Adolescents’ Attachments to Adolescents’ Attachments to their Pets, Parents, and their Pets, Parents, and

PeersPeers

Eleonora GulloneEleonora Gullone

Department of PsychologyDepartment of Psychology

Monash UniversityMonash University

Companions animals and Us:Companions animals and Us:Demonstrated Physical BenefitsDemonstrated Physical Benefits

Pet owners more likely to be alive one year Pet owners more likely to be alive one year after discharge from a coronary care unit after discharge from a coronary care unit compared to non-ownerscompared to non-owners ( (Friedmann et al.,1980)Friedmann et al.,1980). .

Among people attending a cardiovascular Among people attending a cardiovascular disease-screening clinic, pet owners were at disease-screening clinic, pet owners were at significantly reduced risk of coronary heart significantly reduced risk of coronary heart disease compared to non-pet owners disease compared to non-pet owners ((Anderson et Anderson et al.,1992).al.,1992).

Among coronary heart disease patients, dog Among coronary heart disease patients, dog owners approx. 8.6 times more likely to be owners approx. 8.6 times more likely to be alive after one year compared to non-dog alive after one year compared to non-dog owners owners ((Friedmann & Thomas,1995)Friedmann & Thomas,1995)..

Other BenefitsOther Benefits

Reduced physiological responses to stressors Reduced physiological responses to stressors when petting or observing animals (i.e. reduced when petting or observing animals (i.e. reduced blood pressure and heart rate) blood pressure and heart rate) (e.g. Rossbach & Wilson, (e.g. Rossbach & Wilson, 1992). 1992).

Watching fish in an aquarium found to be as Watching fish in an aquarium found to be as relaxing as hypnosis for patients about to undergo relaxing as hypnosis for patients about to undergo surgery surgery (DeSchriver & Riddick, 1990; Katcher et al. 1984)(DeSchriver & Riddick, 1990; Katcher et al. 1984)

Presence of an animal increases social interaction Presence of an animal increases social interaction among humans among humans (e.g. Hart, Hart, & Bergin, 1987) (e.g. Hart, Hart, & Bergin, 1987) and and perceived social attractiveness of others perceived social attractiveness of others (Lockwood, (Lockwood, 1983)1983). .

Psychological BenefitsPsychological Benefits

Increased empathyIncreased empathy

Provide Unconditional Provide Unconditional Positive RegardPositive Regard

Provision of SupportProvision of Support

Increase sense of Increase sense of safetysafety for the elderly for the elderly

““Special Friends” for Special Friends” for children children (Trienbacher, 1998)(Trienbacher, 1998)

Relationships with our PetsRelationships with our Pets

What are the mechanisms through which What are the mechanisms through which relationships with our pets provide relationships with our pets provide benefits?benefits?

Within the framework of Attachment Within the framework of Attachment Theory, this study aimed to gain a better Theory, this study aimed to gain a better understanding human-animal understanding human-animal relationships.relationships.

The Present StudyThe Present Study

Do adolescents’ attachment relationships Do adolescents’ attachment relationships generalise across pets, peers, and generalise across pets, peers, and parents?parents?

Are the relationships different depending Are the relationships different depending upon psychological vulnerability (i.e. upon psychological vulnerability (i.e. behavioural inhibition)?behavioural inhibition)?

Construct DefinitionsConstruct Definitions

Attachment Attachment describes the presence of an describes the presence of an emotional bond emotional bond (Bowlby, 1969).(Bowlby, 1969).

Healthy (secure) attachment relationships provide Healthy (secure) attachment relationships provide individuals with a sense of warmth, confidence, individuals with a sense of warmth, confidence, and security and security (Raupp, 1999).(Raupp, 1999).

Behavioural Inhibition Behavioural Inhibition is characterised by is characterised by shyness and a tendency to withdraw from shyness and a tendency to withdraw from unfamiliar people or situations unfamiliar people or situations (Kagan et al., 1988).(Kagan et al., 1988).

The SampleThe Sample

165 adolescents aged 12-14 years.165 adolescents aged 12-14 years.

50 males and 165 females (85% female).50 males and 165 females (85% female).

All owned at least one pet.All owned at least one pet.

Dogs and cats were the most commonly Dogs and cats were the most commonly owned pets.owned pets.

