Socialization Past and Present: Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Behaviors in Multispecies Families

Abstract

Animals are an integral part of the multispecies family, a new way of “doing family.” Understanding the intergenerational transmission of human–animal relationship practices is essential as animals become embedded in family life. Despite growing research on companion animals’ roles in child development, less is known about how parents’ approaches to integrating animals into the family are shaped and transmitted. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors in multispecies families. We identified four key ways that parents drew upon their own childhood experiences when raising their children with companion animals. Parents (1) emulated their own parents’ approaches; (2) diverged from their family’s approaches; (3) blended both emulation and divergence; and (4) faced clashing transmissions in parenting teams. Our study advances existing research by documenting how intergenerational transmission functions in socialization of children in multispecies families. Findings have implications for family therapists, veterinarians, and policymakers, among others who work with multispecies families.

Keywords

socialization companion animals parenting intergenerational transmission multispecies families family processes

Animals are a critical part of multispecies families, representing a new way of “doing family” (Irvine & Cilia, 2017). In the United States, an increasing number of families raise children in multispecies households, where animals are regarded as important family members (Laurent-Simpson, 2021). In these settings, children learn culture- and family-specific attitudes and behaviors toward their nonhuman animal companions. Despite emerging research on the role of companion animals in children’s development (Kuchirko et al., 2025; Laurent-Simpson, 2021; Tipper, 2011), a significant gap remains in understanding how intergenerational transmission shapes parenting behaviors in multispecies families. Specifically, questions remain with regards to how parents draw upon their own childhood experiences when socializing their children in multispecies families. In this study, we use semi-structured interviews to explore how parents’ decisions about teaching their children to care for companion animals reflect or differ from their own upbringing. Our findings have important implications for understanding the intergenerational transmission of values and practices related to human–animal relationships and how those values and practices influence children’s social, emotional, cognitive, and moral development.

Companion Animals within Multispecies Families

Animals play a central role in children’s lives (Melson et al., 2024). Children encounter animals in the wild, on their farms, inside their homes, and even on their plates (Tipper, 2011). Children frequently see animals depicted on their clothing, as characters in their books and television shows, and as stuffed toys filling their bedrooms. In the U.S., most families live with companion animals (broadly referred to as pets), most commonly dogs and cats, along with animals like rabbits, birds, and reptiles (U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics, 2024). About 66% of U.S. households keep a companion animal (Megna, 2023), and studies reveal that people often include their companion animals when listing members of their households (Charles & Davies, 2008). It is common for families to develop close emotional attachments to their companion animals, and they refer to them as fur babies, friends, siblings, or even boyfriends/girlfriends (Greenebaum, 2004). Animals also take on family-like roles of co-sleeping or joining family vacations. A growing pet industry now caters to multispecies families, offering products and services such as clothing, health insurance, boutique foods, and more (Stoltz et al., 2020). Living with companion animals provides numerous benefits, including improving human health, well-being, and longevity, a phenomenon known as the “Pet Effect” (Herzog, 2011). Companion animals are particularly prevalent in households with children (Melson, 2003; Westgarth et al., 2007), with over 98% of children expressing strong affection for their pets (Triebenbacher, 1998). These deep and lasting bonds emphasize the crucial yet often overlooked role that companion animals play in children’s early socialization (Melson, 2020).

Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting in Multispecies Families

A growing body of research suggests that children’s attitudes toward companion animals are shaped early within the family context. For instance, when parents demonstrate positive interactions and care toward companion animals, children are more likely to adopt similar attitudes and behaviors (Melson, 2003). Children learn to engage with animals via modeling provided by their families. Parents who engage in nurturing and empathetic behaviors towards pets foster similar attitudes in their children, emphasizing the importance of parental modeling in the development of compassion and responsibility (Endenburg & Van Lith, 2011). Thus, parents play a key role in this socialization process: they make choices about which animals to bring into the household, model appropriate behaviors in treating and caring for animals, and reinforce behaviors that align with cultural norms. These findings suggest the importance of examining how parents’ own childhood experiences shape the socialization of their children’s values and behaviors toward companion animals.

The transmission of parenting practices and values across generations—termed intergenerational transmission (IGT)—has been widely studied in human relationships and is observed across cultural contexts and socialization processes (Abraham et al., 2022; Bornstein, 2019; Kalmijn, 2022; Neppl et al., 2020; Rothenberg et al., 2021; Van Ijzendoorn, 1992). Through this process, intentionally or unintentionally, one generation influences the parenting attitudes and behaviors of the next (Van Ijzendoorn, 1992). Research indicates that IGT of parenting behaviors typically occurs to a mild or moderate degree, with approximately 35–45% of behaviors passed down (Belsky et al., 2009). Traditionally, studies have focused on the continuation of harsh or aggressive parenting; however, recent research shows that warm, supportive practices are also transmitted across generations (Conger et al., 2009). These studies have examined positive and negative behaviors—such as warmth, control, strictness, and permissiveness—and have found that transmission varies by sociodemographic factors, culture, gender, and marital status (Garcia et al., 2020; Kalmijn, 2022; Roskam, 2013; Rothenberg et al., 2021; Ryabov, 2020; Zelekha & Yaakobi, 2020; Zervides & Knowles, 2007).

Despite its intellectual import, extant research on IGT almost always takes an anthropocentric approach: studies focus on how human parents socialize human children to relate to other humans. Some researchers assert that elements of IGT are present within multispecies families, in that the dynamics between humans and their companion animals mimic parent/child relationships (Finka et al., 2019; Gobbo & Zupan, 2020; Kuo & Kessler, 2024; Smith et al., 2017; Walsh, 2009). While existing research provides a comprehensive understanding of IGT of cultural practices and attitudes (Yoshida & Busby, 2012), a gap remains with regard to understanding how parents’ socialization of children’s behaviors toward companion animals is embedded in a cycle of socialization. The few studies on human–animal relationships within multispecies families have primarily focused on how companion animals, especially dogs and cats, integrate into family life, often mirroring human parenting dynamics. Research shows that pet parenting, particularly in childless families, often draws from human parenting narratives, while parents with children experience these dynamics differently (Owens & Grauerholz, 2019). Permissive parenting styles, for example, are frequently passed down across generations, and parents may replicate this style with their dogs (Kuo & Kessler, 2024). Protectionist attitudes tend to reduce authoritarian caregiving, while humanistic or protectionist views increase permissive caregiving behaviors (Kuo & Kessler, 2024). While previous studies have explored broad parenting “styles” in human–animal relationships, our study extends this scholarship by examining how parents of young children draw upon their own socialization experiences in teaching their children to interact with and learn from animals. Our research sheds light on how IGT influences socialization within multispecies families.

