Animals have always played a distinctive part in the lives of humans. Domestic pets in most households are considered to be members of the family; we let them sleep on our beds, we have many photographs of them and we talk to our pets as if they were human (Brown, 2006). According to Beck and Meyers (cited in Brown, 2006) an estimated 50% of adults and 70% of adolescents confide in their animals, and many studies have been done into the psychological effects that animals, and particularly pets, have on humans.
The biophilia hypothesis is a concept that was coined by Edward Wilson in 1984. The biophilia hypothesis can be defined as “a fundamental, genetically based human need and propensity to affiliate with other living organisms” (Kahn, 1997). A lot of the research conducted on the environment has a focus on the negative impact of environmental exposure such as radiation and toxic chemicals (Stilgoe, 2001). However, the natural environment can also enhance a person’s health. An example of this is how many pharmaceuticals have been derived from animals and plants. Another example is that contact with the natural world may be of direct benefit to one’s health, and also be a vital component of well-being (Frumkin, 2001). One aspect of the natural world-animals-suggests that contact with animals is able to enhance people’s health and provides the evidence to support this view.
In support of the biophilia hypothesis, Kahn (1997) states that emotional well-being and psychological health can be promoted through human contact with animals. Patients suffering from mental disorders were more socially communicative, less aggressive towards their carers and laughed and smiled more when encouraged to interact with animals. Brown’s research (2006) also supported this, suggesting that stroking and touching animals can have benefits for many people including psycho-social benefits such as a reduction in stress, increased self-esteem and motivation, and also acts as a way of building rapport with the animals.
A different angle on the biophilia hypothesis coined by Edward Wilson is a term known as nature-deficit disorder. Nature-deficit disorder is a concept that was coined by Richard Louv to describe how children today have declining health and well-being and suggests that it is the result of being “alienated from the natural world” (Tucker, 2006). It is inferred that the nature-deficit disorder is a social problem that occurs due to the amount of time children are spending in front of the television instead of actively engaging in nature (Tucker, 2006). Perhaps encouraging children to spend more time outdoors and less time in front of the television would increase their health and mental well-being. Pets can be extremely beneficial for children to increase their psychological health, not only for teaching them that they have a responsibility but by encouraging them to become active through outdoor play with their pet.
There have been some physiological effects that domestic pets can have on a person’s health discovered in research conducted at a Melbourne cardiovascular disease risk clinic. A group of 6000 patients were divided into pet owners and non-pet owners and results showed that among men, cholesterol, triglycerides and systolic blood pressure were statistically significantly lower in pet owners than non-pet owners (Frumkin, 2001). Among the women there was a similar pattern discovered and these findings did not appear to be due to social class, diet, differences in exercise levels or other cofounders. Similarly, Allen (2003) conducted a study into whether domestic pets can influence human blood pressure. The results appeared to indicate that pets may have a social facilitation effect on humans, possibly by relaxing their owners and therefore allowing their owner to perform at their best (Allen, 2003). The results also revealed that pets could be considered to be a form of social support because of the unconditional love that they hold for their owner, meaning that even if you perform poorly on a particular task, your pet will still think you are wonderful regardless of how you performed. Allen’s study (2003) concluded that pets could be very beneficial for psychological interventions that are aimed at increasing a person’s social support due to the fact that people describe their pets as important friends and perceive them as being non-judgmental.
Allen’s results (2003) are consistent with another one of the psychological effects that pets can have on a person’s health, which is the reduction of stress. A study involving 938 Medicare enrollees was conducted where the participants were again divided into pet owners and non-pet owners (Frumkin, 2001). The results showed that pet owners went to the doctor less than non-pet owners and stressful life events were associated with more doctor visits amongst the non-pet owners. These results suggest that people who own pets have better health than non-pet owners and that owning a pet may actually help mediate stress.
A slightly different idea has also been researched in the literature on humans and their interactions with their pets. El-Alayli, Lystad, Webb, Hollingsworth and Ciolli (2006) conducted a study into whether people who owned pets had very favourable views of their pets’ personalities, known as a pet-enhancement bias. Their findings suggested that being around people who are similar to you provides continual self-validation (El-Alayli et al., 2006). A person who is similar to their pet was more likely to have a pet-enhancement bias and it was therefore a positive contributing factor to their psychological well-being with more life satisfaction, less negative affect and a tendency towards greater happiness reported in the results.
