A Strong Bond: But at What Cost?

In times of crisis, dogs are often pulled into a role no one formally assigns them. They become rescuers. They give someone a reason to get out of bed, hold the day together, keep life moving when everything else has started to fall apart. In those moments, the dog stops being one relationship among many and can become the only stable point in a world that no longer feels predictable.

That is when the human–dog relationship can quietly move to the center of a person’s whole regulatory system. The dog begins to carry emotional, motivational, and organizing functions that, in more stable conditions, would normally be spread across other people, institutions, and a wider social world. For the human, that may feel life-saving. For the dog, it means taking on a role with a very high level of responsibility.

People often talk about how much a dog helps a person in crisis. Much less often do they ask what that kind of relationship may cost the dog.

One of the less obvious mechanisms appears when the dog becomes a gateway to the social world. The dog starts conversations on walks, creates neighborly contact, gives the person a reason to go outside and be around others. Social connection is no longer happening directly, but through the dog. For the human, this can be real support. For the dog, it is one more domain in which their presence is organizing the guardian’s emotional and social life.

The real problem begins when the dog stops being one source of support and becomes the main system of emotional regulation. In relationships like this, the dog is no longer simply a companion. The dog starts taking over functions that would normally be distributed across a wider network: confidant, emotional anchor, source of meaning, source of motivation. Even when the relationship looks loving and deeply close, its structure becomes asymmetrical.

In crisis, caring for the dog can also become a force that blocks change. Decisions about treatment, leaving an abusive relationship, or seeking safe shelter may be postponed because they would mean separation from the dog. Responsibility for the animal becomes an argument against leaving a high-stress environment — and the dog remains in a world that is unstable and emotionally overloaded.

The daily structure the dog provides — walks, feeding, routines, obligations — may be therapeutic for the guardian. But for the dog, it can mean living in chronic emotional tension, with limited access to other relationships and with their own needs increasingly subordinated to keeping the human stable.

This is not about bad intentions. It is the mechanics of a relationship under crisis conditions. The fewer resources the human has, the more weight tends to fall on the dog.

And that is where closeness can easily be confused with safety. A strong bond does not always mean a relationship that regulates both sides well. Sometimes it means a relationship in which the dog is carrying far more emotionally than they can hold without consequences for their behavior and well-being.

This is not an argument against deep attachment.

It is an argument against idealizing it.

---

Oosthuizen, K., Haase, B., Ravulo, J., Lomax, S., & Ma, G. (2023). The Role of Human–Animal Bonds for People Experiencing Crisis Situations. Animals, 13(5), 941.