Current Study

The aim of our broader project was to examine how animals are entangled with socialization of children, particularly when it comes to the types of lessons children learn about different topics pertaining to sexuality, violence, death, care, and love. Our current study was guided by the following question: How do parents draw upon their own socialization when consequently socializing their children to learn from animals, particularly during incidents involving difficult knowledge (DK) topics (e.g., death and sickness)? We centered our inquiry on multispecies families in the U.S., acknowledging that companion animals are increasingly viewed as family members and that most children, over 75% in the U.S., grow up alongside animals (Melson, 2003). We focused specifically on children aged 3 to 7, a developmental stage where parents are tasked with determining what is considered “appropriate” socialization (Aguayo et al., 2021; Suizzo et al., 2008). We discovered that the presence of animals in their child’s life compels parents to broachvarious DK topics, and parents help children navigate these situations depending on the animal and context (Kuchirko et al., 2025). In all interviews, parents spontaneously spoke about their own childhood experiences when describing their approaches to raising children, suggesting that IGT is a salient factor in multispecies family dynamics. Thus, for this paper, we explored parents' viewpoints on their own socialization practices, as they hold significant influence in shaping children’s environments.

Theoretical Frameworks

We situate our study at the nexus of four key theoretical frameworks. First, Family Systems Theory provides a theoretical framework for understanding how parents' experiences with their own parents and companion animals influence their parenting approach in multispecies families (Bowen, 1978). Bowen posits that families are interconnected emotional units where each member’s behavior impacts the system. The theory incorporates concepts including the differentiation of self, multigenerational transmission, and triangles (three-person relationship systems) (Haefner, 2014). Differentiation of self refers to an individual’s ability to make self-directed choices while remaining emotionally connected to important relationships (Bowen, 1978; Haefner, 2014). Parents with higher differentiation may consciously choose how to integrate companion animals into their children’s lives, while those with lower differentiation may replicate childhood patterns. Bowen’s concept of multigenerational transmission suggests that emotional and behavioral patterns regarding pets are passed down through generations, either unconsciously or through deliberate teaching (Bowen, 1978). Additionally, Bowen’s notion of emotional triangles can apply to the dynamics between parents, children, and pets, with pets potentially stabilizing or destabilizing family relationships. Understanding parents' childhood experiences with pets along with their relationships with their own parents is essential for comprehending their current parenting practices in their multispecies family.

Second, we situate our work within a biocentric ecological theory of human development that centers animals and other living beings in the ecological contexts of children’s development (Melson, 2020). Biocentric ecological theories stand in contrast with most human development research, which typically takes an anthropocentric approach; that is, prominent theories typically center human beings in their analyses. Many families integrate animals into their lives, and they do so in various ways (Barina-Silvestri et al., 2024). Biocentrism and anthropocentrism play a role in how human–animal relationships within multispecies families are configured. Some hold subtle yet distinct differences, possibly shaped by their societal expectations and cultural beliefs about the place of non-human animals within a family. Animals are frequently brought into human households through forms of anthropomorphism, such as toys and figurines with human-like features or cartoons where animals speak. This humanization can position animals as part of the family, impacting social roles and decreasing the likelihood that they’ll be seen as a mere transient resource such as food (Bastian et al., 2012). The multispecies family has emerged as an innovative and inclusive approach to family life. Research indicates that children’s physical, emotional, intellectual, and moral development is significantly influenced by their experiences in the natural environment (Severson & Kahn, 2010). On the other side of the spectrum, parents who were socialized with a biocentric perspective are more inclined to value and protect all living beings as moral agents, including humans and other organisms as essential components of the natural world (Rottman, 2014). For instance, parents who grew up close to wildlife are likely to encourage similar relationships for their children, instilling values of empathy, care, and respect for animals, as essential contributors to the family dynamic and broader ecosystem. Here, we construe biocentrism and anthropomorphism on a spectrum, rather than as two distinct constructs.

Third, we view socialization in multispecies families through theories of adaptation to environmental and cultural demands. Animals offer humans both physical and psychological benefits as a result of social interaction, relational exchange, and community interaction (McNicholas et al., 2005). Furthermore, integrating various animal species into the family unit may serve as an adaptive strategy that enriches the developmental environment for children. Exposure to diverse species fosters social variation, providing children with opportunities to learn and navigate various forms of interactions. This diversity encourages the development of skills such as responsibility, coping with loss, loyalty, independence, empathy, and an understanding of the individuality and subjectivity of others (Bradshaw & Paul, 2010; Gómez-Leal et al., 2021). Parental encouragement of diverse child–animal interactions equips children with essential skills for navigating a range of social and environmental contexts. The variety of animal types within a family, coupled with the lessons derived from experiences with each species, humans included, contributes to a range of character traits that children may carry into later stages of life. For example, children exposed to different species and types of heterospecific interactions have the opportunity to develop a more varied understanding of emotional expression and non-verbal communication—skills that are valuable across several types of relationships. Whether parents adopt a more anthropomorphic approach or a biocentric perspective in socializing their children alongside nonhuman animals, multispecies households influence the social development of the child in ways that may shape the values and skills they pass on to future generations through ongoing cycles of socialization.

Finally, we anchor our work in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Cong-Lem, 2022; Stetsenko, 2023). CHAT explores how human activity is influenced by a complex interplay of participants and systemic constraints, focusing on the intricate relationship between thought and action. This theory is grounded in the socio-cultural insight that consciousness is shaped by social experiences and mediated through artifacts. When applied to multispecies families, CHAT highlights the vital role of animals in shaping social and cultural socialization practices, particularly within the context of IGT. Parents' decisions regarding pet ownership are informed by cultural norms and values, which in turn shape children’s perceptions and attitudes toward animals. Children absorb these cultural messages from their family environment, leading to IGT of attitudes and practices regarding living with companion animals. As children engage with companion animals, they learn not only through direct interaction but also by internalizing cultural beliefs about pet care and companionship that reflect their parents’ values and practices. This transmission of knowledge and attitudes underscores the lasting impact of parental experiences on shaping children’s relationships with animals within the multispecies family context. Taken together, these theories provide a framework for understanding how animals shape children’s socialization within multispecies families, as parents draw on their own experiences to address complex topics like cultural norms, empathy, responsibility, and mortality, fostering values and social skills across generations.

Methods

Participants

We recruited twenty-four U.S. parents aged 18 and older (M = 38.2, SD = 4.97) with children aged 3 to 7 (M = 5.59, SD = 1.34) who lived with a companion animal. Parents were recruited through online parenting groups, veterinary clinics, and snowball sampling. Most participants were mothers (95.6%) and resided in the Northeast (81.8%), with the remaining in the Midwest (9.1%) and West (9.1%). In terms of race/ethnicity, 90.5% identified as white, followed by 4.8% African American and 4.8% Asian. Most participants were married or in domestic partnerships (86.4%); 9.1% were single and 4.5% were in a relationship. All participants had at least a high school diploma, and over half (57.9%) worked full time, with the highest education level being bachelor’s degrees (40.9%) and master’s degrees (22.7%). Fifty percent were 3+ generation Americans, 25% were immigrants, 15% were first-generation Americans, and 10% were second-generation Americans.

