz, 2013) in a few cases. A few relevant questions could
be, why it does so in so an so situation and how it would behave when,
or was it more enthusiastic now, reflect thinking about thinking and
that is related with animals and it is intelligent and could be related
with intelligence? Moreover, certain studies have reflected that pets
facilitated the learning process of children, was that participation
something that could be named as intelligence or it was something to
promote intelligence as an external aid again is a question (Shafer,
2006). Moreover, social and emotional development are related with
personality as well as intelligence and studies support that animals
played a role in both kinds of developments (Triebenbacher, 1998: Robin
\& Bensel, 1985: McNicholas \& Collis, 2001).

\textbf{Method and Procedure}

To test that how do adolescent pet owners and adolescents without pet
belonging to similar vicinities, almost of same age groups behave on two
measures of intelligence and personality because of pet ownership ? 200
subjects were studied. 129 (60\%) were male and 77(40 \%) were female.
Among these 100 were having pets group A and 100 were not having any
pet, mostly those were having pets were having dogs and cats. The
criterion to induct in groups was self-report. All subjects were given
Gosling, Rentfrow \& Swann Jr, 2003) Ten-Items Personality Inventory
(TIPI) and Gardner (1992) Multiple Intelligence Assessment in individual
sittings after getting signed a consent form. Nobody was forced to
participate and nobody was compelled during testing to complete the
tests.

To test that how do adolescent pet owners and adolescents without pet
belonging to similar vicinities, almost of same age groups behave on two
measures of intelligence and personality? 200 subjects were studied. 129
(60\%) were male and 77(40 \%) were female. Among these 100 were having
pets group A and 100 were not having any pet, mostly those were having
pets were having dogs and cats. The criterion to induct in groups was
self-report. All subjects were given Gosling, Rentfrow \& Swann Jr,
2003) Ten-Items Personality Inventory (TIPI) and Gardner (1992) Multiple
Intelligence Assessment in individual sittings after getting signed a
consent form. Nobody was forced to participate and nobody was compelled
during testing to complete the tests.

\textbf{Results}

SPSS (22) was used to analyze data. Analysis revealed variance between
personality responses by pet owners as compared with participants
without pet, with pet (\emph{M} = 2.34, \emph{SD} = .755) without pet
(\emph{M} = 1.66, \emph{SD} = .923). \emph{p} = .000). Similar variance
was observed in intelligence, pet owners (\emph{M} = 2.24, \emph{SD} =
.740) without pet (\emph{M} = 1.69, \emph{SD} = .895). \emph{p} = .000).

\textbf{Conclusions and Recommendation}

The results are astonishing or we may name these as sweeping, these
could be due to certain testing or calculation factor or for other
reasons those could be related with the participats and thier particular
areas where the study was conducted, however, if these are approved in
cross-cultural context than these reflect a few important directions
regarding the important areas of psychology. More extensive studies in
cross cultural context recommended.

\textbf{Table 1.0}

\emph{Personality Responses Pet owners/ Participants without pet
(N=200)}

Intrest 95\% \emph{CI}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{M}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{SD}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{T}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{p}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{LL}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{UL}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Cohen's.d}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
With pet(100)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.34\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.755\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.70\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.000\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.4476\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.91524\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.806\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Without pet(100)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.69\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.895\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Analysis revealed difference between personality responses by pet owners
as compared with participants without pet, with pet (\emph{M} =
2.34,\emph{SD} = .755) without pet (\emph{M} = 1.66, \emph{SD} =
.923).\emph{p} = .000) that showed the presence of variance.

\textbf{Table 1.1}

\emph{Intelligence Responses Pet owners/ Participants without pet
(N=200)}

Intrest 95\% \emph{CI}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{M}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{SD}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{T}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{p}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{LL}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{UL}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Cohen's.d}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
With pet(100)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.24\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.740\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4.734\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.000\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.32089\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.77911\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.66\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Without pet(100)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.69\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.895\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Analysis revealed difference between intelligence responses by pet
owners as compared with participants without pet, variance wes observed
in intelligence, pet owners (\emph{M} = 2.24, \emph{SD} = .740) without
pet (\emph{M} = 1.69, \emph{SD} = .895). \emph{p} = .000).

\textbf{References}

Augusto, J. C., \& McCullagh, P. (2007). Ambient intelligence: Concepts
and applications.~\emph{Computer Science and Information Systems}
,~\emph{4} (1), 1-27.

Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species
similarity to humans: a multivariate approach.\emph{Bioscience horizons}
,~\emph{2} (2), 180-190.

Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., \& Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional
intelligence predicts life skills, but not as well as personality and
cognitive abilities.~\emph{Personality and individual differences}
,~\emph{39} (6), 1135-1145.

