PEOPLE WITH PETS: UNDERSTANDING THE INFLUENCE OF HUMAN-COMPANION ANIMAL ATTACHMENT ON EMPATHY AND RESILIENT COPING IN ADULTHOOD by Kelly L. Stickle B.Sc., Canadian University College, 2006 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA AUGUST 2011 © Kelly L. Stickle, 2011 1+1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliotheque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-87578-0 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-87578-0 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distrbute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­ commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de cette these. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Canada ii ABSTRACT This research investigated the association of current human-companion animal attachment with adult levels of empathy and resilient coping. Various research findings have reported benefits from people interacting with companion animals. A better understanding is needed of the human-companion animal relationship, and the associations which that relationship has with human prosocial and protective factors (Fine, 2006). Pet-owning adults (« = 352) completed an online survey measuring attachment with a current pet, interpersonal empathy, resilient coping, and current attachment with another adult as a possible covariate. Current human-animal attachment does not appear to be related to current human attachment. There are no significant associations between current human-animal attachment and overall empathy or any of the measured dimensions of empathy, or with resilient coping. Institutions, therapists, and other practitioners of animal-assisted therapies may not need to rely on the formation of a strong human-companion animal bond in order for some benefits to occur. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables v List of Figures vi Acknowledgement vii Chapter One Introduction and Overview Objectives Chapter Two Literature Review Definitions Historical Perspectives of Human-Animal Interactions Benefits of Human-Animal Interactions Theories of Human-Animal Interactions Constructs Relevant to the Current Research Empathy Resilient Coping Attachment Purpose and Hypotheses Chapter Three Chapter Four Method Participants Procedure Instruments Results Preliminary Analyses Data Screening Demographics CABS Factor Analyses Bivariate Correlations Human-Human and Human-Animal Attachment Human-Human Attachment and Empathy Human-Human Attachment and Resilient Coping Regression Analyses Human-Animal Attachment and Empathy Dimensions Human-Animal Attachment and Resilient Coping Human-Human Moderation of Human-Animal Attachment on Empathy Human-Human Moderation of Human-Animal Attachment on Resilient Coping 1 2 3 4 6 10 17 20 23 26 29 30 31 35 36 36 38 40 40 42 43 43 48 49 50 iv Post-Hoc Analyses Discussion Summary of Hypotheses and Results Explanation, Interpretation, and Integration of Findings Human and Companion Animal Attachment Human Attachment and Empathy Human Attachment and Resilient Coping Animal Attachment and Empathy Animal Attachment and Resilient Coping Moderating Interaction of Animal and Human Attachment on Empathy and Resilient Coping Additional Findings Implications of Finding Theoretical Implications Research Implications Applied Implications Limitations Design and Internal Validity Measurement External Validity Analyses and Statistics Future Directions Conclusion 51 52 53 55 56 58 59 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 68 69 69 70 71 Social Networking Recruiting Information 84 Survey Welcome Page 86 Non-Participant Thank You 87 Letter of Informed Consent 88 Completed Survey Debriefing 89 Complete Instruments 91 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Frequencies of Demographic Variables 37 Table 2 Factor Loadings for Principal Components Analysis of CABS with All Items 38 Factor Loadings for Principal Components Analysis of CABS without Item 8 38 Table 4 Pearson Correlations of All Variables 39 Table 5 Hierarchical Regression Analyses Measuring Companion-Animal Attachment with Empathy 44 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Measuring Companion-Animal Attachment with Resilient Coping 49 Table 3 Table 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Research Model vii ACKNOWLEDGMENT This project was only possible with the support of many people. First and foremost of those deserving mention from the University of Northern British Columbia is Dr. Cindy Hardy, my thesis supervisor who patiently guided and often corrected my efforts. Dr. Kyle Matsuba who did not desert me when he left Northern British Columbia for other opportunities, yet continued providing rigorous feedback and along with Dr. Linda O'Neill was critically supportive throughout the planning and writing process. The lab group of Sherry Bellamy, Christina Boucher, Sherri Tillotson, Rachel Wilfur, Emily Wright were terrific sounding boards and pilot survey participants, especially Crystal Rollings who also helped with recruiting. Grant Potter allowed me to be the guinea pig for his newly set up survey system. In the early planning stages several people took the time to share thoughts and offer suggestions including Eileen Bona of the Dreamcatcher Nature-Assisted Therapy Association, Amanda Slugoski of Chimo Animal Assisted Therapy Project, Carol Kelly of the Medicine River Wildlife Centre, and the staff of the Calgary Young Offenders Centre. Several of the faculty, staff, and students of Canadian University College participated in the survey and offered support throughout, including office space. I am grateful for the pet stores, pet grooming and sitting businesses, and veterinary clinics in Prince George, British Columbia and Red Deer, Alberta that helped recruit participants for this project. Of course, this project would not be possible without the individuals who took the time to participate in the survey. I am especially indebted to my family. My parents have been supportive of all of my life-long ventures. My children, Rod and Elle who put up with my family room office and who forgave me for the times my research and writing interfered with their plans. My wife Laurie has supported me and this project in many ways and can not be thanked enough. And finally, our cats Monkey and Arwen, and our late dog Madison for giving me a sense of how pets bless the people around them. 1 People With Pets: Understanding the Influence of Human-Companion Animal Attachment on Empathy and Resilient Coping in Adulthood Chapter One Introduction and Overview The purpose of this research was to better understand the association between current human-companion animal attachment and adult levels of empathy and resilient coping. The idea that there can be psychosocial benefits for humans from interacting with animals is not new (Ascione, 2004; Kruger & Serpell, 2006), and a multitude of claims have been made and research findings have been reported identifying various benefits. However, very little quantitative research has been conducted to examine the underlying mechanisms that allow human animal interactions to be beneficial to humans (Fine, 2006; Kidd & Kidd, 1987; Kruger & Serpell, 2006). A better understanding is needed of the relationship between humans and companion animals, and the interaction of that relationship with human prosocial and protective factors (Beck & Madresh, 2008; Crawford, Worsham, & Swineheart, 2006; Hills & Cowan, 1993; Raupp, 1999). This project examines the significance of current levels of human-companion animal attachment on pet owners' levels of empathy and resilient coping. An internet based survey was used to measure the strength of current animal attachment bonds, and levels of empathy and resilient coping of an online, pet-owning adult sample. Additionally, current adult attachment was measured to help clarify the significance of any unique benefits associated with the human-animal bond over and above the benefits of bonds with humans. It was 2 hypothesized that a stronger human-animal attachment bond would be positively associated with empathy and resilient coping, and that a stronger current human-animal attachment bond would be positively associated with current adult attachment such that adult attachment would moderate the effects of the human-animal bond on empathy and resilient coping. Understanding the relationship between human-animal attachment and both empathy and resilient coping will support the historically regarded benefits of pet keeping, and will add to the theoretical understandings of the human-companion animal relationship. Objectives The present study examines the relationship between human-companion animal attachment and the constructs of empathy and resilient coping among adults. There are two main objectives: 1. To examine the association between current animal attachment bonds and both empathy and resilient coping in adulthood. 2. To explore the moderating effects of current human attachment with current animal attachment on empathy and resilient coping in adults. 3 Chapter Two Literature Review Definitions The research literature of the relationship between humans and non-human animals has developed sporadically from the diverse fields of human health sciences, social sciences, and veterinary medicine resulting in a plethora of terms and definitions. The terms animalassisted therapy (AAT) and animal-assisted activities (AAA) have been applied to the use of non-human animals for specific functions of goal-directed interventions and for instructional, educational, recreational, or therapeutic benefit (Fine, 2002; Granger & Kogan, 2006; Kruger, Trachtenberg, & Serpell, 2004; Slugoski, 2008). Animal-assisted intervention (AAI) is another term often used to describe AATs, AAAs, or other uses of non-human animals for therapeutic purposes (Kruger & Serpell, 2006; Kruger et al., 2004). Programs involving handling, grooming, or riding horses have been called equine-facilitated psychotherapy, equine-facilitated learning, and equine-assisted psychotherapy (Ewing, MacDonald, Taylor, & Bowers, 2007; Kruger & Serpell, 2006), while therapeutic use of the movement and rhythm of a horse has been called hippotherapy. Even hospital pet visitation programs have a distinct label: pet-facilitated therapy. The designation human-animal interaction (HAI) has been used to describe any observable interaction between a human and a non-human animal, from companion animal visits and pet ownership to AAIs (Fournier, Geller, & Fortney, 2007; Meadows, 2003; Virues-Ortega & Buela-Casal, 2006; Wilson & Barker, 2003). I will use this HAI definition in this research unless referring to specific non-human animals or forms of interactions. Finally, the simpler designation animal will be used for all unspecified nonhuman animals. 4 Historical Perspectives of Human-Animal Interactions Animals have been an important part of human civilization throughout recorded history. Their designation as agents of physical and mental health have been traced to traditional hunting and foraging societies such as the Ojibwa who viewed all of nature, animate or inanimate as having spiritual power. Every individual was thought to have their own guardian spirit or manito that could manifest in any living animal, and which required ceremonial and ritualistic patronage to preserve the good standing relationship of the individual and to avoid misfortune (Serpell, 2006). In other societies Shamans were thought to be able to transcend into the spirit world where the vast majority of guardian spirits were represented as animals able to inflict or heal physical and mental illnesses (Speck, 1919). For example, in many North American plains tribes, eagle and buffalo symbols have been prominent in ceremonial sun dances (Lawrence, 1993). Radiocarbon dating has been used on adjacent human and dog remains to estimate that animal domestication began at least 14,000 years ago (Clutton-Brock, 1995; Mannion, 1999; Sablin & Khlopachev, 2002). Subsequently, animal domestication became so widespread that it could be considered universal (Anderson, 1997). Domesticated animals have been raised agriculturally, used to assist hunting, pulling, hauling, and herding, and kept for companionship. However, cultural perceptions of animals' mystical powers began to change. In Greek mythology, dogs and snakes were credited with the ability to heal by licking the bodily source of illness. In addition, dogs were thought to act as intercessors between this and the afterworld. With the global advancement of Christianity, the notion of animals assisting in healing became more of a miraculous potentiality possessed by a few blessed 5 holy men, individual animals, or even the shrines constructed in their honour. Eventually, the inquisition attempted to abolish the belief that animals were associated with mystical healing powers leading to the view that at most, they were able to act as potential agents of maliciousness (Serpell, 2006). Around the end of the 17th century John Locke recognized and advocated the socializing benefits of children caring for animals on the children's ability to respond responsibly and sensitively to others (Locke, 1693/1989). By the mid 19th century, it was commonly accepted that animals could play a major role in the development of well-adjusted socialized characteristics in children, and children's literature began to feature themes of acceptable behaviour towards animals from such diverse sources as fiction and Sunday school lessons (Grier, 1999; Serpell, 2006). In the mean time, specific effects of HAIs were beginning to be reported. In 1792, the York Retreat in England reported behavioural improvements among their mentally ill patients who were able to interact with free-roaming domestic animals in the institution's courtyards (Serpell, 2006; Slugoski, 2008). By the mid 1800s, dogs, cats, birds, and fish were considered a normal feature of many English hospitals (Allderidge, 1991), even Florence Nightingale recommended small animals as companions for chronic patients (Nightingale, 1860/2008). However, by the early 20th century the proliferation of scientific medical techniques had all but eliminated animals from mainstream health care institutions (Allderidge, 1991). It was not until the landmark study of Friedmann, Katcher, Lynch, and Thomas (1980) revealed that one-year survival rates for pet owning coronary care patients were significantly greater than for non-pet owning coronary care patients that interest was 6 rekindled in the therapeutic effects of animals (Serpell, 2006). Friedmann et al. did not explore the nature of this relationship, leaving many questions unanswered; however, they suggested that pets could provide distinct companionship benefits unavailable to non-pet owners. Since the publication of the Friedmann et al. article, applications and research of HAIs have exploded. The following section will consider several key findings across a broad range of benefits, beginning with other medical and physical health findings. Benefits of Human-Animal Interactions Reviewing the therapeutic effects of HAIs in hospital settings, Aubrey Fine (2002) suggested that these programs may provide patients with distractions from their treatment routine such that patients were found to suffer from less felt pain and less hyperactivity, as well they maintained healthier blood pressure, and were likely to feel calmer. Other research among nursing home