MeasuresMeasuresPersonality Inventory for youth – Personality Inventory for youth –

Withdrawal scaleWithdrawal scale (Lachar & Gruber, 1995) (Lachar & Gruber, 1995)

Good reliability and validityGood reliability and validity

Response Format: Response Format: “True”“True” or or “False”“False”

Examples items:Examples items:

   Talking to others makes me nervous. Talking to others makes me nervous.

Most of the time I am a quiet person.Most of the time I am a quiet person.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment Attachment

(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Adequate PsychometricsAdequate PsychometricsTwo Scales:Two Scales: Parent Attachment (28 items)Parent Attachment (28 items)

Peer Attachment (25 items)Peer Attachment (25 items)Response Scale: Response Scale: 5-point ranging from 5-point ranging from "Almost always or always true" "Almost always or always true" to to "Almost never or never true"."Almost never or never true". Example Items: Example Items:

Parent: Parent: ““I trust my parents”. I trust my parents”. Peer:Peer: “My friends accept me as I “My friends accept me as I

am”.am”.

Companion Animal BondingCompanion Animal Bonding

The Companion Animal Bonding Scale The Companion Animal Bonding Scale (Poresky, 1987).(Poresky, 1987).

Adequate Psychometric PropertiesAdequate Psychometric PropertiesEight items assessing frequency of Eight items assessing frequency of bonding behavioursbonding behavioursResponse ScaleResponse Scale: 5-point scale from : 5-point scale from “Always”“Always” to to “Never”“Never”Example Items: Example Items: “How often do you clean up after your pet?”“How often do you clean up after your pet?”“How often do you sleep near your pet?” “How often do you sleep near your pet?”

Companion Animal BondingCompanion Animal BondingAffective Pet Bonding Measure Affective Pet Bonding Measure (McLean & Gullone, (McLean & Gullone,

2000)2000)..

Response scale ranges from Response scale ranges from 1= 1= “Not at all”“Not at all” to 5 = to 5 = “Very (Much)”“Very (Much)”

Three items:Three items:“How much do you care about your pet?”“How much do you care about your pet?”

“How happy do you generally feel when you are“How happy do you generally feel when you are with your pet?” with your pet?”

“If you were to lose your pet, how sad would you“If you were to lose your pet, how sad would you be?” be?”

Companion Animal BondingCompanion Animal Bonding

For both measures, participant instructions For both measures, participant instructions were as follows:were as follows:

If there are several pets in your household, If there are several pets in your household, answer the questions in relation to answer the questions in relation to youryour pet pet oror your favourite your favourite pet. pet.

ResultsResultsTotal SampleTotal Sample

IntercorrelationsIntercorrelations

Behavioural Inhibition with Attachment:Behavioural Inhibition with Attachment:

ParentParent - .45 ** - .45 **PeerPeer - .37 ** - .37 **Pet (bhrl)Pet (bhrl) NS NS Pet (affect)Pet (affect) NS NS

** = p < .01** = p < .01NS = Not significantNS = Not significant

ResultsResultsTotal SampleTotal Sample

Attachment IntercorrelationsAttachment Intercorrelations

ParentParent & Peer& Peer .41 **.41 **Parent & Pet (bhrl)Parent & Pet (bhrl) NSNSParent & Pet (affect)Parent & Pet (affect) .16*.16*Peer & Pet (bhrl)Peer & Pet (bhrl) .18*.18*Peer & Pet (affect)Peer & Pet (affect) .33**.33**Pet (bhrl and affect)Pet (bhrl and affect) .58**.58**

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01; NS = Not significant* = p < .05; ** = p < .01; NS = Not significant

ResultsResults

Sample was divided into two groups Sample was divided into two groups (median split):(median split):

1. Low Behavioural Inhibition1. Low Behavioural Inhibition

2. High Behavioural Inhibition2. High Behavioural Inhibition

Group Differences Group Differences (t-tests)(t-tests)

Parent Attachment (lo: 54.30; hi: 41.70 *)Parent Attachment (lo: 54.30; hi: 41.70 *)

Peer AttachmentPeer Attachment (lo: 66.54; hi: 51.98 *)(lo: 66.54; hi: 51.98 *)

Pet Attachment (Bhrl) Pet Attachment (Bhrl) (lo: 27.11; hi: 26.96 NS) (lo: 27.11; hi: 26.96 NS)