Procedures

Parents completed an online demographic survey (∼10 minutes) and then participated in a semi-structured Zoom interview (∼1–1.5 hours) conducted by a research team member Participants received a $30 gift card via tangocard.com upon study completion, and recruitment ended upon reaching thematic saturation (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022). We employed narrative inquiry for data collection and analysis (Clandinin, 2007), focusing on participants' anecdotes about their companion animals, the animals’ roles in family dynamics, and the lessons parents believed their children learned from these animals. While we expected to primarily discuss dogs and cats, we found that wild and farm animals, such as coyotes, turtles, chickens, squirrels, snakes, and deer, also played significant roles in child-rearing, leading us to occasionally broaden our terminology from “companion animal” to “animal” to encompass both domesticated and wild species.

Coding and Reflexivity

We transcribed interviews verbatim and verified them for accuracy. To add context, our transcripts included nonverbal communication and expressions that emerged in the videos. We coded interview transcripts using atlas.ti software. Since our data consisted of stories set in specific times and places, we used paradigmatic narrative analysis (Polkinghorne, 1995). This method helped us to find common themes across the parents’ narratives. We iteratively adjusted our categories for childhood innocence and pet–child interactions until they fit the data well. Furthermore, we employed ongoing data analysis throughout the study, not just after data collection was completed. This flexible approach helped us stay thoughtful and incorporate the multiple perspectives of the group members into analysis while making sure we covered all important themes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

We established four criteria to evaluate the rigor of our analytic approach: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Schwandt et al., 2007). We achieved credibility by ensuring our findings resonated with individuals in similar situations. We shared our work with other researchers, many of whom are parents of children living with pets. Our research team included members with backgrounds similar to our participants, as well as those offering diverse perspectives. As a team of women interviewing mostly mothers as participants, we bring an insider, or emic (Ponterotto, 2005), perspective on gendered family dynamics. One co-author and co-PI is a mother of two living with a dog, while other team members have companion animals (Kuchirko, Guadagnino), such as cats and birds. Additionally, one team member (Guadagnino) has extensive experience working with animals in research and training, enhancing our cultural sensitivity and inclusiveness in our methodology. To validate our data, we checked findings with individuals inside and outside the research community. We secured the study’s transferability by employing established qualitative research methods and ensured dependability by providing detailed descriptions of our data collection and analysis processes for evaluation. For confirmability, we maintained thorough notes on our biases and reactions throughout the study, helping us remain open-minded and reflective of the data.

Results

Throughout the interviews and without direct prompting, participants often linked their parenting strategies to their own childhood experiences with animals. This organic emergence of IGT highlights similarities and differences in socialization styles between generations. When comparing themselves to their parents, respondents generally fell into four distinct categories: (1) those who emulated their parents’ approaches; (2) those who diverged from their parents’ approaches; (3) those who used a combination of both emulation and divergence; and (4) those who negotiated intergenerationally transmitted practices with parenting partners whose experiences clashed with their own.

Emulation

Participants indicated that they emulated their own parents' approaches when they believed those methods positively impacted their children’s relationships with animals. This emulation is reflected in their decisions about having companion animals, the types of animals they adopted, the role of animals in their child(ren)’s development, and whether to involve their child(ren) in discussions about difficult topics related to their companion animals, such as death or illness.

Betty is a good example of a parent whose decision to have a companion animal stemmed from her own childhood experiences. When asked why she chose to get a cat, Betty responded, “I've always had cats my entire life growing up and I've always loved them,” directly linking her childhood experience with cats to her enduring affection for them. Similarly, Danielle and her husband, both raised with dogs, relied on that familiarity in their approach to adopting their companion animals. Danielle noted that her experience with dogs helped her recognize that their Golden Retriever, Mary, is “a very good dog” and “very intuitive,” particularly in her relationship with their seven-year-old daughter, Ezra. Danielle added that Mary and Ezra share a strong bond, and both she and her husband can tell that Mary is “very good with the kids” because of their own upbringing with dogs.

Katy similarly reflected on her childhood experience with pets, saying, “I just… really love animals… maybe that's because I grew up with them. I wonder how that would have been different, you know, I feel a lot more indifferent.” Katy went on to share that she was raised around animals from a very young age, stating:

I've always had animals… when I was a baby, my parents had gotten a puppy. I don't know, before I was [a] baby… So I grew up with her. And there were two cats, there were always cats around… Because [my husband] grew up on a farm… they had a dog and they really liked their dog. But farm life for animals is a lot different than the city life for animals.

She reiterated her love for animals and considered the differences between her own and her husband’s affection for them, particularly in terms of care and responsibilities, such as taking pets to the vet. Katy’s reflection highlights how differing childhood environments can influence adult perspectives on companion animals.

In contrast, Mona shared a story of feeling disconnected from animals. She explained:

…[I’m] not really much of an animal person. I do eat meat and I had dogs and cats growing up. I had one dog and multiple cats…because my dad was a cat person, I guess. But I think my partner and his family are very much animal people.

Despite growing up with pets due to her father’s preference for cats, Mona distanced herself from the relationships between those animals and her family. When it came to deciding whether to have a dog as an adult, it was her partner’s preference—much like her father’s during her childhood—that led to animals becoming a part of her own family.

Parents often highlighted the significant role that animals played in their social and emotional development. Melissa noted that dogs provided consistency and unconditional love throughout her life. She expressed uncertainty about whether she would feel as strongly attached to her dogs if she hadn’t been raised with them, saying:

It gave me this kind of like, buddy… And I don't think I'd be a dog owner and be as crazy about dogs if I hadn't grown up in a home where we had a dog like it was, it was very much a thing.

Similarly, Alison shared how her pets taught her about complex emotions, stating:

I think that they can learn to love and appreciate animals and be more nurturing, take care of them, and have that responsibility… I grew up with cats, and I learned how to interact with cats and be around them, and also the pain of losing pets, and them getting sick.

These reflections underscored how parents’ upbringing with companion animals, particularly when their own parents’ choices influenced their own, brought childhood experiences and emotions to the forefront as they navigated similar situations in adulthood.

In some cases, parents' childhood socialization regarding DK emerged as a central theme. Mona, for example, shared how exposure to certain experiences during her childhood influenced her understanding of complex realities. She recalled:

When I was little, our dog would have puppies a lot, or the cat would have kittens and we had like… home births for them. I was still young and my parents took care of the pets, but it was really exciting and… interesting to watch the little puppies how they like… grow and then they learn how to, like, see and hear. It's a wonderful process, but it's hard to explain… without showing it.