residents and of an at-home-living elderly sample found that pets contribute to less spending on prescription medications (Montague, 1995), and fewer physician visits (Siegel, 1990) suggesting that the companionship provided by pets may affect perceived health. Furthermore, a ward of a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane which allowed pets found that patients required half the medications when compared to an identical ward without pets (Correctional Services of Canada, 1998). In a study of Swedish school children, those exposed to cats or dogs as infants were less likely to be suffering from hay fever and asthma than those not exposed (Hesselmar, Aberg, Aberg, Eriksson, & Bjorksten, 1999), suggesting that early exposure to fur-bearing pets may aid in the development of a tolerance to animal and pollen associated respiratory diseases. From a divergent sample, Edwards and Beck (2002) found that following the placement of aquariums in nursing home dining rooms, Alzheimer's patients interest at meal 7 times was held longer resulting in improved nutritional intake, increased body weight, and a decrease in the need for nutritional supplements. Along with the suggestion of increased interest in meal times, Edwards and Beck proposed that the aquariums aided social interaction between patients and visitors. Among mental health issues, eating disorders have a considerable impact on physical health. Although empirical evidence is still lacking, case studies (Christian, 2005) and program reviews (Cumella, 2003) suggest that horses may provide social support for patients, and also that therapists and patients can discuss horses as metaphors for the disorder, for specific people, and for particular experiences involved in the treatment of eating disorders. The sensory stimulation of hippotherapy has also been significantly more successful in improving speech among language disabled children than traditional therapies (Macauley & Gutierrez, 2004). Among a sample of nursing home residents most of whom had dementia, mental functioning, but not physical functioning increased during six months of dog visitations (Kawamara, Niiyama, & Niiyama, 2007). Social companionship was again considered to be the influential factor. When children undergoing routine physical examinations felt the support of trained therapy dogs, the children displayed fewer stress behaviours (Hansen, Messinger, Baun, & Megel, 1999). Furthermore, the dogs seemed to facilitate communication between the physician and the children. The companionship of animals has also been implicated in the reduction of stress effects among a variety of HAI populations reviewed by Virues-Ortega and Buela-Casal (2006). Besides stress, studies have suggested that the social support offered by pets have contributed to lowered depression levels among pet owning women, (Tower & Nokota, 2006), and among inmates (Correctional Services of Canada, 1998), even 8 resulting in fewer suicide attempts, and better self-esteem. In another review of program outcomes utilizing various methods, HAIs were linked to lower anxiety among adolescents (Kruger et al., 2004). Better general psychological health has been measured among cat owning adults compared to non-pet owners (Straede & Gates, 1993). Better psychological well-being was found in a controlled study among ambulatory disabled adults with service dogs compared to those remaining on a waiting list (Allen & Blascovich, 1996). Higher self-esteem and greater internal locus of control were also found among the service dog group, who benefited from both the physical assistance and companionship of their dogs. Higher self-esteem and empathy have been found among both child dog owners (Bierer, 2001), and inmates (Furst, 2006), again reflecting probable companionship benefits. Emotional well-being has also been found to be positively associated with HAIs. For example, residents in a nursing home with a volunteer pet visitation program benefited from the increased social support of the pets as indicated by improved mood and affect scores after six months compared to the control group with only volunteer visits (Lutwack-Bloom, Wijewickrama, & Smith, 2005). As well, hospitalized children showed beneficial effects from the social support of a pet visitation program on their mood and affect compared to children in a traditional play therapy group (Kaminski, Pellino, & Wish, 2002). Other people may also perceive pet owners more positively. In one study, people associated with animals were judged by others as being friendlier, happier, bolder, less tense, less likely to be in danger from others, and less likely to be dangerous to others than people not associated with animals (Lockwood, 1983). In another study, boys from low SES environments gained confidence from caring for and nurturing pets, resulting in a buffer 9 against the likelihood of their retaliating in anger during conflicts with peers (Bryant & Donnellan, 2007). And among reviews of prison based programs, Furst (2006) and the Correctional Services of Canada (1998) have found improved anger management, greater trust among inmates, and greater pride of accomplishment for inmates with regular access to pets. The final domain of change to be reported from HAI research is that reflecting changes in behaviour. Much of the research reporting observed improvements in behaviour associated with HAIs have been found among inmate populations. Inmates in a minimumsecurity prison were pre-selected by prison officials to participate in an eight to ten week live-in, companion dog training program. Those in the treatment program demonstrated improved social skills and prison rule compliance, and better treatment of other inmates compared to inmates on the program waiting list (Fournier et al., 2007). Among his review of prison programs, Furst (2006) did not discuss causal mechanisms while Correctional Services of Canada (1998) implicated the social roles that animals play in promoting positive outcomes among inmates. These reviews report improvements in self-control and selfdiscipline, responsibility, job skills, work and work ethic, goal setting and achieving, motivation, patience, parenting skills, communication and relationship skills, and cooperation, along with less violence, and better general behaviour among inmates. Other behavioural research findings associated with HAIs include improved selfcontrol among severely emotionally disturbed adolescents engaged in a vocational and therapeutic riding program compared to a control group of similar adolescents on the program's waiting list (Iannone, 2003). Although confounding factors prevented firm conclusion, severely mentally disabled students displayed a trend toward improved behaviour 10 as rated by observers during an eight week dog visitation program (Heimlich, 2001). Finally, interaction with pets during childhood increased the likelihood of choosing a helping profession among Croatian university students (Vizek-Vidovic, Arambasic, Kerestes, Kuterovac-Jagodic, & Vlahovic-Stetic, 2001). Theories of Human-Animal Interactions Several theoretical explanations have been proposed to explain the benefits observed with HAIs. However, theorists agree on little other than that there is no current theoretical foundation capable of accounting for all of the research results associated with HAIs or their attachment bonds (Herzog & Burghardt, 1987; Kidd & Kidd, 1987; Serpell, 2009). The current section will consider several of the prominently suggested theories, emphasizing those that have been supported with research results. One of the first theories used to explain the benefits of HAIs was the biophilia hypothesis presented by Wilson (1984) which proposed that humans carry a genetic predisposition to interact with, or attend t10) t Modal frequency Frequencies Frequency % 17 46 56 42 48 43 32 32 11 17 7 1 4.8 13.1 15.9 11.9 13.6 12.2 9.1 9.1 3.1 4.8 2.0 0.3 311 41 88.4 11.6 247 85 20 70.2 24.1 5.7 62 115 108 67 17.6 32.7 30.7 19.0 A PCA was re-run twice after removing items 4 and 8 respectively and a more clearly defined factor structure emerged with item 8 removed (see Table 3 for factor loadings). This analysis produced three factors, accounting for a combined 61.27% of the variability, and all unrotated variables loaded well on the first factor suggesting that the overall scale is suitable. After varimax rotation three well defined factors emerged which will be discussed later. This 38 suggests that the CABS may be improved by combining the two sleeping arrangement items into one item, and with the addition of the two perceived security items. Table 2 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Principal Components Analysis With Varimax Rotation of the Companion Animal Bonding Scale Including All Original Items and New Items Scale Item Factor 1 4. Pet sleep in room .95 8. Sleep near pet .93 .07 5. Pet responsive 6. Close relationship .14 3. Hold, stroke, pet .14 9. Physically secure .06 10. Emotionally secure .08 7. Travel with pet .24 .09 2. Clean after pet 1. Care for pet .22 Note. Factor loadings > .40 are in boldface. Factor 2 .17 .14 .75 .68 .67 .19 .39 -.19 .09 .15 Factor 3 .11 .18 -.11 .28 .24 .84 .74 .57 Factor 4 .14 .19 .15 .29 -.07 -.05 .16 .20 .10 .09 .88 .84 Table 3 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Principal Components Analysis With Varimax Rotation of the Companion Animal Bonding Scale Including the New Items and Without Item 8 of the Original Items Scale Item Factor 1 1. Care for pet .86 2. Clean after pet .85 4. Pet sleep in room .47 5. Pet responsive .16 6. Close relationship .33 3. Hold, stroke, pet -.01 9. Physically secure -.04 10. Emotionally secure .16 7. Travel with pet .29 Note. Factor loadings > .40 are in boldface. Factor 2 .15 .07 .27 .74 .68 .67 Factor 3 .07 .06 .28 -.12 .27 .26 .21 .40 -.18 .82 .71 .61 Bivariate Correlations Pearson correlations were calculated for all pairwise combinations of variables with both the empathy sample and the resilient coping sample. Results appear in Table 4 (correlations, means, and standard deviations). Intercorrelations between the demographic 39 Table 4 Pearson Correlations of All Variables, Means, and Standard Deviations Variable 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Secure 4. Fearful 5. Preocc 6. Dismis 7. CABS 8. IRI FS 9. IRIPT 10. IRI EC ll.IRIPD 12. IRI Sum 13. BRCS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 M SD — .09 .07 -.29** -.24** .06 .09 -.25** .21** .11* -.22** .00 .10 5.07 2.57 — .08 -.14* -.04 .07 -.17 -.01 -.04 -.15 -.10 -.09 .05 1.12 0.32 -.48** -.10 -.34** -.02 -.06 .09 .21** -.14* .11 .18* 4.33 2.14 .21** .07 .01 .22** -.09 -.11* .26** .03 -.05 4.02 2.24 — -.21** -.10 .22** -.18** .00 .30** .04 -.22** 2.65 1.92 — .03 -.07 -.05 -.28** -.11* -.18** -.03 4.08 2.11 .08 .08 .09 -.05 .12* -.09 4.15 0.58 .07 .22** .35** .68** — 2.31 0.89 .42** -.25** .67** — 2.72 0.73 — .02 .75** — 3.05 0.72 .09 — 1.32 0.83 — 8.08 1.63 3.90 0.67 — — — — — — — Note. All intercorrelations presented are from the empathy sample (n = 347) except for the BRCS correlations which are from the resilient coping sample (n = 348) *p < .05. **p < .001. 40 variables, HH, and HA variables are from the empathy sample (n = 347). The first three hypotheses were also analyzed with bivariate correlations and will be reported next. Human-human and human-animal attachment. It was hypothesized that current HH attachment would be positively correlated with current HA attachment. As shown in Table 4 this hypothesis was not supported. Following Bartholomew's recommendations (n.d.) HH attachment was scored to report continuous scales for each attachment dimension, and a prototype attachment style was not identified for each participant. Moreover, specific predictions regarding insecure attachment styles were not made, and none of the HH attachment dimensions were significantly associated with HA attachment. The correlations between the HH attachment dimensions and HA attachment each accounted for less than ten percent of shared variability, and none were significant at p < .05. These exploratory results suggest that there is no relationship between the quality of HH attachment and HA attachment. Human-human attachment and empathy. It was hypothesized that current HH attachment dimensions would be positively associated with empathy, however specific predictions regarding individual attachment styles and empathy dimensions were not made. As shown in Table 4 some aspects of this hypothesis were supported. The Secure dimension was moderately positively associated with Overall Empathy r = .11,/> = .051. Secure Attachment was positively associated with Empathic Concern r=.21,/?<.001, and negatively associated with Personal Distress r = -.14, p = .009. This suggests that compared to the other attachment dimensions, those with higher Secure HH Attachment are slightly more likely to experience Empathic Concern characteristics such as sympathy and concern 41 for others, while being slightly less likely to experience Personal Distress characteristic feelings of vulnerability, fearfulness, or uncertainty. The Fearful Attachment dimension was not significantly associated with Overall Empathy (r = .03, p = .610), but was positively correlated with the Fantasy Scale (r = .22, p < .001) and Personal Distress (r = .26, p < .001), and was negatively associated with Empathic Concern (r = -.\\,p = .038). These results suggest that relative to the other attachment styles, higher levels of the Fearful Attachment style are associated with Fantasy Scale characteristics such as a slightly higher likelihood of placing one's self imaginatively in the context of another person, and moderately more likely to experience feelings of Personal Distress when another person is anxious or uncomfortable. There also may be a slight tendency for those with a Fearful Attachment style to experience less sympathy and concern for others who are suffering. Preoccupied Attachment was also not significantly associated with Overall Empathy (r = .041, p = .448), but was positively correlated with the Fantasy Scale (r = .22, p < .001) and Personal Distress (r = .30, p < .001), and negatively associated with Perspective Taking (r = -.18,/? < .001). This pattern of results suggests that compared to the other attachment dimensions, those higher in the Preoccupied Attachment style are slightly more likely to display Fantasy Scale characteristics such as imaginatively placing themselves in another person's experience. They are moderately more likely to experience Personal Distress characteristics such as personal feelings of vulnerability, fearfulness, and uncertainty when another person is in such situations. They are also slightly less likely to experience Perspective Taking characteristics such as acceptance of another person's point of view. 42 The Dismissing Attachment dimension was negatively correlated with Overall Empathy (r = 18, p = .001), Empathic Concern (r = -.28, p < .001), and Personal Distress (r = -. 