Your dog died in March. It’s August and you still take the long way around the park.
What you haven’t said out loud to anyone: when your uncle died two years ago, you went to the funeral, said the right things to your cousins, drove home, and slept fine that night.
You’ve run that comparison privately more than once. It comes back the same way every time, and every time you decide not to mention it to anybody.
Filed under character flaw, the comparison is damning. Filed under how grief actually works, it’s ordinary, and it points at a loss that turns out to be more complicated than it looks from the outside.
One in five people who lost both a pet and a person said the pet was harder
In January 2026, a study put a number on this.
Philip Hyland, a psychologist at Maynooth University, surveyed 975 UK adults in a sample built to match the population on sex, age, nation, and income. He asked which bereavements they had experienced, which one had been the most distressing, and how they were doing now.
About a third had lost a beloved pet. Almost all of that group, 93%, had also lost a person they were close to.
Asked to name their single most distressing bereavement, 21% of them chose the pet.
Not the grandparent. Not the friend. The dog.
Hyland also measured symptoms of prolonged grief disorder, the diagnosis for grief still debilitating a year or more after the death. Among people whose most distressing loss was a pet, 7.5% met the criteria.
For comparison, in the same sample the rate was 7.8% after the death of a close friend, 8.9% after a sibling, and 9.1% after a partner. Only the death of a parent and the death of a child came out clearly higher.
There’s a wrinkle in this that borders on absurd. Both ICD-11 and the DSM-5-TR require a human death before prolonged grief disorder can be diagnosed at all. You can meet every symptom threshold and every impairment threshold and still be ineligible, on the grounds that the deceased was a dog.
One caveat: this was a single online survey, the sampling wasn’t fully random, and Hyland writes that replication is essential before anyone builds policy on it. It’s a strong data point, not a closed case.
Grief severity tracks how close you were, not what species they were
One finding does more work here than any comparison between species. It concerns closeness.
Researchers at Humboldt State University compared two groups of students, one that had lost a pet within the past two years and one that had lost a person.
The human loss group did report higher grief severity on average, and the difference was statistically significant. But the effect sizes were small.
Then the researchers added how close the person had felt to whoever died. Closeness swamped everything else in the model. Most of the other predictors stopped mattering once it was included.
That’s the finding worth considering: closeness predicted grief severity in both groups, and species mostly functioned as a rough proxy for closeness rather than as a cause of anything.
It’s often a bad proxy. For a lot of people the pet isn’t the lesser relationship.
In a Pew Research Center survey of 5,073 US adults, 97% of pet owners said their pet was part of the family, and 51% said the pet was as much a family member as any human one.
More Bolde Stories
There’s a name for grief that other people don’t count
Kenneth Doka, a grief researcher, named this pattern in 1989. He called it disenfranchised grief: grief over a loss that isn’t openly acknowledged, socially approved, or publicly mourned.
The list of losses that qualify is long. A miscarriage. An ex-partner. A parent you were estranged from. A friend nobody realized you were that close to. A pet.
None of these produce smaller grief. They produce grief that arrives without any of the machinery society built for the occasion.
Nobody sends food. There’s no service. HR doesn’t have a box for it. Three days after a parent dies, people are still checking in. Three days after a dog dies, you’re at your desk and the subject is closed.
So you get the full weight of the loss and none of the scaffolding that’s supposed to hold you up under it.
People really do rate pet grief as less legitimate
Researchers have tested this directly, and the results line up with what bereaved owners describe.
Ecem Sarper and David Rodrigues at Iscte in Lisbon gave 306 participants short scenarios about someone grieving. In some versions the person had lost a romantic partner, in others a child, in others a companion animal.
Participants rated the animal loss grievers as the warmest and most sensitive of the three groups.
They also rated their grief as the least legitimate.
That combination is the thing to think about. People don’t think you’re cold for crying over your cat. They think you’re soft, and they think the crying isn’t quite warranted.
Warmth without validation. Sympathy without permission.
It’s a vignette study, which means it captures what people say about a hypothetical stranger, not necessarily how they treat a real friend. But it maps onto what nearly every bereaved pet owner reports hearing out loud.
The missing support is part of what makes it hurt
Here’s where the two halves join.
Wendy Packman and colleagues asked bereaved pet owners in the US and French Canada an open-ended question about their loss and analyzed what came back. Four themes emerged.
The first was lack of validation and support.
People described hiding it. Going back to work and saying nothing. Being told they could get another one. Feeling embarrassed by the size of their own reaction and grieving around other people’s discomfort.
That’s qualitative work, so it describes the experience rather than proving cause and effect.
But weak social support is one of the more consistently identified risk factors for grief that stays acute, and pet loss removes social support almost by definition. You end up grieving hard and grieving alone at the same time, and the second part makes the first part heavier.
There’s a second cost stacked on top. When everyone around you treats your reaction as disproportionate, you start treating it that way too.
Now you’re managing the grief, and separately managing the shame about the grief. That’s two jobs instead of one.
More Bolde Stories
Grieving a pet harder doesn’t mean you loved a person less
Let’s be real about what the comparison in your head doesn’t mean.
Crying harder for your dog than for your grandmother says less about who mattered and more about what the two relationships looked like on an ordinary day.
Your grandmother may have been someone you loved and saw four times a year. Your dog was in the room while you ate, worked, slept, and fell apart. One of those absences shows up in your house every hour. The other shows up at holidays.
Grief responds to the shape of the daily bond. Official rank in the family tree has surprisingly little to do with it.
And sometimes the comparison is unfair for another reason. Grief for a person can be tangled up with conflict, resentment, or things that never got said, and that kind of grief doesn’t always come out as crying. It comes out as numbness, or irritation, or nothing at all for a year. The relationship with the animal usually carried none of that.
None of which means every pet loss needs a clinician. Most grief, for animals and for people, does its work on its own.
But if you’re six months out and still not functioning, that’s worth taking to someone. The fact that the loss was a dog is not a reason to skip it, whatever the diagnostic manuals currently say.
And if a friend tells you their cat died, the useful response isn’t at least it wasn’t a person.
It’s asking what the cat’s name was.