Mona reflected on how this early exposure made the concept of reproduction easier for her to grasp, compared to how challenging it might be to explain it to her three-year-old daughter, Ana, without similar experiential context.

Erine also discussed the role of DK in her upbringing, particularly her experiences growing up amid conflict in Israel. She described:

I think I was oblivious to that when I lived in the U.S. until I was eight… I had to like understand that without wanting to… As a child, I came back to Israel and there were buses exploding, and I was really terrified… Even though I didn't thankfully see anything like that firsthand, it was on the news and you know, it's happening and, and there's like, nothing you can do about that; no one can protect you.

These experiences in Erine’s early years were significant enough for those memories to be the ones she brought up when asked about DK topics and how she would approach discussions of these topics with her son, Sam, as well as in response to which emotions she would try to protect Sam from. Erine said, “I think it's- that's one of those things that you know, when something brings it up, we'll probably get back to it at a later age,” when asked about how or when she’d discuss DK topics with her son, again referring back to her past when her own environment introduced these complex topics so graphically into her life. The echo of past socialization practices in present parenting choices connected participants’ adult experiences to experiences in their childhood, while innovative parenting behaviors would sever that connection by beginning a new practice to produce a divergent effect.

Divergence

Participants also described diverging from their parents’ practices when they felt that those methods had a negative impact on their development. Similar to instances of emulation, parents diverged from their own socialization practices when it came to making decisions about having companion animals, deciding on the kind of animal they wished to adopt, and whether they included their child(ren) in DK discussions surrounding animals.

Erine didn’t have pets as a child, due to her mother’s preferences. “My parents never had a pet because they- my mom didn't want to deal with pets. But my uncles and my grandmother had pets.” She always liked animals, but she was afraid to touch them as a child. Animals became a part of her life as an adult, and not just because of her pets.

Growing up, I didn't have a dog, my grandma always had a dog and I always loved her dogs. So- but I was a little- I was a little afraid of… like, picking up an animal. And all these things are things that [I] only got used to for two reasons. One is through my work as a biologist… But at the other side of that, I also learned, you know, with [my dog] now, I have no problem picking her up... I used to be really afraid of that as a child.

Due to both necessity related to her career and desire for her child to have a different relationship with animals than she did, Erine chose to incorporate animals into her life. This is despite her childhood fear, thus preventing her seven-year-old, Sam, from developing that same fear. Similarly, Betty had a clear idea about how she wanted her child to be socialized with animals. Although Betty described having had cats her entire life, she stated the difference in her husband’s case. “So it’s the first cat that my husband ever had. My husband was [a] dog person. He never had a cat in his life. So when we got together, and I took [my cat], that was his first cat.” Because of Betty’s husband’s concurrence, their daughter, four-year-old Ella, grew up with cats instead of dogs, putting her husband in a position to raise his child differently than his parents did with him.

In other cases, participants chose to change something more specific about their current companion animals compared to the animals from their childhood. Bella acknowledged her parents’ allowance for their dogs to share a bed with their child, but Bella chose to train her own dogs differently. “I grew up with dogs and I would sleep in my bed, you know, cuddle with me all the time, and I don’t allow them to do that.” Bella preferred to teach her dogs that they are not allowed in her bed, a seemingly minor distinction that Bella determined was important enough for her to deviate from her parents.

DK was also a consistent topic that emerged when participants diverged from their parents. Most commonly, participants altered or planned to alter the way death was introduced to their child relative to the way their own parents introduced it to them. Melissa recalled the way she was informed about the death of her dog as a child and explained how, when that time came for her own dog, ten-year-old Pawlina, and five-year-old daughter, Lola, she would choose differently than her parents.

When I was a kid we had- so before we got my dog, we had an older dog that stayed with us for like six months… and we had to put her to sleep. And my parents didn't include me in any of that, like they kind of, just, they had to make that decision. And then they took her while I was at school. And I came home and I was like, well, you know, “Where’s [the dog]?” And they were like, “Well, she had to, we had to put her to sleep.” And I was like, “Well, when is she going to wake up?” I just didn't, I didn't understand that. And they kind of told me like, “Well, never…” They didn't really explain it much. And so I haven't broached the topic of euthanasia… with [Lola]. Like, I don't, I don't know how much I actually will go into it. If I- it might just have to be enough to be kind of like it was Pawlina's time and her body stopped working. But I don't know. I mean, it's, (pause) it's hard because… (touches eyes, voice cracks) I would want them to, to get to say goodbye.

Melissa described how her parents kept her from being included in their dog’s final moments, an opportunity she mourned along with her pet. Melissa’s priority was to provide Lola with an advantage that Melissa wished she herself was given, a loss that she still carried as an adult. Melissa’s deprivation in her childhood defined how she would raise the issue of Pawlina’s eventual death with her children to prevent their being deprived of the same. Despite the fact that Melissa struggled with the intense emotion brought on by the idea of Pawlina’s death, displaying the depth of pain attached, she knew she wanted to include Lola in the ways she wished her parents had included her.

Katy also remembered the way that death was handled in her childhood.

Yeah, I mean, I felt like with the pets dying, and I'm trying to think back to, like, my childhood, and how that was dealt with, but it's like, I could cry in my car, and then pick them up and be like, hello, how are you? You know, like, a fake, whatever, but I just don't feel like that's helpful. Because what, why? I mean, I also want to balance that right.

Katy described wanting to be both considerate of the pain attached to losing a pet while also pretending to be stoic, which she described as a “balance.” She implied that stoicism was the standard reaction to death during her childhood, indicating that she intended to encourage her son to express pain as a reasonable reaction to death. Additionally, Katy reflected on dealing with a pet’s death as an adult.

Like, it's really hard when a pet dies and like, the first one that I lost was the one that I had had like through college. She was my first very own pet that like my mom didn't take care of. So that felt a little different to me. So yeah, I, I heard it's such a hard thing to explain to a little person to help them understand it and like I said, I think it's, it's words that they get, like concepts that they can understand.

Katy described the struggle attached to introducing a child to death and attempting to help them understand its complexity. She referenced the death of her pet in college to compare the level of distress she experienced as an adult with the heightened level of distress she imagined her seven-year-old son, Kyle, might experience if they lost any of their companion animals. Katy also stated that dealing with her pet’s death as an adult felt different than it had when she was younger and suggested that it was because she was the cat’s primary caregiver. It was Katy’s first encounter with a pet’s death that wasn’t defined by her parents and served as the reference point that she used to determine what practices she would and wouldn’t like to incorporate into her role as a parent.

Alison was faced with a very direct divergence from her parents. She recounted an incident that occurred as she was faced with the implications of her deceased cat’s euthanasia with her daughter Amanda, who was five.