11, p = .046). These results suggest that relative to the other attachment styles, pet- owners with a Dismissing Attachment style are slightly less likely to experience general empathy toward others, and are moderately less likely to experience Empathic Concern characteristics such as sympathy and concern for others who are suffering. They may also be slightly less likely to experience Personal Distress characteristics such as distress from another person's discomfort. Human-human attachment and resilient coping. Pearson correlations were calculated for pairwise combinations of variables with the resilient coping sample, n = 348 (see Table 4 for correlations, means, and standard deviations). It was hypothesized that the secure dimension of current HH attachment would be positively correlated with resilient coping and specific predictions regarding the insecure attachment styles were not made. As shown in Table 4, this hypothesis was partially supported. The Secure dimension of HH attachment was significantly and positively associated with resilient coping r=.lS,p = .001. The Fearful dimension was not associated with resilient coping r = -.05, p - .350. Preoccupied Attachment was significantly and negatively associated with resilient coping r = -•22, p < .001. Lastly, Dismissing Attachment was not associated with resilient coping r = .03,p = .600. This pattern of results suggests those higher in Secure Attachment may be able to cope slightly better in stressful situations than those with other attachment styles, and that those higher in the Preoccupied style may cope slightly poorer. 43 Regression Analyses Hierarchical regressions were run to examine the hypotheses that HA attachment would be associated with both empathy and resilient coping when HH attachment was controlled. The predictor variables were entered using the same three steps in each of the regressions. To control for the possible covariance of demographic variables, age and sex were entered in the first block. Since it was expected that HH attachment would be associated with HA attachment, all four HH attachment styles were included in the second block of variables to control for possible covariance. The CABS score of HA attachment was entered in the final block. Human-animal attachment and empathy dimensions. To protect against Type-I error, Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust the significance level of hypothesized results. Family-wise corrections are reported with all of the empathy results calculated by dividing the typical a = .05 by the number of DVs tested simultaneously (Mundfrom, Perrett, Schaffer, Piccone, & Roozeboom, 2006; Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007). For these analyses, the Bonferroni adjustment was based on the five empathy DVs being tested simultaneously resulting in a/5 = .01. Findings that were significant prior to applying the Bonferroni correction will be reported but not discussed as significant. Separate regressions were run for Overall Empathy and each of the empathy subscales. Since specific predictions were not made for the subscales those results should be treated as exploratory. Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses for all of the empathy outcome variables are reported in Table 5 (i?2, R2 change, standardized regression coefficients). 44 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Measuring the Association of Current Companion-Animal Attachment With Empathy When Age, Sex, and Current Interpersonal Attachment Are Controlled Empathy Variables Overall Empathy Predictor Step 1 (Demographics) AR2 p .01 Perspective Taking Fantasy Scale AR2 P .06*** AR2 P .05*** Empathic Concern AR2 P .04* Personal Distress AR2 p .06*** Age .01 -.25*** .21*** .12* -.22*** Sex -.09 .01 -.06 -.16* -.08 .04* .03* .09*** .10*** Secure .10 .04 .05 .13* -.06 Fearful .09 .16* .01 1 o .05* .16* Preoccupied .01 .15* -.16* -.00 .21*** Dismissing -.15* -.03 1 b OO Step 2 (Attachment style) -.23*** -.09 Step 3 .01* .01* Pet attachment .00 .12* .12* .00 .00 .07 .04 -.02 Total R1 .06* .12*** .08*** .13*** .15*** Adjusted R2 .04* .11*** .06*** .11*** .14*** n 347 347 347 347 347 Note, a was set with Bonferroni correction at a/number of DVs tested simultaneously = .01. V < .05. *p < .01. ** *p < .001. 45 Overall Empathy. It was hypothesized that current HA attachment would be positively associated with Overall Empathy when HH attachment was controlled. This hypothesis was tested with a hierarchical regression (see Table 5) and was not supported. After the first step, the combined contribution of the demographic variables age and sex was not significant R2 = .01, Fjnc (1, 339) = 1.35, p = .26. The second step which included the HH attachment dimensions accounted for a significant 3.9 % of variability/?2 = .05, Finc (1, 339) = 3.52,p = .008. Including HA attachment with the final step accounted for only another 1.3% of variability, R2 = .06, Finc (1, 339) = 4.65, p = .032 which was not significant using the conservative Bonferonni a/5 = .01. R was significantly different than zero after the final step. After step 3, with all IVs in the equation, R2 = .06, F(7, 339) = 3.10,/? = .004. The adjusted R2 value of .04 indicates that less than five percent of the variability in Overall Empathy scores is accounted for by the demographic variables, and by current HH and HA attachment bonds. These results suggest that less than five percent of the variability in Overall Empathy is predicted by current HH and HA attachment bonds. HH attachment contributes slightly to the prediction, but HA attachment does not increase the predictability of Overall Empathy. Fantasy Scale of empathy. It was hypothesized that HA attachment would be associated with the Fantasy Scale of empathy when HH attachment was controlled. This hypothesis was tested with a hierarchical regression (see Table 5) and was not supported. After the first step, age and sex significantly accounted for over 6% of the variability, R2 = .06, Fine (1, 339) = 11.53, p < .001. Including the four HH attachment dimensions after step 2 added another 4.7% of variability to the prediction of Fantasy Scale scores, i?2 = .11, (1, 339) = 4.48, p = .002. Adding HA attachment after step 3 did not significantly increase 46 the total variability of Fantasy Scale scores using the Bonferrom correction, R = .12, F>nc (1, 339) = 5.55, p = .019. R was significantly different from zero after the final step. After step 3, with all IVs in the equation, R2 = .12, F(7, 339) = 6.86, p < .001. The adjusted R2 value of .11 indicates that more than ten percent of the variability in the Fantasy Scale was accounted for by age, sex and current HH, and HA attachment bonds. These results suggest that age, sex and HH attachment account for ten percent of the variability in the Fantasy Scale component of empathy, but HA attachment does not significantly contribute to the prediction. Perspective Taking subscale of empathy. It was hypothesized that current HA attachment would be associated with the Perspective Taking dimension of empathy when HH attachment was controlled. This hypothesis was tested with a hierarchical regression (see Table 5) and was not supported. After step 1, age and sex significantly accounted for 4.5 % of the variability, R2 = .04, Fmc (1, 339) = 8.12, p< .001. Including the four HH attachment dimensions after step 2 did not add significantly to the prediction of Perspective Taking using the adjusted a , R2 = .07, Fmc (1, 339) = 2.69, p = .031. Adding HA attachment after step 3 did not significantly increase the total variability in Perspective Taking, R2 = .08, F\nc (1, 339) = 0.66, p = .417. R was significantly different from zero after the final step. After step 3, with all IVs in the equation, R2 - .08, F(7, 339) = 3.99, p < .001. The adjusted R2 value of .06 indicates that only six percent of the variability in the Perspective Taking subscale was accounted for by age and sex, current HH, and HA attachment bonds. This pattern of results suggests that the demographic variables age and sex account for four percent of the variability in the Perspective Taking subscale, but that neither the four HH attachment dimensions or HA attachment contribute to the prediction of Perspective Taking. 47 Empathic Concern subscale of empathy. It was hypothesized that current HA attachment would be associated with Empathic Concern when HH attachment was controlled. This hypothesis was tested with a hierarchical regression (see Table 5) and was not supported. After step 1, sex and age accounted for 3.7 % of the variability, R2 = .04, Finc (1, 339) = 6.605, p = .002. Including the HH dimensions in step 2 significantly added another 9.1 % ofvariability in Empathic Concern, R1 = .13, Fmc (1, 339) = 8.87,p< .001. Adding HA attachment after step 3 did not significantly increase the total variability in Empathic Concern R2 = .13, Fjnc (1, 339) = 1.68,/? = .195. R was significantly different from zero after the final step. After step 3, with all IVs in the equation, R1 = .13, F(7, 339) = 7.380, p < .001. The adjusted R2 value of.11 indicates that 11% of the variability in Empathic Concern was accounted for by sex, age, current HH, and current HA attachment bonds. This pattern of results suggests that HA attachment does not contribute to the variability of Empathic Concern, but the four HH attachment dimensions and the demographic variables age and sex combine for 13% of the total variability in the Empathic Concern subscale of empathy. Personal Distress subscale of empathy. It was hypothesized that current HA attachment would be associated with the Personal Distress dimension of empathy when HH attachment was controlled. This hypothesis was tested with a hierarchical regression (see Table 5) and was not supported. After step 1, age and sex significantly accounted for 5.6 % of the variability, R2 = .06, Fmc (1, 339) = 10.25, p < .001. Including the four HH attachment dimensions in step 2 significantly added another 9.6 % ofvariability in Personal Distress R2 =.15, Fine (1, 339) = 9.65, p < .001. Adding current HA attachment after step 3 did not significantly increase the total variability accounted for in Personal Distress i?2 = .15, Fjnc (1, 48 339) = 0.20, p = .653. R was significantly different from zero after the final step. After step 3, with all IVs in the equation, R2 = .15, F(7, 339) = 8.74,/? < .001. The adjusted R2 value of .14 suggests that about 14% of the variability in Personal Distress was accounted for by age, sex and current HH and HA attachment bonds. This pattern of results suggests that current HA attachment does not contribute to the variability of Personal Distress, but the demographic variables age and sex, and current HH attachment combined to account for 15% of the total variability in the Personal Distress subscale of empathy. Human-animal attachment and resilient coping. It was hypothesized that when current HH attachment is controlled, current HA attachment would be associated with resilient coping. This hypothesis was tested with a hierarchical regression (see Table 6) and was not supported. After the first step, the demographic variables did not significantly account for variance of resilient coping R2 = .01, F;nc (1, 340) = 2.20, p = .112. After step 2, the four HH attachment dimensions significantly accounted for 7% of the variability in resilient coping R1 = .08, Finc (1, 340) = 6.58, p < .001. Adding the mean CABS scores to include current HA attachment after step 3 did not significantly increase the total variability of resilient coping R2 = .09, Finc (1, 340) = 2.19,p = .140. R was significantly different from zero after the final step. After step 3, with all IVs in the equation, R2 = .09, F(7, 340) = 4.76, p < .001. The adjusted R2 value of .07 indicates that only about seven percent of the variability in resilient coping was accounted for by the demographic variables age and sex, and by current HH and HA attachment bonds. This pattern of results indicates that about eight percent of the variability in resilient coping among pet owners is predicted by current HH attachment. However, current HA attachment does not add to the prediction. 49 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Measuring the Association of Current Companion-Animal Attachment With Resilient Coping When Age, Sex, and Current Interpersonal Attachment Are Controlled Resilient Coping Predictor Step 1 (Demographics) AR2 p .01 Age .10 Sex .04 Step 2 (Attachment style) .07*** Secure .20* Fearful .11 Preoccupied -.20*** Dismissing -.02 .01 Step 3 .08 Pet attachment Total if2 .09*** Adjusted R2 .07*** n 348 * p < .05. ***p<.001. Human-animal moderation of human-human attachment on empathy. It was hypothesized that there would be an interaction effect of current HH attachment bonds and HA attachment on their association with Overall Empathy and with each of the empathy subscales. Although Pearson correlations of both HH and HA attachment with empathy were mostly nonsignificant Baron and Kenny (1986) as well as Bennett (2000) indicate that significant correlations are not necessary to test for moderating interactions. These interaction effects were tested with hierarchical regressions for each dependent variable. Possible covariate demographic variables age and sex were entered together in the first step, all of the centered interaction variables (Aiken & West, 1991) were entered in the second 50 step, and the interaction expressions were entered as variables in the third and final step (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Bennet, 2000; Frazier, Tix, & Baron, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For these analyses, Type-I error was controlled with a Bonferroni adjustment based on the five empathy DVs being tested simultaneously resulting in a/5 = .01. None of the hypotheses of an HH x HA interaction effect on any of the measured empathy dimensions were supported. For Overall Empathy, the interaction expression of HH attachment x HA attachment with Overall Empathy added in the final regression step and was not significant R2 = .06, Fine (4, 335) = 0.13, p = .970. Considering the Fantasy Scale of empathy the interaction was not significant adjustment, R2 = .15, Fmc (4, 335) = 2.02, p = .091. The HH x HA interaction expression was not significant with the Perspective Taking subscale of empathy R2 = .08, F\nc (4, 335) = 0.75, p = .556, with the Empathic Concern subscale of empathy R2 = .14, Fjnc (4, 335) = 0.46,p = .762, or for the Personal Distress subscale of empathy/?2 = .17, F{nc (5, 335) = 1.49 ,p = .206. These results suggest that the influence of a current HH bond on any of the empathy scales does change as a result of the strength of a relationship with a current pet. Human-animal moderation of human-human attachment on resilient coping. It was hypothesized that there would be an interaction effect of current HH attachment bonds and HA attachment on their association with resilient coping, such that the relationship of HH attachment with resilient coping would change as a result of the strength of a HA bond. This hypothesis was not supported. This interaction effect was tested with a hierarchical regression in which the demographic variables were entered in the first step, the four HH attachment dimensions and HA attachment were centered and entered in the second step (Aiken & West, 1991), and the interaction expressions of each HH attachment dimension x 51 HA attachment were entered in the third and final step (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Bennet, 2000; Frazier et al, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The interaction expression of HH attachment x HA attachment on resilient coping was not significant R2 = .09, Finc (4, 336) = 0.21,/? = .934. This result suggests that the influence of a current HH bond on resilient coping does not change as a result of the strength of a relationship with a current pet. Post-Hoc Analyses Since the sample was biased towards female respondents and dog-owners the hierarchical multiple regression analyses were run separately for each gender, and for each pet type. The results of these regressions were essentially the same as when the genders and pet types were combined and will not be reported further. 