Recommendations: Based on the research findings above, there are several recommendations that can be made about contact with animals and pets to people who wish to maximize their psychological health. People with mental disorders showed less aggression towards their carers, were more socially communicative and laughed and smiled more when engaging in contact with animals (Kahn, 1997), which suggests that rehabilitation and therapy centres may be able to enhance their patients’ psychological health through the introduction of animals to their recovery programs. The process of simply stroking or touching animals has been shown to reduce stress and increase self-esteem and motivation (Brown, 2006) so for people who it may not be possible for to own a pet, the occasional visit to the zoo or a petting farm may be significantly beneficial for their psychological health.
Another recommendation that can be made is based on the finding that owning a pet is also implicated with a reduction in the number of visits to the doctor (Frumkin, 2001) which could be an important factor in maximizing a person’s psychological health. Moreover, pet owners who have highly favourable views of their pets are more satisfied with life, have less negative self affect and have a tendency towards greater happiness (El-Alayli et al., 2006). Becoming a pet owner can therefore be a strong recommendation for someone looking to maximize their psychological health.
In conclusion, becoming a pet owner provides you with a friend for life. They will provide you with unconditional love no matter how mad you get at them for sharpening their claws on your leather couch or for chewing on your favourite pair of shoes, and ultimately owning a pet can positively influence and even maximize your psychological health and well-being.
References
Allen, K. (2003). Are pets a healthy pleasure? The influence of pets on blood pressure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (6), 236-239.
Brown, K. (2006). Pastoral concern in relation to the psychological stress caused by the death of an animal companion. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 9 (5), 411-422.
El-Alayli, A., Lystad, A.L., Webb, S.R., Hollingsworth, S.L. & Ciolli, J.L. (2006). Reigning cats and dogs: A pet-enhancement bias and its link to pet attachment, pet-self similarity, self-enhancement and well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28 (2), 131-143.
Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human heath and the environment. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 20 (3), 234-240.
Kahn, P.H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17, 1-61.
Stilgoe, J.R. (2001). Gone barefoot lately? American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 20 (3), 243-244.
Tucker, P. (2006). Curing “nature-deficit disorder”. Futurist, 40 (3), 13-13.
Allen, K. (2003). Are pets a healthy pleasure? The influence of pets on blood pressure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (6), 236-239.
Brown, K. (2006). Pastoral concern in relation to the psychological stress caused by the death of an animal companion. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 9 (5), 411-422.
El-Alayli, A., Lystad, A.L., Webb, S.R., Hollingsworth, S.L. & Ciolli, J.L. (2006). Reigning cats and dogs: A pet-enhancement bias and its link to pet attachment, pet-self similarity, self-enhancement and well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28 (2), 131-143.
Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human heath and the environment. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 20 (3), 234-240.
Kahn, P.H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17, 1-61.
Stilgoe, J.R. (2001). Gone barefoot lately? American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 20 (3), 243-244.
Tucker, P. (2006). Curing “nature-deficit disorder”. Futurist, 40 (3), 13-13.
Appendix: Self Assessment
1. Theory
For my blog topic on pets, I found it quite difficult initially to find theories relating to how pets can maximise people’s psychological health. The main theories I mentioned were the biophilia hypothesis, nature-deficit disorder and pet-enhancement bias. These were not directly related to pets, but did relate to animals in general and were able to be applied to my pets blog topic.
I feel that I have demonstrated sound use of the research findings throughout my blog. I was able to use fairly broad theories and apply them to my blog topic specifically. I think my understanding of these findings can also be seen throughout my blog because I was able to relate the findings back to the blog topic.
Sentences per paragraph- 4.6·
Words per sentence- 29.2·
Characters per word- 5.2
Readability
Readability
Passive sentences- 34%·
Flesch reading ease 23.0·
Flesch-Kincaid grade level- 12.0
I have demonstrated competent use of the APA style of referencing throughout my blog, both with in-text referencing and the references cited at the end of the blog. I consider my blog to be easy for a reader to read as it follows a logical sequence, with each paragraph leading into the next and potentially difficult concepts clarified throughout.
My online engagement in second part of the semester has improved on what it was in the first half of the semester. I still found it daunting putting up posts on my blog because I wasn’t sure whether what I was posting would be relevant or interesting to anyone. I made comments on other people’s blogs including comments on the following topics:
I would say that I have improved my online engagement since first half of semester. I posted what I thought were fairly relevant postings and also made comments on other people’s blogs. I also achieved two green stars as opposed to one lightbulb which I had in first half of semester. I wouldn’t say I am completely competent when it comes to creating a blog page and maintaining it but I have definitely learnt a lot from using an online blog and particularly learnt a lot using a blog for a uni subject.
