buffer effect

The following section consists of a discussion on how other family pets can act as a buffer after the loss a pet as well as looking at the difference between the participants that had buffers and those that did not. Participants 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 13 noted that they all had other family pets at the time of their pet’s death that served as a comforting agent. As previously noted participant 3 and 4 were not at home when their pets passed away and therefore would experience the ‘aftershock effect’ upon their return home. However participant 3 and 4 had other family pets that could potentially serve as an emotional comforter in the wake of their pet’s death. While the relationship between the participants and the other family pets was not as intense and closely bonded as the participants were to their pets, it can be argued that the similarity and familiarity of the type of relationship is sought by the bereaved owner in order to feel a certain level of comfort. When asked if her other pet would serve as a comforter in the wake of Asha’s death participant 4 noted;

“I think my other cat sort of would but not in the same, not in the same way because her and him were really different”

The statement reflects the above comment on the difference in the relationship between pet owner and other family pets. They do not fill the void left by the beloved pet but rather serve as a pillow to soften the blow of their pet’s death.

Participant 6, 7, 11, and 13 were present or at home at the time their pets passed on and had other pets to turn to for comfort. However participant 6 and 11 noted that some of their other pets exacerbated their grief to a degree because those pets did not seem to notice that one of their kin had gone.

“The other dog definitely not. Um, the cats were actually more comforting than the other dogs. The other dog was quite a, he quite a young black male and he started getting quite dominant with Oscar and a bit aggressive with him as he was getting sicker. So he didn’t really feel the loss to badly”

(participant 11).

“What we actually found a bit strange and it was almost a bit upsetting, is the fact that when we lost Jack, our other two dogs, it’s like they didn’t even notice. And I mean every night they walked together, they would sleep together on the couch, so it was like they were brothers as well. They would play together. Um, and the fact that when jack was gone and they didn’t, they acted as if it was normal. It was, it was, it almost felt as if they were betraying us. They would think like, we would be like why haven’t you noticed him gone.” (Participant 6).

The last paragraph of the previous section indicates how some of the participants viewed their other pets as a buffer. Participant 13 went on to note that;

“You know it was, it was, it was very traumatic at the time but we, we did get over it, you know it was, I think because we had other animals.”

Participant 7 noted that his other family pet served as a comforter but he felt that they lent on each other for comfort;

“I think it was sort of mutual like, like he wouldn’t seek me out but he would just come, he would just generally come and visit and we both sort of be sad together.”

This comment can be linked to the researchers notion that participant 7 was holding back the true extent of his emotions surrounding Silky’s death as often he would go red in the face and answer questions in a contradictory manner. For instance in the above statement participant 7 noted that his other dog did not seek him out intentionally and then states how his dog would just come. While this may seem insignificant it is important in that the participant may not be fully aware of the extent of his own feelings and thus these feelings are being released from the unconscious in unconventional ways such as the above minor contradiction. A further indication that participant 7 was holding back is the lack of descriptive words when describing Silky’s death and how he felt about losing her. In essence the above statement indicates that participant seven’s other pet served as a comforter after Silky’s death, however it is apparent that participant 7 was not aware of the depth of his own grief.

In the case of participant 5 and 12, while they were both present when their pets passed on neither had other pets to turn to at the time. However it should be noted that both participants acquired pets with a few months of their loss. It can be argued that acquiring a new pet soon after the loss of a pet is the pet owner’s way of coping with their loss as well as an attempt to fill the void created by their loss. Acquiring a pet soon after the loss of a pet is often viewed as a means of replacing the pet, however often pet owners believe that the new pet will reduce the pain, serving as a buffer for their loss. Therefore in such cases the ‘buffer effect’ concept is applicable. Therefore it can be argued that under these circumstances a new pet provides the pet owner with the opportunity to create a new bond which therefore reduces their grief as they pour their love and energy into the bonding process with the new pet. It should be noted that not all pet owners can acquire a new pet soon after their loss as it is too painful and they are not able to emotionally bond with the new pet as in the case of Participant 8. Having said this it is important to reiterate that getting a new pet for some pet owners is not replacing their pet but rather distracting them from their grief.

“It was really nice to have like at least other dogs, cos that was I think a month after Russell died. It was really, really great to have them, but they were very naughty cos they were together.”

(Participant 5).

“Now I have Beans. Who I actually got because I was missing Khalee. I got him about two months afterwards.” (Participant 12).

Having pets around after the loss of a beloved pet allows one to share their pain and anguish with another. What’s more is that you share these emotions with another animal through non-verbal communication which seems to help people work through their grief on a deeper level, free of judgement. As previously noted the bond we form with animals is based on a trusting non­

judgemental level, expressing your feeling without judgment is an important factor when it comes to grief work. At this point the notions of anthropomorphism can be brought in as humans are able to relate and share their feelings of despair with another animal as we feel they can relate to these emotions, which in turn provides us with comfort.

“I think he understood cos he got along with everyone. It had been the three of them and then suddenly he was alone. So he did spend time, he used to go lie by the graves and um, and sort of visit every now and then. But he was a lot of comfort.” (Participant 7).

The above statement illustrates the concept of anthropomorphism and projection which was discussed under the intensity of the bond section. The process of projection in participant sevens case indicates the anthropomorphic thought process, in essence participant 7 was justifying his feelings of

well as to comfort his pet. It can be argued that the ‘buffer effect’ concept along with anthropomorphic thought allows individuals to justify their need for comfort as well as their emotional reaction to the loss of a pet. The need to justify ones emotional reaction to the loss of a pet is directly linked to societal views surrounding the insignificance of pet loss and pets as a whole in people’s lives.

When a pet is ill or dying we rely on our veterinary practitioner for support, not necessarily emotional support but psychological support. Confirming that our decision to euthanize our pet is our only option or the right option and in the best interest of our pets. However not all veterinarians have mastered empathy which can in turn increase the intensity of grief for a pet owner.