52 Chapter Five Discussion Summary of Hypotheses and Results The purpose of this research was to examine the associations of current humancompanion animal attachment with adult levels of empathy and resilient coping. In order to control for possible confounding interference of HH attachment, the first three hypotheses explored the relationship between current HH attachment and the other variables. The first hypothesis was that current HH attachment would be positively correlated with current HA attachment. This hypothesis was not supported. The second hypothesis was that current HH attachment would be positively correlated with empathy and was partially supported. The third hypothesis was that current HH attachment would be positively correlated with resilient coping and was partially supported. The final four hypotheses explored the relationships between current HA attachment and the outcome variables empathy and resilient coping, while controlling for the possible confounding effects of current HH attachment. The forth hypothesis was that current HA attachment would be positively associated with empathy when HH attachment was controlled. This Hypothesis was not supported. The fifth hypothesis, that current HA attachment would be positively associated with resilient coping when HH attachment was controlled was also not supported. The sixth and seventh hypotheses were that current HH attachment would moderate the relationship between current HA attachment and both empathy and resilient coping respectively. These hypotheses were not supported. The results of this study indicate that the relationship between the quality of attachment of companion animals and their owners' levels of empathy and resilient coping is 53 not important. Confidence in these null findings is supported by the statistical power conferred by the large sample, which is large enough to determine small effects where they actually exist. However, there are two weaknesses in the study's measurements that may somewhat reduce our confidence in the findings. First, large standard deviation values were found for each of the attachment styles measured by the RQ. These standard deviations range from just less than one half to more than two thirds of the corresponding means potentially large enough to interfere with the ability of the scale to produce significant effects. Second, the BRCS demonstrated poor internal consistency in this research. The BRCS consists of only four items and has shown good reliability in previous research. However, it is a newer scale that may not well measure the construct of resilient coping in this context. The next section will interpret the findings of this research in the context of previous research and expectations. Explanation, Interpretation, and Integration of Findings Human and companion animal attachment. It was expected that current HH attachment would be positively associated with current HA attachment, this hypothesis was not supported. However, specific predictions for individual attachment styles were not made, so these results should be considered exploratory. None of the four HH attachment styles correlated with HA attachment, suggesting that among adults, HH and HA attachment are not associated. The CABS measure of HA attachment was modified for this research, but still maintained the internal consistency of the original scale, and all values were within acceptable ranges. Although the RQ measure of HH attachment has been well validated in previous research, large standard deviation values were found for each of the attachment 54 styles in this research (approximately one half to more than two thirds of the means) compared to a small sample of other recent research (Albert & Horowitz, 2009; Lowyck, Luyten, Demyttenaere, & Corvelyn, 2008; Wigman, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2008). This may have interfered with the ability of the scale to produce significant effects. The recommended procedure for administering and scoring the RQ was followed. It is possible that the RQ or its use with these procedures in an internet based study contributed to the large standard deviation, although, Beck and Madresh (2008) also used the RQ online and obtained smaller standard deviations. Previous research reporting on the relationship between HH and HA attachment have been inconsistent. Beck and Madresh (2008) used the RQ to measure romantic attachment and a modified version of the RQ to measure pet owners' attachment to their pets. They found a similar pattern of correlations between the scales used to measure romantic and HA attachment and between the attachment prototypes, and also suggested that pets provide some owners with a sense of attachment security. However, they found only a weak relationship between romantic partner security and pet-ownership ratings within the preoccupied and dismissing attachment styles, and no relationship between romantic partner and pet-ownership ratings with the secure or fearful attachment styles. Endenburg (1995) applied HH attachment theory to understand the HA bond. She reported finding a weak relationship between pet-owning and attachment theory applied to a pet, but she suggested that different internal working models may be constructed for relationships with animals than with people. In other words, the HA bond may not rely on the same needs being met in the same way as with HH bonds. For instance, the comfort 55 provided by a cat's purring response to being stroked may differ from the comfort provided by an affirming touch or comment from a romantic partner. Although pets have been suggested as substitute human attachment figures for divorced adults and families with small social networks (Poresky & Daniels, 1998; Stammbach & Turner, 1999) the lack of significant results between HH and HA attachment in this research suggest that the substitution may not be as an attachment figure. Other theories such as biophilia, learning theory, and social support theory have been suggested to explain the mechanisms that allow pets to substitute for human attachment figures and to explain the links between HAIs and empathy and resilience. It may also be possible that different internal working models differentiate HH and HA attachment findings. Human attachment and empathy. The hypothesized relationship between HH attachment and empathy were partially supported across attachment styles and the measured dimensions of empathy. However, no specific predictions were made regarding individual attachment styles or among the dimensions of empathy, therefore these results should be considered exploratory. No clear patterns of relationship between styles and dimensions were indicated. The Secure Attachment style shares a small but significant positive correlation with Empathic Concern, and a small, negative correlation with Personal Distress, but was not associated with Overall Empathy, the Fantasy Scale, or Perspective Taking. The Fearful Attachment style shared small positive correlations with the Fantasy Scale and Personal Distress, and a small negative correlation with Empathic Concern. Preoccupied Attachment shared a small positive correlation with the Fantasy Scale and a moderate positive correlation with Personal Distress, along with a small negative correlation with Empathic Concern. The Dismissing Attachment style shared small, negative associations with Overall Empathy and Personal Distress, and a moderate negative association with Empathic Concern. Although these results are significant, most effect sizes were small. The inconsistent and weak correlations suggest that the relationship between HH attachment and Empathy in this research is ambiguous. It is commonly suggested that a secure attachment style is associated with higher levels of empathy (Bretherton et al., 1990; Mikulincer et al., 2005). The inconsistent relationship between HH attachment and empathy in the current research is inconsistent with previous research. The IRI is a reliable, well validated measure of empathic dimensions and maintained internal consistency in the current research. However, along with the issue of large standard deviations found among the RQ attachment styles with this sample is coupled the possibility that respondents rate themselves similarly high on more than one attachment style. Considering these problems it is reasonable to suggest that stronger correlations may actually exist where moderate and weak correlations were found, and that small and moderate correlations may actually exist where none were found in this research. Therefore, these results may not accurately represent the current pet-owning sample let alone the population at large. Human attachment and resilient coping. The hypothesized relationships between HH attachment and resilient coping were partially supported. The Secure Attachment style had a small, but significant and positive correlation with resilient coping, and Preoccupied Attachment had a small negative correlation with the resilient coping measure. These results suggest that those in healthier, more securely attached relationships are better equipped to cope with stressful situations than those scoring lower in attachment security or higher in other attachment styles. Additionally, those who are more likely to consider themselves 57 unworthy of love are less likely to cope well in stressful situations than those scoring lower in Preoccupied Attachment or higher in other attachment styles. These results are evident despite the large RQ standard deviations and the poor internal consistency of the BRCS in this research. These challenges may support the conclusions generated by the significant results and suggest that with better measures the relationships of Secure and Preoccupied Attachment with resilient coping could have been stronger. However, specific predictions for individual attachment styles were not made, so these results should be considered exploratory. The low effect sizes with Fearful and Dismissing Attachment styles and high likelihood that those low effects would occur by chance suggest that there may not be an association between those attachment styles and resilient coping. The BRCS is a relatively new measurement of resilience that was selected for use in this research because of its brevity while maintaining consistency. No other research was found using the BRCS in online surveys. While a longer, better validated resilience scale may have resulted in more incomplete responses it may also have resulted in a clearer pattern of results. It will add to our understanding of resilience that among the insecure attachment styles only Preoccupied Attachment is associated with poorer resilient coping. It is also worth noting that the Dismissing and Fearful Attachment styles, which are characterized by the tendency to distrust and avoid intimacy with others were not associated with this measure of resilience. The small but positive correlation between Secure Attachment and resilient coping supports previous research that healthy HH attachment is associated with greater resilience (Mikulencer & Florian, 1998). The instrumentation and methodological problems may have 58 limited the size of the reported effects, but add to the body of evidence suggesting that higher levels of Secure Attachment are associated with greater resilience. Animal attachment and empathy. It was anticipated that when age, sex, and current HH attachment were controlled there would be a correlation found between current HA attachment and empathy. These relationships were tested with hierarchical regressions using a conservative significance level to protect against Type-I errors and none of the dimensions of empathy were correlated with current HA attachment. However, previous research did not support specific predictions for each subscale of empathy, so these results should be considered exploratory. Moreover, the effect sizes were small. The largest contribution added only 1.5% of unique variability to the prediction that current HA attachment would be correlated with the Fantasy Scale of empathy. Both the CABS and IRI maintained good internal consistency in this survey and their psychometrics are well documented from previous research. No other unmeasured confounding variables have been suggested from the literature suggesting that current HA attachment is not a significant predictor of empathy and that other mechanisms may account for the associations between HAIs and empathy. The non-significant results of this hypothesis differ from what is generally found in the literature. The general assumption was that HH and HA attachment were similar, and since a greater secure HH attachment is associated with more empathy a stronger HA attachment bond would also be associated with more empathy. Previous research has associated empathy with HAIs. Fifth-grade children who have completed a human education program had higher empathy than a control group (Ascione, 1992), and adults who owned pets as children have been found to have more empathy than those who did not have 59 childhood pets (Vizek-Vidovic, et al., 2001). Pet attachment was related to empathy among eight to fourteen year old children (Daly & Morton, 2006), and children with a stronger petattachment bond displayed more empathy than those with a weak pet-attachment bond (Vizek-Vidovic et al., 1999). Also among adults, higher levels of empathy have been reported among inmate in HAI programs than fellow inmates not in programs (Furst, 2006, and the Personal Distress subscale of empathy has been associated with adults currently owning a dog (Daly & Morton, 2009). The lack of a significant association between HA attachment and empathy in this research support the findings of the first hypothesis that HH and HA attachments are not correlated. This also suggests that attachment with animals in adulthood may not be the mechanism that has stimulated higher empathy among therapy patients, intervention clients, or participants of previous research. Animal attachment and resilient coping. It was expected that when age, sex, and current HH attachment were controlled that current HA attachment would be associated with resilient coping. With the current instruments and methodology, this hypothesis was not supported, and current HA attachment accounted for less than one percent of unique variability in resilient coping. The BRCS was used to measure resilient coping as a representation of resilience. Despite the advantage of brevity, the BRCS did not satisfactorily measure resilient coping as internal consistency in this research was low. However, the sample size was adequate and the known possible confounding variables in this research were controlled suggesting that HA attachment may not be correlated with resilient coping and therefore other underlying mechanisms should be considered to explain the 60 evident connection between HAIs and resilience. Still, this research should be considered preliminary given the poor reliability of the BRCS in this context. The relationship between HA attachment and resilience has not been examined before, but the possibility of a relationship between the two constructs has been implied from other findings. Similar to the implied relationship between HA attachment and empathy, it follows that if HH and HA attachments are similar, and since a higher secure HH attachment is associated with improved resilience that HA attachment should also be positively correlated with resilience. Among the literature that have supported a connection between HA attachment and resilience is the three-factor model of Prince-Embury and Courville (2008) who included a sense of relatedness as one of the three factors of their model. Sense of relatedness is thought to be partly based on security-based trust (Erikson, 1963) and active support from others (Werner & Smith, 2001); both considered components of secure attachment. Masten and Obradovic (2008) also suggested that pets can play the role of attachment figures for children facing adversity. At the opposite end of the life-span, higher morale, which has been associated with resilience, has also been found among those older adults attached to a companion animal (Garrity et al., 1989). A number of studies have also associated companion animals with successful outcomes from health adversity, including better oneyear survival rates for pet-owning coronary patients than those without pets (Friedmann et al., 1980), reduced stress among a variety of HAI populations (Virues-Ortega & Buela-Casal, 2006), and better psychological health among cat owning adults and disabled adults with service dogs compared to non-pet owners and those without service dogs (Allen & Blascovich, 1996; Straede & Gates, 1993). 