Extending Suicide Risk Assessment In Social Work: Validation of the Pet-Specific Reasons for Living Scale

Background and Purpose: Reasons for living are central to suicide prevention, yet existing measures may overlook salient contemporary relationships. The original Reasons for Living Inventory (RFL) assesses domains such as survival and coping beliefs, responsibility to family, child-related concerns, and moral objections, but does not assess the role of companion animals. This omission is notable given that companion animal ownership now exceeds parenthood and may rival partnership in some age groups, positioning pets as major sources of attachment, caregiving responsibility, routine, and meaning in daily life. At the same time, pet-related concerns may also reflect burden, guilt, and welfare-linked distress during suicidal crises. This study developed and validated the Pet-Specific Reasons for Living Scale (Pet-RFL), an extension of the RFL designed to assess pet-related beliefs relevant to suicide protection. Objectives were to evaluate factor structure, reliability, construct validity, and measurement invariance, and examine associations with suicidal ideation, lifetime suicide attempt history, and mental health symptoms.

Methods: Data came from a census-matched online survey of U.S. adults recruited via Prolific. The psychometric analytic sample included 962 participants. Sixteen Pet-RFL items were developed by an interdisciplinary faculty team with expertise in suicide prevention, grief, human-animal interaction, and social work, using the original RFL as the conceptual model. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted in a random 30% subsample, followed by confirmatory factor analysis in the full sample using the weighted least squares mean- and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimator for ordered categorical indicators. Measurement invariance was tested across gender modality, race/ethnicity, relationship status, parental status, age, and pet type. Construct validity analyses examined associations with suicidal ideation, lifetime suicide attempt history, depression, anxiety, stress, and the original RFL.

Results: A two-factor solution demonstrated the strongest fit and parsimony (CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .08). Factor 1 captured pet-related belongingness, emotional connection, and caregiving responsibility, while Factor 2 reflected pet-related worry, burdensomeness, and moral obligation regarding pet welfare. Both factors demonstrated excellent internal consistency (ω = .91 and .90). Strong measurement invariance was supported across race/ethnicity, gender modality, age, relationship status, parental status, and pet type, supporting use across diverse populations. Higher scores on Factor 1 were significantly associated with lower suicidal ideation and lower depressive symptoms, whereas higher scores on Factor 2 were significantly associated with greater suicidal ideation and a history of suicide attempt.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest that pet-related reasons for living are multidimensional rather than uniformly protective. One pathway reflects connection, meaning, and adaptive caregiving, while another reflects crisis-salient concern and welfare-related obligation. Extending the RFL beyond human family relationships advances suicide research and strengthens social work assessment by identifying overlooked sources of meaning, responsibility, and crisis-related concern that may improve suicide risk formulation and pet-inclusive safety planning. Within mental health practice, these findings highlight the value of administering both the original RFL and the Pet-RFL or, at minimum, explicitly assessing the role of pets in clients’ lives to identify protective factors, welfare-related stressors, and opportunities for individualized safety planning.