Yeah, so I didn't take [Amanda] to the emergency vet to put the cats down. Like, you know, I took them to the vet when it's just, like, the, you know, when it was just a preliminary, where he wasn't feeling well... But like, when it came time to go to the emergency vet, we knew that they weren't gonna make it so it's like, I’m not gonna have my child watch this happen. Where my mom was, like I said, you know, when we knew we were going to put him down, I said, “Do you want to call and say bye?” And my mom was like (raises voice) “Don't do that!” Like clearly not putting them on the phone while they actually administer the medicine. But my mom was like don’t even do that. Like completely shield them. And I was like, “No, we want them to have closure of telling their kitty bye. And then you know, ending the call before anything, they can see anything.” So like, trying to strike a balance of “we don't want them to see every aspect of it,” but also letting them feel a little bit and see a little bit of it, and process it.

Although not a childhood memory, this anecdote highlights Alison’s divergence from her mother’s approved method of exposing children to the concept of death. Alison’s mother opposed her choice to give her children the opportunity to say goodbye to their cat, but Alison held firm in her conviction, diverging from the parenting principles her mother once had instilled.

Sometimes, participants reflected on meaningful events in their childhood without drawing a direct connection to their parenting. Maria provided an example when she relayed the reason she was a pescatarian for most of her life.

Yeah, so I've had pets my whole life since I'm a kid. And then when I was a child, I believe (closes eyes) about eight years old, I became pescatarian… But I had a traumatizing experience where my dad for Thanksgiving, he's like who wants to take a ride? And I said, I do. And we went to a poultry shop. I had no idea. We had a cockatoo bird at home. And we go in the store with all these- (nervous laugh), which I didn't even realize they were turkeys (laughs)...[it] came out in this, in a box in a bag, and I was like, what, where is he? I think we're going home to play and they take him in the back to get him dressed. I had no idea, I cried for days. And I was traumatized. My father felt terrible. That led to 25 years of being a pescatarian (small laugh).

The circumstances that led to Maria’s pescetarianism, which she categorized as a trauma, shaped her relationship with animals and impacted her children's perception of animals, as her seven-year-old daughter Celia and five-year-old son Brandon would have witnessed their mother avoiding eating meat. Her divergence from the haunting childhood experience orchestrated by her father was exemplified in her dietary choices, which extended further into the parental choices she made to watch over her children’s exposure to certain parts of the life cycle. Participants’ judgments regarding divergence gave them the opportunity to establish entirely new methods of socializing their children without replicating their parents’ practices, methods which applied only to the family they built.

Emulation and Divergence

Participants occasionally described both emulation and divergence within a single response. In these instances, parents recognized both the advantages and disadvantages of various parenting choices. Some parents exhibited a blend of emulating and diverging behaviors by choosing to either emulate only their parents’ styles or that of their partners’ parents, while diverging from the other set. Others combined the two styles by identifying a time when they both liked and disliked their parents’ choices. Similar to when emulation and divergence were presented separately, the combinations surrounded issues of having companion animals and decisions regarding the animal’s care or role in their child(ren)’s development, and whether they chose to include their child(ren) in discussions or experiences surrounding DK.

Katy grew up surrounded by animals of various species and raised in a city environment, which she believed colored her relationship with animals when compared to her husband, who was raised on a farm.

I wanted my kid to have the experience of growing up with a pet and knowing… what it's like to have them around. My husband grew up on a farm. And so he has a very different viewpoint of cats than I do. And I have a lot more emotional connection there.

Katy compared the emotional attachment she had to animals to the one she believed her husband had and attributed the differences to the setting of their respective childhoods. She conveyed that her attachment to animals was stronger than her husband’s, and both she and her husband wanted their son Kyle to develop relationships with animals that reflected Katy's experiences rather than those of Kyle's father. Although both Katy and her husband have a background with animals, Katy appears to be inclined to emulate her parents’ approach while diverging from her husband’s parents regarding their interspecies family dynamics.

For Maria, the combination was more practical.

I had dogs as a kid growing up, but I didn't train them. I wasn't really involved in that I just laid on the floor and hugged them and loved them... So Jacky was my first dog as an adult on my own. But my husband had a boxer. Previous to me meeting him and he raised him from a baby. And he did like, all the official things, the, like, agility, and he did a lot of training. He was really involved in the dog world. So I really value his dog knowledge (laughing). So I really like, conformed to the things he believes that we should do with the dog.

Though Maria grew up with dogs, as the child in the house, she never held responsibilities when it came to caretaking. Thus, she was able to depend on her husband’s experience and expertise on caretaking for a companion animal and to fill in gaps in areas where she may have never gained the skillsets growing up.

Melissa described childhood more abstractly. She considered elements of her upbringing that were both valuable and valueless.

I try to make a lot of things magical where I can in childhood, I think that's important. I am someone that did not have a good childhood in a lot of ways. And so I don't think that I'm blind to the fact that that's the reality for a lot of kids.

Melissa was not as straightforward in defining ways that her parents passed on parenting skills to her, though she continued on her perspective of the downsides of this part of childhood.

Um, because if there's things about childhood that even if you have a good idyllic situation, and you're having a very stable home life, are stressful. You know, like, you're, you're learning so much all the time, there's so much expected of you all the time, that like kids just need to sometimes get a break. (laugh) So, so yeah, I mean, I think that I view it as like a, a very nice time of life. But I'm not blind to the fact that it's, it's difficult too, kids have a-, it's hard being a kid, it's hard growing up and figuring out the world.

Her depiction of childhood as influenced by her past implied she intended to give her daughter, Lola, a more positive experience. At the same time, she indirectly acknowledged that her circumstances provided her with the perspective she used to give Lola a more “idyllic and positive” childhood compared to her own. Melissa utilized her realizations about the more difficult side of being young to help her relate better to her daughter in order to provide Lola with the environment she needed to be happy. Participants' choices to incorporate their childhood socialization into their own parenting bridged the disparity between participants’ intergenerationally transmitted and novel parenting practices.

Clashing Transmissions

In some cases, parents negotiated with their partners’ different, and at times contradictory, intergenerationally transmitted socialization practices regarding animals. Although we only had the opportunity to interview one parent in each household, participants often volunteered their partner’s perspectives or experiences in their responses. In some of these instances, participants described clashing with their partner regarding the choices they made as a parenting team. These clashes arose in relation to companion animal type and care, as well as emotional connections to animals.

For many participants, the conflict between two parent teams was centered around a difference of opinion or experience regarding details about their companion animal. For both Betty and Katy, clashes occurred with regard to animal species. Betty’s husband grew up with dogs and had never had a cat before they met. “...it’s the first cat that my husband ever had. My husband was a dog person. He never had a cat in his life. So when we got together, and I took Taffy, that was his first cat.” Meanwhile, Katy and her husband both grew up with different species of animals as well as within different settings.