61 Despite the implication of a connection between HA attachment and resilience of previous research, the results of this research suggest that a mechanism other than HA attachment is the catalyst for resilience benefits associated with companion animals. However, conclusions should remain preliminary until these results are collaborated and another mechanism has been identified. Moderating interaction of animal and human attachment on empathy and resilient coping. The final two hypotheses will be discussed together. They examined the possibility that current HH and HA attachments would interact in their relationships with empathy and resilient coping. Neither of these hypotheses was supported for any of the HH attachment styles or outcome dimensions. Both of these hypotheses were based on the expectation that earlier hypotheses would be supported. However, predictor, moderator, and criterion variables need not be correlated in order to detect significant interactions (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Bennett, 2000). Taken at face value, these results suggest that HH attachment does not interact with HA attachment as they relate to empathy and resilient coping. It has been recommended that theory should guide the planning of moderator analyses (Frazier et al., 2004). These hypotheses were based on the theories that both HH and HA attachment would be associated with the outcome variables. An enhancing type of interaction was expected in which both the predictor and moderator variables affect the outcome variables in the same direction, having an additive effect (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Although not necessary (Baron & Kenny, 1986), it has also been suggested that the ability to detect moderator effects is best when there is a substantial relationship between the predictor and outcome variables (Chaplin, 1991). Since only weak and partial 62 correlations were found regarding the relationship between HH attachment and the two outcome variables the likelihood of detecting legitimate interactions was diminished. Compounding the problem of a weak and partial correlation between HH attachment and the outcome variables is the problem of measurement error. Aiken and West (1991) recognized that measurement error occurring in either of the interaction variables will substantially reduce the ability of the equation to recognize interactions when they occur. The large standard deviations among the RQ scores could therefore further reduce the likelihood of significant interactions to be found in this research. These problems lead to the conclusion that the non-significant results of the interaction hypotheses are preliminary. The possibility of true moderating relationships existing among these variables cannot be ruled out and these results cannot be generalized beyond this research context. Additional findings. In this research HA attachment was evaluated using the CABS which originally consisted of eight items measuring behaviours and events associated with interacting with a companion animal, and focusing on the quality of the relationship bond. However, the Secure HH attachment component of felt security was not assessed by the original items so two items were added in this research to capture perceived emotional and physical security. Reliability analysis and PCA were conducted to verify the suitability of the CABS with the additional items. The original CABS scale displayed good reliability as assessed by Chronbach's alpha and good construct validity has been reported by the scale authors and others (Black, 2009; Poresky et al., 1987). Factor analysis of the original scale found three factors which the authors identified as (a) bonding or involvement, (b) related to animal size, and (c) pet's responsiveness and autonomy. 63 Internal reliability was re-examined with the new items and maintained the same consistency as the original CABS scale. The analysis indicated that the scale would not improve with the removal of any of the 10 items. A PCA found all of the items loading well on the first unrotated factor representing the overall scale. However, items 4 and 8 which ask how often the pet sleeps in your room and how often you sleep near your pet were highly correlated. When the factor structure was rotated to ease interpretation those two items were the only significant items in the first factor. PCAs were re-run after removing items 4 and 8 respectively and the best result was found with item 4 retained in and 8 removed. Variability accounted for with item 8 removed was less than with all ten items, but was similar to that of the original scale. Additionally, three well defined factors emerged which seem to represent (a) an owner/caretaker relationship that may overlap with the reliability aspect of secure HH attachment, (b) emotional companionship that may be similar to the availability component of secure HH attachment, and (c) security and proximity which may be similar to trustworthiness of secure HH attachment. These findings support the use of the CABS with the additional items, but do not necessarily assume that the resulting scores of HA attachment represent the same mechanism as secure HH attachment, especially considering the non-significant relationship between HH and HA attachment. It is possible that HA attachment is based on a different internal working model than HA attachment, and the CABS may assess the HA relationship based on the human attachment model. 64 Implications of Findings Theoretical implications. It is worth repeating that most theorists believe there is no current theoretical mechanism capable of accounting for all of the research results associated with HAIs or their attachment bonds (Herzog & Burghardt, 1987; Kidd & Kidd, 1987; Serpell, 2009). Of the currently prevailing theories being used to investigate HAI benefits most support the hypotheses of this research, but not the findings. Aspects of social support theory (Cobb, 1976; Cohen & Willis, 1985; McNicholas & Collis, 2006) have been applied to HAIs. Esteem support in the HAI context suggests that companion animals are capable of providing owners with basic components of resilience such as unconditional affirmations of self-worth, valued acceptance, and confidence (Bryant & Donnellan, 2007; Furst, 2006). Applied to the benefits associated with HAIs, esteem support would predict that pet owners would be more resilient than non-pet owners. Similarly, greater resilience could be predicted among recipients of the instrumental support provided by service dogs or those who benefit from the ability of pets to facilitate interpersonal social interaction (Allen & Blascovich, 1996). Emotional social support has received much attention among HAI researchers with the assumption that companion animals can provide their owners with unconditional love, acceptance, care, and belongingness. Numerous health and mental health benefits have been associated with greater emotional support from pets (Fine, 2002; Kaminski et al., 2002; Siegel, 1990; Tower & Nokota, 2006). These benefits are associated with both greater empathy and resilience suggesting that emotional social support would predict that HAIs are associated with empathy and resilience. 65 The social ecological model of Bronfenbrenner (1977) may offer support for the current findings. The ecological model places the individual within a broadening range of nested social environments. Thus the specific ecological context of HAIs could form unique patterns of expectations from relationships such as internal working models of attachment. The ecological model's framework has been used to find significant associations between child pet ownership and empathy, prosocial orientation, and pet attachment (Vizek-Vidokic et al., 1999) and between low SES pet owning boys and behaviour at school (Bryant & Donnellan, 2007). Applied to the current research hypotheses, the ecological model would predict internal working models associated with HA attachment that would not necessarily correlate with HH attachment, and that could be based on relationship characteristics that are independent of HH relationships. Therefore, it may be possible that a HA attachment is associated with empathy and resilience but supported by an internal working model that is independent of HH attachment. Since CABS is tailored to the HH attachment model it may not find significant results. The current findings suggest that HH and HA attachment are different constructs and that HA attachment following the HH model is not associated with reports of increased empathy and resilience from HAIs. Research implications. The CABS has been used to measure the quality of humancompanion animal relationships by focusing on the behaviours and events associated with pet owning. The addition of perceived emotional and physical security components of secure attachment may improve the ability of the scale to detect a broader range of relationship and attachment effects. Furthermore, CABS may also detect more fine-grained differences with the removal of the redundant sleep proximity item. Although the RQ is a simple and easily administered measure of attachment that is widely used in a variety of settings, the question of participants' ability to accurately selfreport their attachment style remains. This was demonstrated by the large standard deviations among the four attachment styles. Despite the anonymity provided by the online setting it is likely that social desirability bias played a role in responses to the RQ items. In this research context, the BRCS suffered from poor reliability. The decision to use the BRCS was based on the expectation that the scale's brevity would encourage participants to complete the survey. The potential disadvantage of the BRCS was that it is a newer scale that had not been widely used and validated with various procedures. The ability of the BRCS to detect effects in this context was compromised. Future research should continue to pursue stronger designs, including online research, and better, more suitable measures for more conclusive results. Applied implications. Despite mostly non-significant results there are important implications from this research. These findings confirm that Secure HH attachment is associated with resilient coping. Moreover, Preoccupied HH attachment is the only insecure attachment style identified with the likelihood of poorer resilient coping. The main purpose of this study was to test if an HA attachment bond similar to secure HH attachment was the mechanism supporting empathy and resilience benefits associated with HAIs. The results of this research suggest that HA attachment is not an important factor. This may be considered good news. HAI programs are increasing in number and settings. Hospitals, rehabilitation centres, nursing and retirement homes, mental health institutions, and substance abuse recovery centres that use HAI programs may not need to rely on an attachment bond for their patients and clients to benefit from interacting with animals. Therapists and practitioners of animal-assisted therapy may be able to adjust their treatment schedules to take advantage of therapeutic benefits without taking time for clients to become attached to the animals. Empathy development programs in prisons and young offender centres too may not need to emphasize the attachment bond for benefits to occur. For common household pet owners the implications of these results are less clear. A mutual bond will still enhance the pet owning experience. Among those facing adversity and stress, a pet may enhance their ability to cope and successfully manage their challenges. The sheer, cathartic joy of playing with a puppy, watching a kitten chase its tail, listening to parakeet chatter, or relaxing into the underwater view of an aquarium is benefit enough. Limitations Design and internal validity. Several potential limitations of this research warrant mention including some that could explain alternative explanations for the results. Few demographic variables were included in this research. It may have been useful to differentiate between indoor and outdoor animals. In one study owners of indoor dogs were more attached to their pet than owners of outdoor dogs (Shore et al., 2006). The demographic variables age, gender, and pet type were assessed as potential covariates and were significantly correlated with some variables, but regressions were run separately for gender and pet type (dog and cat) and the pattern of results did not change. There is a possibility that HA attachment is based on a different internal working model than HH attachment. If so, the assumption that the CABS represents the HA equivalent of HH attachment and that it should correlate with HH attachment is wrong. The literature supported the assumption of equivalent mechanisms. Still, it would be useful to 68 assess the typical components of strong HA attachment bonds to rule out the possibility that HA attachment functions from a unique internal working model. Measurement. The scales used in this research have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in previous research. However, in this context the BRCS presented poor internal reliability capable of obscuring effects. The RQ presented large standard deviations of almost one half to over two thirds of the means among attachment styles. This could limit the power of the RQ to detect significant correlations with HH attachment styles, especially where small effect sizes occur. The RQ may have suffered more than the other measures from method biases. Despite the anonymity and confidentiality afforded by this online survey, the self-report RQ items were vulnerable to social desirability. The entire online methodology also allows participants to respond according