Pet Attachment (Affective) Pet Attachment (Affective) (lo: 14.17; hi: 13.83 NS) (lo: 14.17; hi: 13.83 NS)

Attachment IntercorrelationsAttachment Intercorrelations

Low BILow BI High BIHigh BI

ParentParent & Peer& Peer .21*.21* .35*** .35***

Parent & Pet (bhrl)Parent & Pet (bhrl) NSNS NS NS

Parent & Pet (affect)Parent & Pet (affect) NSNS NS NS

Peer & Pet (bhrl)Peer & Pet (bhrl) NSNS .27** .27**

Peer & Pet (affect)Peer & Pet (affect) .22*.22* .38*** .38***

Pet (bhrl & affect)Pet (bhrl & affect) .44***.44*** .69*** .69***

* = P < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = P < .001* = P < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = P < .001

NS = Not significantNS = Not significant

Shared Variance amongst Shared Variance amongst Attachment TypesAttachment Types

Regression Analyses by BI group: Regression Analyses by BI group:

1.1. DV = Pet Attachment (Behavioural)DV = Pet Attachment (Behavioural)

2.2. DV = Pet Attachment (Affective)DV = Pet Attachment (Affective)

Predictor VariablesPredictor Variables

Parent AttachmentParent Attachment

Peer AttachmentPeer Attachment

Pet Attachment (Emotional)Pet Attachment (Emotional)

Low Behavioural Inhibition GroupLow Behavioural Inhibition Group

Analysis Not SignificantAnalysis Not Significant

High Behavioural Inhibition GroupHigh Behavioural Inhibition Group

Peer Attachment explained 13% of the Peer Attachment explained 13% of the variance in Pet attachment (p < .01)variance in Pet attachment (p < .01)

Pet Attachment (Behavioural)Pet Attachment (Behavioural)

Low Behavioural Inhibition GroupLow Behavioural Inhibition Group

Analysis Not SignificantAnalysis Not Significant

High Behavioural Inhibition GroupHigh Behavioural Inhibition Group

Peer Attachment explained 5% of the Peer Attachment explained 5% of the variance in Pet attachment (p < .05)variance in Pet attachment (p < .05)

Summary of FindingsSummary of Findings

Adolescents scoring high on Behavioural Adolescents scoring high on Behavioural Inhibition (BI) were found to report weaker Inhibition (BI) were found to report weaker attachments to both Parents and Peers attachments to both Parents and Peers compared to those low on BI.compared to those low on BI.

Although groups differences on Pet Although groups differences on Pet Attachment were not significant, the Attachment were not significant, the means demonstrated similar trends.means demonstrated similar trends.

Summary of Findings ContinuedSummary of Findings Continued

Neither measure of Pet Attachment Neither measure of Pet Attachment yielded consistent positive correlations yielded consistent positive correlations with Parent Attachmentwith Parent Attachment

However,However,

Peer attachment was found to be Peer attachment was found to be significantly positively correlated with both significantly positively correlated with both pet behavioural (.18*) and pet affective pet behavioural (.18*) and pet affective attachment (.33**).attachment (.33**).

Summary of FindingsSummary of Findings

Consistent with group differences analyses, Consistent with group differences analyses, correlations between attachment types were correlations between attachment types were stronger for the adolescents in the high BI group stronger for the adolescents in the high BI group compared to the low BI group.compared to the low BI group.

Regression analyses supported the finding that Regression analyses supported the finding that adolescents high on BI are more likely to report adolescents high on BI are more likely to report stronger attachments with their peers if they also stronger attachments with their peers if they also report stronger attachments with their pets.report stronger attachments with their pets.

ConclusionsConclusions

The findings provide preliminary evidence that The findings provide preliminary evidence that attachments with companion animals can serve attachments with companion animals can serve a similar psychological function to that served by a similar psychological function to that served by attachments that adolescents have with their attachments that adolescents have with their peers.peers.

For the high BI group of adolescents, affective For the high BI group of adolescents, affective attachment to pets was a stronger predictor of attachment to pets was a stronger predictor of peer attachment compared to the low BI group. peer attachment compared to the low BI group.

This suggests that pets may indeed serve the This suggests that pets may indeed serve the social lubricant effect that has been proposed as social lubricant effect that has been proposed as one of the benefits of pet ownership.one of the benefits of pet ownership.