I've always had animals. Like when I was a baby. My parents had gotten a puppy… So I grew up with her. And there were two cats, there were always cats around… Because I said [my husband] grew up on a farm like they had a dog and they really liked their dog. But farm life for animals is a lot different than the city life for animals and like taking them to the vet and doing all these things. He's like, okay, it's different.

Betty and Katy, along with their partners, both had to determine whose, if anyone’s, parents to emulate when making decisions about their companion animals.

Melissa reported a more specific clash in that she and her husband, who both grew up with dogs, were trying to agree on a dog breed.

I showed him a picture of a Cavalier, and I was like, this is the dog that I want. Um, and at the time, we lived in an apartment, so I wanted a smaller dog and my husband grew up with, like, big golden retrievers, and very cool dogs. And so he (laughs), he was like, well, that looks like a stuffed animal.

In this case, Melissa openly disagreed with her husband about the kind of dog they wanted to have, a preference which was rooted in their childhoods. They ultimately settled on getting the smaller dog, Pawlina, who became a part of their family before they had their daughter. For Lola, growing up with a larger dog likely would have changed their family dynamic and influenced her socialization.

The clash between Mona and her partner was more fundamental. “Well, me, personally, not really much of an animal person… I had dogs and cats growing up… because my dad was a cat person I guess. But I think my partner and his family are very much animal people.” Mona’s partner’s emotional connection to animals differed markedly from her own. Mona and her partner were faced with the choice to either have a pet or not, satisfying one partner’s preference or the other’s, and either choice would have had an identifiable effect on the way they raised their daughter.

Maria concludes with an interesting anecdote about a time she clashed with her husband in front of their child. “One day my daughter was talking about one day when she’s in college and what Jacky is going to be doing. And I went to go say, well, actually, and my husband’s like, shut up (laughs)!” Celia, Maria’s daughter, would have been faced with exposure to a DK topic and experience had her father not been present at the time, which would certainly have impacted her socialization. Maria had made the decision, seemingly unconsciously, to inform Celia about the reality of Jacky’s lifespan, but her husband determined that this information was inappropriate. Overall, this instance, and those of Mona, Katy, and Betty, highlights how the complexities of socialization and parenting while navigating differing perspectives on how to approach difficult topics can significantly influence a child’s emotional development and their understanding of the world.

Discussion

In this study, we examined intergenerational transmission of parental practices in multispecies families. We found that parents frequently referenced their own childhood experiences when considering how companion animals might influence their children’s learning. In deciding on pet-related matters, participants sometimes emulated or diverged from the parenting they received—and, occassionally, did both. In some instances, their perspectives clashed with those of their partners. Drawing on insights from parents raising children in multispecies families, our study builds on existing family psychology research by exploring how childhood socialization influences later parenting practices (Kuo & Kessler, 2024). In particular, our research centers multispecies families—a significant, yet underexplored, context for understanding family dynamics and processes.

Across all our interviews, we found parents emulated and diverged from their own parents’ socialization when it came to companion animals. This finding aligns with existing research documenting the complex, bi-directional, and selective process of socialization, which both reinforces intergenerational similarity and catalyzes intergenerational change (Ranieri & Barni, 2012). Parents’ rationales about choosing to emulate or diverge from their own parents' practices often hinged on personal preference or perceived developmental value. When parents had a positive emotional connection to animals in their own childhood, they frequently sought to replicate that experience for their own children, aiming for a similar impact. Parents presumed that any positive role the pet had in their own childhood would be reflected in their child’s, which allowed them to justify their choices. This finding extends work that documents how interactions with animals during childhood foster skills like empathy, responsibility, and nurturing (Endenburg & Van Lith, 2011). When parents have strong positive memories related to animals, they often see similar potential benefits for their children, motivating their decision to introduce pets into the family for perceived developmental gains. Conversely, when a specific emotional memory was absent, parents made choices based on the abstract developmental value they assigned to that behavior, such as underscoring ways that animals can teach children about love and care. This finding aligns with existing work on the mechanisms of socialization, particularly how parents intentionally emulate or modify behaviors based on personal values and experiences. Studies show that when parents hold positive memories associated with a behavior or value, they are more likely to replicate it, aiming to foster similar outcomes in their children (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994).

Our findings shed light on the often-overlooked intentions behind intergenerational socialization. Parents consciously and selectively repeated practices with the implicit or explicit goal of shaping their child’s experience with animals, thereby extending existing scholarship on the motivations that guide the transmission of parenting behaviors (Jungert et al., 2015; Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). Instances of emulation were typically tied to memories of happiness or perceived value in fostering a connection with animals, while choices based on developmental benefits were less frequent. This finding aligns with existing work that shows that parents’ own emotional connections to their upbringing influence their socialization practices (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Notably, many decisions were motivated more by parental preference than developmental advantage, suggesting a potential bias in transmission based on positive personal experience. Interestingly, parents often attributed their childhood experiences with companion animals to their own parents’ preferences, which shaped the family environment and introduced various topics pertaining to DK. These findings underscore the lasting influence of parental preferences on children’s socialization, highlighting how choices surrounding when to adopt an animal and how to integrate them into the family can impact future generations in meaningful ways (Melson, 2005). Future research could expand on our study by incorporating perspectives from fathers and exploring IGT across more diverse multispecies family contexts.

Our study identified a new phenomenon in IGT: the negotiations that unfold in IGTs of socialization in two-parent households. Research on IGT typically studies socialization from the lens of one parent (Roskam, 2013; Zervides & Knowles, 2007), leaving questions about how two parents, with their differing socializations, navigate parental decision-making. Our findings suggest that drawing on multiple transmissions for parenting and socialization strategies provides parents with a diverse range of choices. However, we found that parents having an array of choices can sometimes lead to conflicting perspectives that require compromise when preferred or transmitted styles differ. These varied perspectives influence how animals are included in children’s socialization, shaping the likelihood that children will adopt and pass down similar attitudes toward animals to future generations. When parents with different backgrounds negotiate family practices around companion animals, they engage in a complex process of integrating intergenerational values. Bowen’s Family Systems Theory explains these interactions as boundary-setting, differentiation, and multigenerational transmission (Bowen, 1978), where each partner’s experiences shape parenting approaches. Parents with higher differentiation consciously choose how to involve animals in their children’s lives, while those with lower differentiation may repeat past patterns. Bowen’s concept of emotional triangles shows how pets can stabilize or destabilize family dynamics. Children observing these negotiations gain lessons in relational dynamics, shaping their worldview and emotional development.