to their beliefs about the covariation between variables they assume to be measured. Another potential source of method bias is that each participant responded to all variables in the same context increasing the likelihood that previous items and contextual cues could influence responses (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). External validity. The results of this study are mixed. The non-significant findings associated with HH attachment and resilient coping should be considered preliminary due to the large standard deviations and poor reliability respectively. Additionally, the RQ may not capture every aspect of HH attachment as it does not assess the physical touch component of romantic attachment. The large sample size supports the findings of all hypotheses. However, this sample may not accurately represent the entire population of pet owners as it is comprised mostly of social networking, dog-owning women. The possibility of gender 69 differences in the benefits associated with HAIs cannot be ruled out from the results of this study. Analyses and statistics. The use of Type-I error protection is necessary to control against the possibility of falsely detecting and reporting significant results among multiple outcome variables when none actually exist. A Bonferroni correction was used in this research reducing the number of significant results; where multiple dependent variables were tested simultaneously. The Bonferroni correction is considered by some to be an overly conservative approach to controlling the overall a-level, but is also the preferred method of limiting results to only the predictors that actually, significantly affect the outcome (Mundfrom et al., 2006). Future Directions The results and limitations of this research suggest improvements and changes for future research for understanding the mechanisms underlying the associations of empathy and resilience with HAIs. The current hypotheses should be reassessed with a stronger design such as online survey pages designed to limit order effects and social desirability. Better measures of HH attachment and a more reliable scale of resilience should be used with a more representative sample. Additional research should consider the effects of specific attachment styles and empathy dimensions in the predictions. The nature of the HA attachment internal working model should be assessed. If the components of HA attachment are different from the components of secure HH attachment a new HA attachment scale should be designed to represent the internal working model unique to HA attachment. Empathy and resilience should also be assessed from a HAI social support model. 70 Conclusion This study was designed to assess if human-companion animal attachment is the mechanism underlying empathy and resilience benefits associated with human animal interactions. Additionally, this study examined the relationships between interpersonal human attachment as defined by the attachment theory and human-companion animal attachment. Several studies and theorists have suggested that human-companion animal attachment fits the model of human attachment theory, and thus a strong companion animal bond would be associated with benefits similar to those of a secure human attachment, such as empathy and resilience. The findings of this research do not support the main hypotheses. The human attachment theory model does not appear to represent the attachment bond between pet owners and their pets. The human-companion animal attachment bond measured following the human attachment model is not associated with empathy or resilient coping. These findings carry important applied implications suggesting that therapists and programs that utilize human-animal interactions to enhance empathy development and protect patients and clients from adversity may not need to depend on a strong bond between the individual and the animal for benefits to occur. 71 References Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1970). Observational set, empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 141-148. doi:10.1037/h0028770 Allderidge, P. H. (1991). A cat, surpassing in beauty, and other therapeutic animals. Psychiatric Bulletin, 15, 759-762. Retrieved from http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/15/12/759.pdf Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Albert, S. L., & Horowitz, L. M. (2009). Attachment styles and ethical behaviour: Their relationship and significance in the marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 299316. doi:10.1007/sl 0551-008-9918-6 Allen, K., & Blascovich, J. (1996). The value of service dogs for people with severe ambulatory disabilities: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 1001-1006. Retrieved from http://jama.amaassn.org/cgi/reprint/275/13/1001 Anderson, D. C. (2006). Measuring the bond: Instruments used to assess the impact of animal-assisted therapy. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 391-411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Anderson, K. (1997). A walk on the wild side: A critical geography of domestication. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 463-485. doi:10.1191/030913297673999021 Ascione, F. R. (1992). Enhancing children's attitudes about the humane treatment of animals: Generalization to human-directed empathy. Anthrozoos, 5, 176-191. doi:10.2752/089279392787011421 Ascione, F. R. (2004). Children and animals: Exploring the roots of kindness and cruelty. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Bagley, D. K., & Gonsman, V. L. (2005). Pet attachment and personality type. Anthrozoos, 18, 28-42. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:apa.org/journals/rev/84/2/191.pdf Barnett, M. A., Howard, J. A., King, L. M., & Dino, G. A. (1981). Helping behavior and the transfer of empathy. Journal of Social Psychology, 115(1), 125-132. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9711995 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal 72 of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:apa.org/psycinfo/198713085-001 Barrett-Lenard, G. T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(2), 91-100. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.28.2.91 Bartholomew, K. (n.d.). Self report measures of adult attachment. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from Simon Fraser University, Psychology Faculty Web site: http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/ faculty/bartholomew/research/attachment/selfreports.htm Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226244. Beck, L., & Madresh, E. A. (2008). Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoos, 21(1), 43-56. doi:10.2752/089279308X274056 Belcourt-Dittloff, A. E. (2007). Resiliency and risk in Native American communities: A culturally informed investigation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/etd-03282007164121/unrestricted/belcourt06.pdf Bennet, J. A. (2000). Mediator and moderator variables in nursing research: Conceptual and statistical differences. Research in Nursing Health, 23(5), 415-420. doi:10.1002/1098-240X(200010)23:5<415::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-H Bierer, R. E. (2001). The relationship between pet bonding, self-esteem, and empathy in preadolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, (5/(11), 6183. Black, K. (2009). Exploring adolescent loneliness and companion animal attachment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://repository.urun.edu Bowen, M. (1985). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, Research, and intervention (pp. 273-308). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Brown, S. E. (2004). The human-animal bond and self psychology: Toward a new understanding. Society and Animals, 12(1), 67-86. doi:10.1163/156853004323029540 73 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist,32(7), 513-531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 Bryant, B. K. (1990). The richness of the child-pet relationship: a consideration of both benefits and costs of pets to children. Anthrozoos, 3(4), 253-261. doi:10.2752/089279390787057469 Bryant, B. K., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). The relation between socio-economic status concerns and angry peer conflict resolution is moderated by pet provisions of support. Anthrozoos, 20(3), 213-223. doi:10.2752/089279307X224764 Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child's ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford Press. Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation in moderation research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 143-178. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.1991.tb00772.x Chlopan, B. E., McCain, M. L., Carbonell, J. L., & Hagen, R. L. (1985). Empathy: Review of available measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 635-653. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.3.635 Christian, E. (2005). All creatures great and small: Utilizing equine-assisted therapy to treat eating disorders. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24(1), 65-67. Retrieved from http://caps.net/membership/publications/jpc Clark, K. B. (1980). Empathy: A neglected topic in psychological research. American Psychologist, 35(2), 187-190. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.187 Clutton-Brock, J. (1995). Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In J. Serpell (Ed.). The domestic dog: its evolution, behavior, and interactions with people (pp. 720). New York, Cambridge University Press. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300-314. Retrieved from http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/ Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books Cohen, S., & Willis, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 Coke, J., Batson, C., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 752-766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.752 74 Correctional Services of Canada. (1998). Literature review: Pet facilitated therapy in correctional institutions. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/pet/pft_e.rtf Crawford, E. K., Worsham, N. L., Swinehart, E. R. (2006). Benefits derived from companion animals, and the use of the term 'attachment.' Anthrozoos, 19(2), 98-112. doi:10.2752/089279306785593757 Cumella, E. J. (2003). Is equine therapy useful in the treatment of eating disorders. Eating Disorders, 11(2), 143-147. doi:10.1008/10640260390199325 Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2006). An investigation of human-animal interactions and empathy as related to pet preference, ownership, attachment, and attitudes in children. Anthrozoos, 19(2), 113-127. doi:10.2752/089279306785593801 Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2009). Empathic differences in adults as a function of childhood and adult pet ownership and pet type. Anthrozoos, 22(A), 371-382. doi:10.2752/089279309X12538695316383 Davidson, R. J. (2000). Affective style, psychopathology and resilience: Brain mechanisms and plasticity. American Psychologist, 55(11), 196-1214. doi:10.1037/0003066X.55.11.1196 Davis, M. A. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/~friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Arousal, affect, and attention as components of temperament. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 958-966. doi.apa.org/journals/psp/55/6/958.pdf Dymond, R. F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13(2), 127-133. doi: 10.1037/h0061728 Edwards, N. E., & Beck, A. M. (2002). Animal-assisted therapy and nutrition in Alzheimer's disease. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 24(6), 697-712. doi:10.1177/019394502320555430 Egeland, B. R., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 517-528. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006131 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. InN. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (6th ed., pp. 646-718). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 75 Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Mussen, P. (1978). Empathy and moral development in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 14(2), 185-186. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.14.2.185 Endenburg, Nienke (1995). The attachment of people to companion animals. Anthrozoos, 8(2), 83-89. doi:10.2752/089279395787156446 Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Eslinger, P. J. (1998). Neurological and neuropsychological bases of empathy. European Neurology, 39(4), 193-199. doi:10.1159/000007933 Ewing, C. A., MacDonald, P. M., Taylor, M., & Bowers, M. J. (2007). Equine-facilitated learning for youths with severe emotional disorders: A quantitative and qualitative study. Child Youth Care Forum, 36(1), 59-72. doi:10.1007/sl 0566-006-9031-x Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43(3), 1247-1255. Feeney, J. A. (2008). Adult romantic attachment: Developments in the study of couple relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 456-481). New York: Guilford Press. Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fine, A. H. (2002). Animal-assisted therapy. In M. Hersen & W. Sledge (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy, (pp. 49-55). New York: Elsevier Science. Fine, A. H. (2006). Incorporating animal-assisted therapy into psychotherapy: Guidelines and suggestions for therapists. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 167-206). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Fournier, A. K., Geller, E. S., & Fortney, E. V. (2007). Human-animal interaction in a prison setting: Impact on criminal behaviour, treatment progress, and social skills. Behavior and Social Issues, 16( 1), 89-105. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/bsi/index Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 115-134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115 Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Lynch, J. J., & Thomas, S. A. (1980). Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95(A), 307-312. Retrieved from http://www.publichealthreports.org/ Furst, G. (2006). Prison-based animal programs: A national survey. Prison Journal, 86(A), 407-430. doi:10.1177/0032885506293242 76 Garaigordobil, M. (2004). Effects of a psychological intervention on factors of emotional development during adolescence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 66-80. doi:l0.1027/1015-5759.20.1.66 Garrity, T. F., Stallones, L., Marx, M. B., & Johnson, T. P. (1989). Pet ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly. Anthrozoos, 3(1), 35-44. doi:10.2752/089279390787057829 Gonski, Y. (1985). The therapeutic utilization of canines in a child welfare setting. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 2(2), 93-105. doi:10.1007/BF00757475 Granger, B. P., & Kogan, L. R. (2006). Animal-assisted therapy/activity in specialized settings. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 263-285). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Grier, K. C. (1999). Childhood socialization and companion animals: United States, 18201870. Society and Animals 7(2), 95-120. doi: 10.1163/156853099X00022 Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430-445. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/index.aspx Hansen, K. M., Messinger, C. J., Baun, M. M., & Megel, M. (1999). Companion animals alleviating distress in children. Anthrozoos, 72(3), 142-148. doi:10.2752/089279399787000264 Hashimoto, H., & Shiomi, K. (2002). The structure of empathy in Japanese adolescents: Construction and examination of an empathy scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(6), 593-602. Retrieved from http://www.sbp-journal.com/ Heimlich, K. (2001). Animal-assisted therapy and the severely disabled child: A quantitative study. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(4), 48-54. Retrieved from http://www.nationalrehab.org/cwt/external/wcpages/index.aspx Herzog, H. H., & Burghardt, G. M. (1987). Are we ready for a theory of human-animal relations? Anthrozoos, 1(3), 145-146. Retrieved from http://www.isaz.net/anthrozoos.html Hesselmar, B„ Aberg, N., Aberg, B., Eriksson, B., & Bjorksten, B. (1999). Does early exposure to cat or dog protect against later allergy development. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 29(5), 611-617. doi:10.1046/j.l365-2222.1999.00534.x Hills, A. M., & Cowan, E. (1993). The motivational bases of attitudes towards animals. Society and Animals, 1(2), 111-128. doi:10.1163/156853093X00028 77 Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation. Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 607-622. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.11.5.607 Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior (pp. 103-131). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral character: A psychological perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 79(A), 217-232. doi:10.1037/h0033956 House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241(4865), 540-545. doi:10.1126/science.3399889 Howard, S., Dryden, J., & Johnson, B. (1999). Childhood resilience: Review and critique of literature. Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 307-323. doi:10.1080/030549899104008 Hurtes, K. P., & Allen, L. R. (2001). Measuring resiliency in youth: The resiliency attitudes and skills profile. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 35(4), 333-347. Retrieved from http://www.sagamorepub.com/t/periodicals-slash-journals/therapeutic-recreationjournal Iannone, V. N. (2003). Evaluation of a vocational and therapeutic riding program for severely emotionally disturbed adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Science and Engineering, 64(3-B), 1493. Kaminski, M., Pellino, T., & Wish, J. (2002). Play and pets: The physical and emotional impact of child-life and pet therapy on hospitalized children. Children's Health Care, 31(4), 321-335. doi:10.1207/S15326888CHC3104_5 Kaplan, B. H., Cassel, J. C., & Gore, S. (1977). Social support and health. Medical Care, 15(5, Supplement), 47-58. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/lwwmedicalcare/pages/default.aspx Karavalis, L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 153-164. doi:10.1080/0165025024400015 Kawamara, N., Niiyama, M, & Niiyama, H. (2007). Long-term evaluation of animal-assisted therapy for institutionalized elderly people: A preliminary result. Psychogeriatrics, 7(1), 8-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-8301.2006.00156.x Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1987). Seeking a theory of the human/companion animal bond. Anthrozoos, 1(3), 140-157. doi:10.2752/089279388787058489 Kruger, K. A., & Serpell, J. A. (2006). Animal-assisted interventions in mental health: Definitions and theoretical foundations. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal- 78 assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 21-38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kruger, K. A., Trachtenberg, S. W., & Serpell, J. A. (2004). Can animals help humans heal? Animal-assisted interventions in adolescent mental health. The Latham Letter, 25(4), 6-8. Retrieved from http://www.latham.org/letter.asp Lawrence, E. A. (1993). The symbolic role of animals in the plains Indian sun dance. Society and Animals, 7(1), 17-37. doi:l 0.1163/156853093X00127 Letourneau, C. (1981). Empathy and stress: How they affect parental aggression. Social Work, 26(5), 383-389. Locke, J. (1989). Some thoughts concerning education: Edited with introduction, notes, and critical apparatus by John W. and Jean S. Yolton. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1693) Lockwood, R. (1983). The influence of animals on social perception. In A. H. Katcher & A. M. Beck (Eds.), New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals (pp. 6471). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lowyck, B., Luyten, P., Demyttenaere, K., & Corvelyn, J. (2008). The role of romantic attachment and self-criticism and dependency for the relationship satisfaction of community adults. Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 78-95. doi:10. Ill 1/j.14676427.2008.00417.x Luthar, S. S. & Brown, P. J. (2007). Maximizing resilience through diverse levels of inquiry: Prevailing paradigms, possibilities, and priorities for the future. Development and Psychopathology, 19(3), 931-955. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000454 Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 7/(3), 543-562. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164 Lutwack-Bloom, P., Wijewickrama, R., & Smith, B. (2005). Effects of pets versus people visits with nursing home residents. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 44(3/4), 137-159. doi:10.1300/J083v44n03_09 Macauley, B. L., & Gutierrez, K. M. (2004). The effectiveness of hippotherapy for children with language-learning disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(A), 205217. doi:10.1177/15257401040250040501 Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 50(1-2), 66-104. doi:10.2307/3333827 Mannion, A. M. (1999). Domestication and the origins of agriculture: an appraisal. Progress in Physical Geography, 23(1), 37-56. doi:10.1177/030913339902300102 79 Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227 Masten, A. S. (2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19(3), 921-930. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000442 Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999). Competence in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143-169. doi:10.1017/S0954579499001996 Masten, A. S., & Obradovic, J. (2008). Disaster and recovery: Lessons from research on resilience in human development. Ecology and Society, 73(1). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1-25). New York: Cambridge University Press. McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2006). Animals as social supports. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 49-71). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Meadows, R. L. (2003). Commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 100-102. doi:10.1177/0002764203255216 Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525-543. doi:10.1111/j.l467-6494.1972.tb00078.x Melson, G. F. (2002). Psychology and the study of human-animal relationships [Electronic version]. Society and Animals, 10(4), 347-352. doi:10.1163/156853002320936791 Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.) Attachment theory and close relationships (143-165). New York: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 817-839. doi:10.1037/00223514.89.5.817 Montague, J. (1995). Back to the garden. Hospitals & Health Networks, 69(\1), 58- 60. Mundfrom, D. J., Perrett, J. J., Schaffer, J., Piccone, A., & Roozeboom, M. (2006). Bonferroni adjustments in tests for regression coefficients. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 32(1), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.mlrv.ua.edu/ 80 Nezlek, J. B., Feist, G. J., Wilson, F. C., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day-to-day variability in empathy as a function of daily events and mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 401-423. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2332 Nightingale, F. (2008). Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not. Charlston, SC: BiblioLife. (Original work published 1860) Paxton, D. W. (2000). A case for a naturalistic perspective. Anthrozoos, 13(\), 5-8. doi:10.2752/089279300786999996 Pecukonis, E. V. (1990). A cognitive/affective empathy training program as a function of ego development in aggressive adolescent females. Adolescence, 25(97), 59-76. Pickett, L. A. (2007). Trait versus state empathy: Evaluating the stability of empathy and the relationship between negative affect and empathy in an incarcerated sex offender population. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(3), 1171. Podsakoffj P. ML, MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. -Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Poresky, R. H., & Daniels, A. M. (1998). Demographics of pet presence and attachment. Anthrozoos, 7/(4), 236-241. doi: 10.2752/089279398787000508 Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Mosier, J. E., & Samuelson, M. L. (1987). The Companion Animal Bonding Scale: Internal reliability and construct validity. Psychological Reports, 60(3), 743-746. Prince-Embury, S., & Courville, T. (2008). Comparison of one-, two-, and three-factor models of personal resiliency using the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 11-25. doi:10.1177/0829573508316589 Pulos, S., Elison, J., & Lennon, R. 2004). The hierarchical structure of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(4), 355-360. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.355 Raupp, C. D. (1999). Treasuring, trashing or terrorizing: Adult outcomes of childhood socialization with animals. Society and Animals, 7(2), 141-159. doi:10.1163/156853099X00040 Rim, Y. (1974). Correlates of emotional empathy. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 11(2), 197-202. Roe, K. V. (1980). Early empathy development in children and the subsequent internalization of moral values. Journal of Social Psychology, 110(1), 147-148. 81 Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103. doi:10.1037/h0045357 Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rol£ A.S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181-214). New York: Cambridge. Sablin, M. V., & Khlopachev, G. A. (2002). The earliest ice age dogs: Evidence from Eliseevichi I. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 795-799. doi:10.1086/344372 Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The optimistic child. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Serpell, J. A. (2006). Animal-assisted interventions in historical perspective. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 3-20). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Serpell, J. A. (2009). Having our dogs and eating them too: Why animals are a social issue. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 633-644. doi:10.1111/j.l540-4560.2009.01617.x Shannon, K. E., Beauchaine, T. P., Brenner, S. L., Neuhaus, B. E., & Gatzke-Kopp, L. (2007). Familial and temperamental predictors of resilience in children at risk for conduct disorder and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 19(3), 701-727. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000351 Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2009). An overview of adult attachment theory. In J. H. Obegi & E. Berant (Eds.), Attachment theory and research in clinical work with adults (pp. 17-45). New York: Guilford Press. Shore, E. R., Riley, M. L., & Douglas, D. K. (2006). Pet owner behaviors and attachment to yard versus house dogs. Anthrozoos, 19(A), 325-334. doi:10.2752/089279306785415466 Siegel, J. M. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The moderating role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1081-1086. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1081 Signal, T. D., & Taylor, N. (2007). Attitude to animals and empathy: Comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoos, 20(2), 125-130. doi:10.2752/175303707X207918 Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and psychometric evaluation of the brief resilient coping scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94-101. doi:10.1177/1073191103258144 Slugoski, A. D. (2008). Seeking possibilities: A pilot design for the examination of differences between equine assisted psychotherapy and office based psychotherapy. (Unpublished master's thesis). Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona. 82 Speck, F. G. (1919). Penobscot shamanism. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 6(4), 239-288. Stallones, L., Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Marx, M. B. (1990). Quality of attachment to companion animals among U.S. adults 21 to 64 years of age. Anthrozoos, 3(3), 171176. doi:10.2752/089279390787057595 Stammbach, K. B., & Turner, D. C. (1999). Understanding the human-cat relationship: Human social support or attachment. Anthrozoos, 12(3), 162-168. doi:10.2752/089279399787000237 Stotland, E., & Dunn, R. E. (1963). Empathy, self-esteem, and birth order. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 532-540. Straede, C. M., & Gates, G. R. (1993). Psychological health in a population of Australian cat owners. Anthrozoos, 6( 1), 30-42. doi:10.2752/089279393787002385 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson. Thompson, R. (2008). Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new answers. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 348-365). New York: Guilford Press. Tower, R. B., & Nokota, M. (2006). Pet companionship and depression: Results from a United States internet sample. Anthrozoos, 19( 1), 50-64. doi:10.2752/089279306785593874 Unger, L. S., & Thumuluri, L. K. (1997). Trait empathy and continuous helping: The case of voluntarism Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 785-800. Virues-Ortega, J., & Buela-Casal, G. (2006). Psychophysiological effects of human-animal interaction: Theoretical issues and long-term interaction effects. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(1), 52-57. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000195354.03653.63 Vizek-Vidovic, V., Arambasic, L., Kerestes, G., Kuterovac-Jagodic, G., & Vlahovic-Stetic, V. (2001). Pet ownership in childhood and socio-emotional characteristics, work values and professional choices in early childhood. Anthrozoos, 14(4), 224-231. doi:10.2752/089279301786999373 Vizek-Vidovic, V., Vlahovic-Stetic, V., & Bratko, D. (1999). Pet ownership, type of pet and socio-emotional development of school children. Anthrozoos, 12(4), 211-217. doi:10.2752/089279399787000129 Watson, N. L., & Weinstein, M. (1993). Pet ownership in relation to depression, anxiety, and anger in working women. Anthrozoos, 6(2), 135-138. doi:10.2752/089279393787002295 83 Wells, D. L. (2009). The effects of animals on human health and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 523-543. doi:10.1111/j.l540-4560.2009.01612.x Werner, E. E. (1989). Vulnerability and resiliency: A longitudinal perspective. In M. Brambring, F. Losel, & H. Skowronek (Eds.), Children at risk: Assessment, longitudinal research, and intervention (pp. 157-172). New York: Walter de Gruyter. Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(5), 81-85. doi:10.1111/1467-872l.epl0772327 Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: risk, resilience, and recovery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297-333. doi:10.1037/h0040934 Wigman, S. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Investigating sub-groups of harassers: The roles of attachment, dependency, jealousy, and aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 557-568. doi:10.1007/sl0896-008-9171-x Wilson, C. C., & Barker, S. B. (2003). Challenges in designing human-animal interaction research. American Behavioral Scientist, 47( 1), 16-28. doi:10.1177/0002764203255208 Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wolf, E. S. (1988). Treating the self: Elements of clinical selfpsychology. New York: Guilford Press. Zimmerman, M. A., & Arunkumar, R. (1994). Resiliency Research: Implications for schools and policy. Social Policy Report, 5(4), 1-17. doi: 10.1.1.132.8277 84 Appendix A Social Networking Recruiting Information FaceBook "wall postine" and "poster information" Pet Owning and Personality Research Greetings, I am a Master of Science student in psychology conducting a confidential online survey to learn more about the relationship between pets and their owner's personalities. This project has been approved by the Research Ethics Board of the University of Northern British Columbia. Please follow the link below to the survey website http://blogs.unbc.ca/peopleandpets/ for more information. If you are a pet owner, at least 18 years old, and are willing to spend about 20 minutes your participation would be greatly appreciated. Please go the the survey website http://blogs.unbc.ca/peopleandpets/ to learn more about how you can help advance our scientific knowledge of human-pet relationships and help me complete the research requirements of my degree. Responses are submitted anonymously and are kept confidential. A summary of the results will be made available on this page after all of the responses are collected and analyzed. Please follow the link below, or click on the picture below. Thank you 85 Basic Info Founded: 2010 Detailed Info Website: http://www.comingsoon.notyet Company Overview: Greetings, I am not a company, I am a Master of Science student in psychology conducting a confidential online survey to learn more about the relationship between pets and their owner's personalities. This project has been approved by the Research Ethics Board of the University of Northern British Columbia. Please follow the link above to the survey website www.comingsoon.notyet for more information. Mission: If you are a pet owner, at least 18 years old, and are willing to spend about 20 minutes your participation would be greatly appreciated. Please go the survey website www.comingsoon.notyet to learn more about how you can help advance our scientific knowledge of human-pet relationships and help me complete the research requirements of my degree. Products: Responses are submitted anonymously and are kept confidential. A summary of the results will be made available after all of the responses are collected and analyzed. Twitter "poster information:" (Both of the following examples were used) Research participants are needed! If you are at least 18 years old and own a pet please visit www.comingsoon.notyet If you are a pet owner, at least 18 years old, and are willing to spend about 20 minutes your participation would be greatly appreciated. Please go the survey website www.comingsoon.notyet to learn more about how you can help advance our scientific knowledge of human-pet relationships and help me complete the research requirements of my degree. 86 Appendix: B Survey Welcome Page Pet Owning and Personality Thank you for coming to "Pet Owning and Personality". This is an online survey about aspects of the relationship between pets and their owners. Before completing the survey, please read the consent form on the next page. Click the "I Accept" button only if you agree to participate in this survey. Participating in this survey should take about 20 minutes. You may stop at any time by clicking the "discontinue" button, by clicking the "back" button, or by closing your web browser. CONTINUE m NO THANKS Forward this link to a friend 87 Appendix C Non-Participant Thank You Thank you Thank you for visiting this website! I am sorry that you were not able to participate in the research on this visit. Please visit again if you become eligible or have more time to participate later. 88 Appendix D Letter of Informed Consent This web-based study will look at some personality characteristics of pet owners, and some aspects of their relationships with their pets. This research is being conducted by Kelly Stickle. Kelly is a student in psychology at the University of Northern British Columbia. He is working with Dr. Cindy Hardy. This project has been approved by the University of Northern British Columbia's Research Ethics Board. There is no deception involved in this research. You are not likely to experience discomfort or risk if you decide to participate. You are invited to participate in this survey if you own a pet and are 18 years old or older. It will take about 20 minutes to complete. You will be asked questions about yourself and questions about your relationship with your pet. For each question you will be asked to select the most appropriate answer from the options given. Participation in this study is voluntary. You will not benefit from participating other than knowing that you have contributed to our understanding of the relationship between pets and their owners. You may skip any question you are not comfortable answering. You can stop participating at any time. Your responses will only be saved after you click "submit" at the end of the survey. Your individual responses will be kept private. Your identity will not be recorded. Your computer's address will not be shared or recorded. No printed copies will be made of your responses. Data will be stored electronically and password protected on a secure University of Northern British Columbia computer in British Columbia, Canada. Only Kelly and Cindy will be able to see your responses. After the study is complete your individual responses will be deleted. The results from this study will only be used for scholarly purposes. Grouped results may be presented in educational or professional settings and conferences, and may also be published in a scholarly journal. If you choose to participate, you will be able to request a summary of the results of this study after you submit your responses. Any questions or comments regarding this research can be directed to Dr. Cindy Hardy at 250-960- 5814 or hardy@unbc.ca. Complaints about this project should be directed to the University of Northern British Columbia Office of Research at 250-960-5650 or reb@unbc.ca. By clicking "I Accept' you are providing consent for your responses to be used as outlined above and you will advance to the survey. If you prefer not to participate you may opt out by clicking "No Thanks." Appendix E Completed Survey Debriefing Now that the data has been collected for this research we can tell you a little more about the project. We couldn't tell you the full purpose before you started because we needed your best "first impression" answers. However, now that you have finished we can share a little more information about what we are studying and how the results may be applied. The main purpose of this project is to see if a stronger attachment relationship with a pet is related to empathy and resilient coping. In order to do this the survey asked questions about human-pet attachment, empathy, resilient coping, and adult attachment. Human-pet attachment is the quality of your relationship with your pet current pet. Empathy is your ability to feel and understand another person's thoughts and feelings. Resilient coping is your ability to manage or cope with stress or stressful situations. Finally, adult attachment is the quality of your current relationship with a significant person in your life. There are two main objectives to this research: 1. To learn how empathy and resilient coping are related to the quality of the relationships people have with their pets. 2. To learn how the associations between empathy, resilient coping, and pet attachment are affected by the quality of relationships with other people. According to the Canadian Animal Health Institute and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals there are more than 15 million pets of all kinds in Canadian homes, including almost 8 million cats and nearly 6 million dogs, while in the United States there are about 75 million pet cats and 60 million pet dogs. Also, more and more health care institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes are including pet visitation programs to 90 lower stress and improve the mood and health outcomes for their patients and clients. Psychiatric therapists and prisons are even using pets to help improve behaviour. But we don't really understand how pets can make such differences. This research will help to answer this question. Findings from this research may help mental health therapists and correctional institutions plan effective programs for increasing empathy and assist patients and clients to cope with stressful situations. Thank you again for your interest and participation! Any questions or comments regarding this research can be directed to Dr. Cindy Hardy at 250-960- 5814 or hardy@unbc.ca. Complaints about this project should be directed to the University of Northern British Columbia Office of Research at 250-960-5650 or reb@unbc.ca To view a summary of the research results when they are ready add this web page to your favourites and check back periodically http://blogs.unbc.ca/peopleandpets/ or add Pet Owning and Personality Research as a Facebook friend. If you would like to receive a summary of the research results by e-mail, send a "request research summary" message to stickle@unbc.ca . You may also follow the progress of the research on Twitter: http://twitter.com/People_and_Pets Check Out Some Pet and Animal Friendly Websites 91 Appendix: F Complete Instruments Companion Animal Bonding Scale: Contemporary 5 Always 4 Generally 3 Often 2 Rarely 1 Never 1. How often are you responsible for your companion animal's care? 2. How often do you clean up after your companion animal? 3. How often do you hold, stroke, or pet your companion animal? 4. How often does your companion animal sleep in your room? 5. How often do you feel that your companion animal is responsive to you? 6. How often do you feel that you have a close relationship with your companion animal? 7. How often do you travel with your companion animal? 8. How often do you sleep near your companion animal? 9. How often does your companion animal help you feel physically safe and secure? 10. How often does your companion animal help you feel emotionally safe and secure? Based on: Poresky, R. H., Hendrix, C., Mosier, J. E., & Samuelson, M. L. (1987). The Companion Animal Bonding Scale: Internal reliability and construct validity. Psychological Reports, 60(3), 743-746. 92 RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE READ THE DIRECTIONS! 1. Following are descriptions of four general relationship styles that people often report. Please read each description and CLICK the letter corresponding to the style that best describes you or is closest to the way you generally are in your close relationships. A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me. B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others. C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them. D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me. 2. Please rate each of the following relationship styles according to your general orientation to close relationships. A. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being alone or having others not accept me. B. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others. C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them. D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships, It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me. Somewhat like me Not at all like me Style A. 1 2 3 4 Very much like me 5 6 7 93 Style B. 1234567 Style C. 1234567 Style D. 1234567 Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 226244. 94 INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX The following statements inquire about your thoughts and feelings in a variety of situations. For each item, indicate how well it describes you by choosing the appropriate letter on the scale at the top of the page: A, B, C, D, or E. When you have decided on your answer, indicate your choice by clicking the box next to the appropriate letter. READ EACH ITEM CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Answer as honestly as you can. Thank you. ANSWER SCALE: A B C D DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME WELL E DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL 1. I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things that might happen to me. 2. I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. 3. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view. 4. Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. 5. I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel. 6. In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease. 7. I am usually objective when I watch a movie or play, and I don't often get completely caught up in it. 8. I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision. 9. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them 10.1 sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation. 11.1 sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. 12. Becoming extremely involved in a good book or movie is somewhat rare for me. 13. When I see someone get hurt, I tend to remain calm. 14. Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal. 15. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to other people's arguments. 16. After seeing a play or movie, I have felt as though I were one of the characters. 17. Being in a tense emotional situation scares me. 18. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for them. 19.1 am usually pretty effective in dealing with emergencies. 20.1 am often quite touched by things that I see happen. 21.1 believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. 22.1 would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. 23. When I watch a good movie, I can very easily put myself in the place of a leading character. 24.1 tend to lose control during emergencies. 25. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while. 26. When I am reading an interesting story or novel, I imagine how I would feel if the events in the story were happening to me. 27. When I see someone who badly needs help in an emergency, I go to pieces. 28. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. Davis, M. A. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. 96 Brief Resilient Coping Scale A four-item instrument designed to measure tendencies to cope with stress in an adaptive manner; based on a 5-pt Likert scale (5 = Strongly Agree to 1 = Strongly Disagree). 1. I look for creative ways to alter difficult situations. 2. Regardless of what happens to me, I believe I can control my reaction to it. 3. I believe I can grow in positive ways by dealing with difficult situations. 4. I actively look for ways to replace the losses I encounter in life. Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and psychometric evaluation of the brief resilient coping scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94-101.