Belk, R. W. (1996). Metaphoric relationships with pets.\emph{Society \&
Animals} ,~\emph{4} (2), 121-145.

Cameron, P., \& Mattson, M. (1972). Psychological correlates of pet
ownership.~\emph{Psychological Reports} .

Davey, G., Zhao, X., \& Khor, M. M. (2020). Heterogeneity in beliefs
about feeding stray animals: the complexity of human--animal
interaction.~\emph{Human Dimensions of Wildlife} ,~\emph{25} (1),
100-103.

Epley, N., Schroeder, J., \& Waytz, A. (2013). Motivated mind
perception: Treating pets as people and people as animals.
In\emph{Objectification and (de) humanization} ~(pp. 127-152). Springer,
New York, NY.

Gardner, H. (1992).~\emph{Multiple intelligences} ~(Vol. 5, p. 56).
Minnesota Center for Arts Education.

Goff, M., \& Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations:
Assessment of typical intellectual engagement.\emph{Journal of
Educational Psychology} ,~\emph{84} (4), 537.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., \& Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains.~\emph{Journal of Research
in personality} ,~\emph{37} (6), 504-528. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P.
J., \& Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains.~\emph{Journal of Research in personality}
,~\emph{37} (6), 504-528.

Grollman, D. H. (2014). Robots: Pets or people?.~\emph{Interaction
Studies} ,~\emph{15} (2), 205-209. Grollman, D. H. (2014). Robots: Pets
or people?.~\emph{Interaction Studies} ,~\emph{15} (2), 205-209.

Herzog, H. A., \& Mathews, S. (1997). Personality and attitudes toward
the treatment of animals.~\emph{Society \& animals} ,\emph{5} (2),
169-175.

Hines, L. M. (2003). Historical perspectives on the human-animal
bond.~\emph{American Behavioral Scientist} ,~\emph{47} (1), 7-15.

Kidd, A. H., \& Kidds, R. M. (1980). Personality characteristics and
preferences in pet ownership.~\emph{Psychological Reports} ,\emph{46}
(3), 939-949.

Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., \& Allik, J. (2007). Personality and
intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: A cross-sectional
study from elementary to secondary school.\emph{Personality and
individual differences} ,~\emph{42} (3), 441-451.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., \& Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence,
personality, and the perceived quality of social
relationships.~\emph{Personality and individual Differences} ,~\emph{35}
(3), 641-658.

McCune, S., McCardle, P., Griffin, J. A., Esposito, L., Hurley, K.,
Bures, R., \& Kruger, K. A. (2020). Human-Animal Interaction (HAI)
Research: A Decade of Progress.~\emph{Frontiers in Veterinary Science}
,~\emph{7} , 44.

McNicholas, J., \& Collis, G. M. (2001). Children's representations of
pets in their social networks.~\emph{Child: care, health and
development} ,~\emph{27} (3), 279-294.

Pendry, P., \& Vandagriff, J. L. (2020). Salivary Studies of the Social
Neuroscience of Human--Animal Interaction. In~\emph{Salivary Bioscience}
~(pp. 555-581). Springer, Cham.

Perrine, R. M., \& Osbourne, H. L. (1998). Personality characteristics
of dog and cat persons.~\selectlanguage{ngerman}\emph{Anthrozoös} ,~\emph{11} (1), 33-40.

Robin, M., \& Bensel, R. T. (1985). Pets and the socialization of
children.~\emph{Marriage \& Family Review} ,~\emph{8} (3-4), 63-78.
Robin, M., \& Bensel, R. T. (1985). Pets and the socialization of
children.~\emph{Marriage \& Family Review} ,~\emph{8} (3-4), 63-78.

Serpell, J. A. (2006). Animal companions and human well-being: An
historical exploration of the value of human---Animal relationships.
In~\emph{Handbook on animal-assisted therapy} ~(pp. 3-19). Academic
Press.

Serpell, J. A. (2004a). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals
and their welfare.~\emph{ANIMAL WELFARE-POTTERS BAR THEN
WHEATHAMPSTEAD-} ,~\emph{13} , S145-S152.

Shafer, D. N. (2006). Pets help teach in speech-language pathology
sessions.~\emph{The ASHA Leader} ,~\emph{11} (2), 34-35.

Taylor, N., \& Signal, T. D. (2005). Empathy and attitudes to
animals.~\emph{Anthrozoös} ,~\emph{18} (1), 18-27.

Triebenbacher, S. L. (1998). Pets as transitional objects: Their role in
children's emotional development.~\emph{Psychological reports}
,~\emph{82} (1), 191-200. Triebenbacher, S. L. (1998). Pets as
transitional objects: Their role in children's emotional
development.~\emph{Psychological reports} ,~\emph{82} (1), 191-200.

Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., \& Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional
intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward
organisational change.~\emph{Journal of managerial psychology} .

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