Finally, ways that parents negotiated differing perspectives underscored the continuum of anthropomorphism in which parents position animals along a sliding scale ranging from viewing them as family members to dispensable presences that enter and exit children’s lives as determined by the human family (Laurent-Simpson, 2021). Future research might find value in integrating a second (or other additional) parent’s childhood experiences and preferences into studies on cycles of socialization and could incorporate children’s perspectives of their parents’ worldview regarding multispecies households and the resultant impact on their social development.

Implications for Practice

As multispecies families become a new way of “doing family” (Irvine & Cilia, 2017; Laurent-Simpson, 2021), policymakers and practitioners need to recognize the integral role of companion animals in supporting family dynamics and child development. Animals contribute emotional support, empathy-building, and responsibility, becoming core members who shape family identities and values. Support systems and policies should adopt a multispecies perspective, creating resources and workshops that help parents integrate animals thoughtfully into family life for developmental and emotional benefits. Initiatives such as facilitative parenting (Healy et al., 2015) could consider companion animals in assessments to gain a holistic understanding of family dynamics, and community centers could offer programs for parents to reflect on socialization practices involving animals. Such workshops would encourage intentional choices around pet ownership, based on both personal preferences and developmental goals, while mental health programs could facilitate communication between two-parent teams, fostering cooperation and reducing conflicts related to animal-centered socialization. Moreover, policies that secure the position of animals within the family system may support family well-being while simultaneously improving animal welfare, as companion animals’ environments are largely determined by human choices. This inclusive, multispecies approach strengthens support for the entire family, both human and animal, through life transitions and everyday routines.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its novel contributions, our study is not without limitations. Even with the efforts we made to sample widely, most of the participants were female parents. We also oversampled white, middle-class families in the U.S., since that demographic largely endorses intensive parenting regulatory practices of young children (Minnotte, 2023). Since women’s parenting behaviors are more often studied and women are more likely to face societal scrutiny as parents, future studies should consider caregivers in other ethnic/racial, gender (e.g., fathers), and generational demographics (e.g., grandparents) to gather a broader understanding of intergenerational socialization practices. Our study was also limited to the perspective of one parent, mostly mothers, on cycles of socialization, and there would likely be a more cohesive set of recycled parenting practices and sources had more than one parent been interviewed. Additionally, most participants were New York residents, which may prevent the projection of findings onto parents from other geographical areas where socio-cultural contexts, support networks, and resources can vary significantly. Although our study design of one-on-one interviews provided detailed insights, it was also subject to contextual influences such as power dynamics between the interviewer and interviewee or the interview setting. Participants may have felt discomfort despite our attempt at mitigation and restrained themselves from sharing all their perspectives with a virtual stranger. We did not collect longitudinal or observational information about participants’ parenting behaviors, precluding us from understanding how regulation of cycles of socialization may emerge in real time, over development, or across fluctuations in family dynamics. Future studies could utilize survey, observational, and experimental methods to get a broader understanding of how animals are entangled in intergenerational parenting practices.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study considered intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors and the role of companion animals in multispecies families. We interviewed U.S. parents of young children who lived with companion animals. We found that parents navigated their approach by choosing to emulate or diverge from their own parents' practices, and sometimes by combining both strategies. Most parents based their choices on personal preference while some prioritized the perceived developmental value for their children when making decisions about integrating animals into family life. Participants also reflected on their own parents’ choices involving animals during their childhoods, noting how those choices shaped their past experiences and current beliefs. Our study contributes to developmental and social psychology by advancing research on cycles of socialization in multispecies families, illustrating how parental decisions around animals reflect both inherited and adapted beliefs and shape their children’s understanding and relationships with animals, carrying behavioral echoes that can reverberate through generations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This study was funded by Yana Kuchirko's start-up funding package at Brooklyn College, City University of New York.

ORCID iDs

Sara Eder

Michela C. Arlia

Antonella Guadagnino

Yana Kuchirko

References

Abraham

Letkiewicz

A. M.

Wickramaratne

P. J.

Bunyan

Van Dijk

M. T.

Gameroff

M. J.

Posner

Talati

Weissman

M. M.

(2022). Major depression, temperament, and social support as psychosocial mechanisms of the intergenerational transmission of parenting styles. Development and Psychopathology, 34(5), 1997–2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421000420

Aguayo

Hernandez

I. G.

Yasui

Estabrook

Anderson

E. L.

Davis

M. M.

Briggs-Gowan

M. J.

Wakschlag

L. S.

Heard-Garris

(2021). Cultural socialization in childhood: Analysis of parent–child conversations with a direct observation measure. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000663

Barina-Silvestri

Díaz-Videla

Delgado-Rodríguez

(2024). Pet parenting: A systematic review of its characteristics and effects on companion dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2024.09.003

Bastian

Loughnan

Haslam

Radke

H. R. M.

(2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291

Belsky

Conger

Capaldi

D. M.

(2009). The intergenerational transmission of parenting: Introduction to the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1201–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016245

Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), (2019). Being and becoming a parent (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Bowen

(1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. J. Aronson.

Bradshaw

Paul

(2010). Could empathy for animals have been an adaptation in the evolution of Homo sapiens? Animal Welfare Welfare, 19(S1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860000230X

Charles

Davies

C. A.

(2008). My family and other animals: Pets as kin. Sociological Research Online, 13(5), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1798

10.

Clandinin

D. J.

(2007). Resonances between stories: Reading across papers. Teachers and Teaching, 13(4), 323–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600701391887

11.

Conger

R. D.

Belsky

Capaldi

D. M.

(2009). The intergenerational transmission of parenting: Closing comments for the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016911

12.

Cong-Lem

(2022). Vygotsky’s, Leontiev’s and Engeström’s cultural-historical (activity) theories: Overview, clarifications and implications. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56(4), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09703-6

13.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.

14.

Eisenberg

VanSchyndel

S. K.

Hofer

(2015). The association of maternal socialization in childhood and adolescence with adult offsprings’ sympathy/caring. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038137

15.

Endenburg

Van Lith

H. A.

(2011). The influence of animals on the development of children. Veterinary Journal, 190(2), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.11.020

16.

Finka

L. R.

Ward

Farnworth

M. J.

Mills

D. S.

(2019). Owner personality and the wellbeing of their cats share parallels with the parent-child relationship. PLoS One, 14(2), Article e0211862. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211862

17.

Garcia

O. F.

Fuentes

M. C.

Gracia

Serra

Garcia

(2020). Parenting warmth and strictness across three generations: Parenting styles and psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 7487. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207487

18.

Gobbo

Zupan

(2020). Dogs’ sociability, owners’ neuroticism and attachment style to pets as predictors of dog aggression. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 10(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020315

19.

Gómez-Leal

Costa

Megías-Robles

Fernández-Berrocal

Faria

(2021). Relationship between emotional intelligence and empathy towards humans and animals. Peer, 9(2).

20.

Greenebaum

(2004). It’s a dog’s life: Elevating status from pet to “fur baby” at yappy hour. Society and Animals, 12(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568530041446544

21.

Grusec

J. E.

Goodnow

J. J.

(1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4

22.

Haefner

(2014). An application of Bowen family systems theory. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 35(11), 835–841. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2014.921257

23.

Healy

K. L.

Sanders

M. R.

Iyer

(2015). Facilitative parenting and children’s social, emotional and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(6), 1762–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9980-x

24.

Hennink

Kaiser

B. N.

(2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, Article 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

25.

Herzog

(2011). The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411415220

26.

Irvine

Cilia

(2017). More-than-human families: Pets, people, and practices in multispecies households. Sociology Compass, 11(2), Article e12455. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12455

27.

Jungert

Landry

Joussemet

Mageau

Gingras

Koestner

(2015). Autonomous and controlled motivation for parenting: Associations with parent and child outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 1932–1942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9993-5

28.

Kalmijn

(2022). Intergenerational transmission of health behaviors in a changing demographic context: The case of smoking and alcohol consumption. Social Science & Medicine, 296(296), Article 114736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114736

29.

Kuchirko

Guadagnino

Arilia

C Eder

Petit Homme

Niwa

Y (2025). Bursting bubbles: The role of companion animals in the regulation of childhood innocence. Journal of Family Studies, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2025.2498953

30.

Kuczynski

Parkin

C. M.

(2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259–283). The Guilford Press.

31.

Kuo

C. H.

Kessler

(2024). Intergenerational transmission of human parenting styles to human–dog relationships. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 14(7), 1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14071038

32.

Laurent-Simpson

(2021). Just like family: How companion animals joined the household. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479828852.001.0001

33.

McNicholas

Gilbey

Rennie

Ahmedzai

Dono

J.-A.

Ormerod

(2005). Pet ownership and human health: A brief review of evidence and issues. BMJ, 331(7527), 1252–1254. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1252

34.

Megna

(2023). Pet ownership statistics 2024. Forbes Advisor. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/pet-insurance/pet-ownership-statistics/

35.

Melson

G. F.

(2003). Child development and the human-companion animal bond. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203255210

36.

Melson

G. F.

(2005). Why the wild things are: Animals in the lives of children. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674040922

37.

Melson

G. F.

(2020). Rethinking children’s connections with other animals: A childhoodnature perspective. In Malone

Barratt Hacking

(Eds.), Research handbook on childhoodnature (pp. 1221–1236). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67286-1_70

38.

Melson

G. F.

Fine

A. H.

VonLintel

J. F.

(2024). Animals in the lives of children. Handbook on animal- assisted therapy (pp. 301–322). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-22346-4.15005-X

39.

Minnotte

K. L.

(2023). Decentering intensive mothering: More fully accounting for race and class in motherhood norms. Sociology Compass, 17(8), Article e13095. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.13095

40.

Neppl

T. K.

Diggs

O. N.

Cleveland

M. J.

(2020). The intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting, substance use, and emotional distress: Impact on the third-generation child. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 34(8), 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000551

41.

Owens

Grauerholz

(2019). Interspecies parenting: How pet parents construct their roles. Humanity & Society, 43(2), 96–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597617748166

42.

Polkinghorne

D. E.

(1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103

43.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

44.

Ranieri

Barni

(2012). Family and other social contexts in the intergenerational transmission of values. Family Science, 3(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2012.714591

45.

Roskam

(2013). The transmission of parenting behaviour within the family: An empirical study across three generations. Psychologica Belgica, 53(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-53-3-49

46.

Rothenberg

W. A.

Lansford

J. E.

Bornstein

M. H.

Uribe Tirado

L. M.

Yotanyamaneewong

Alampay

L. P.

Al-Hassan

S. M.

Bacchini

Chang

Deater-Deckard

Di Giunta

Dodge

K. A.

Gurdal

Liu

Long

Malone

P. S.

Oburu

Pastorelli

Skinner

A. T.

Tapanya

(2021). Cross-cultural associations of four parenting behaviors with child flourishing: Examining cultural specificity and commonality in cultural normativeness and intergenerational transmission processes. Child Development, 92(6), e1138–e1153. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13634

47.

Rottman

(2014). Breaking down biocentrism: Two distinct forms of moral concern for nature. Frontiers in psychology Psychology, 5, 905. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00905

48.

Ryabov

(2020). Intergenerational transmission of socio-economic status: The role of neighborhood effects. Journal of Adolescence, 80(1), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.02.007

49.

Schwandt

T. A.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2007(114), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.223

50.

Severson

R. L.

Kahn

P. H.

(2010). In the orchard: Farm worker children’s moral and environmental reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.02.003

51.

Smith

B. P.

Hazelton

P. C.

Thompson

K. R.

Trigg

J. L.

Etherton

H. C.

Blunden

S. L.

(2017). A multispecies approach to co-sleeping: Integrating human-animal co-sleeping practices into our understanding of human sleep. Human Nature, 28(3), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-017-9290-2

52.

Stetsenko

A. P.

(2023). Cultural-historical activity theory and its contemporary import: Ideas emerging in context and time. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 19(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2023190103

53.

Stoltz

D. S.

Van Ness

Bjerre

M. E.

(2020). The changing valuation of dogs. Sociological Forum, 35(4), 1183–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12643

54.

Suizzo

M.-A.

Robinson

Pahlke

(2008). African American mothers’ socialization beliefs and goals with young children: Themes of history, education, and collective independence. Journal of Family Issues, 29(3), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07308368

55.

Tipper

(2011). ‘A dog who I know quite well’: Everyday relationships between children and animals. Children's Geographies Geographies, 9(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2011.562378

56.

Triebenbacher

S. L.

(1998). Pets as transitional objects: Their role in children’s emotional development. Psychological Reports, 82(1), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.1.191

57.

U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics . (2024). American Veterinary Medical Association. https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/us-pet-ownership-statistics

58.

Van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12(1), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90004-L

59.

Walsh

(2009). Human-animal bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family therapy. Family Process, 48(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01297.x

60.

Westgarth

Pinchbeck

G. L.

Bradshaw

J. W.

Dawson

Gaskell

R. M.

Christley

R. M.

(2007). Factors associated with dog ownership and contact with dogs in a UK community. BMC Veterinary Research, 3(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-3-5

61.

Yoshida

Busby

D. M.

(2012). Intergenerational transmission effects on relationship satisfaction: A cross- cultural study. Journal of Family Issues, 33(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11412883

62.

Zelekha

Yaakobi

(2020). Intergenerational attachment orientations: Gender differences and environmental contribution. PLoS One, 15(7), Article e0233906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233906

63.

Zervides

Knowles

(2007). Generational changes in parenting styles and the effect of culture. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 3(1), 65–75.