Best Friends of Companion Animal Psychology

contest pets photos

Best Friends of Companion Animal Psychology

Comment  

Share a photo of your happy pet for a chance to win a Companion Animal Psychology mug.

Companion Animal Psychology just turned five! As I said in that post, one of the best things about this blog is the community of people who read, share and support it.

Several recent posts have shown photos of happy dogs who are friends of Companion Animal Psychology.

This time, it’s over to you to join the celebrations by sharing a photo of your contented pet.

One person will win a Companion Animal Psychology anniversary bone china mug.

Click the link-up and follow the instructions to add your photo. The winning photo will be published on the blog and shared on social media when the winner is announced. More details are below.

An InLinkz Link-up

The photo link-up is open until 4pm Pacific Time on Friday 14th April.

To add a photo of your pet, click the link and follow the instructions. You will have to supply an email address but this will only be used if necessary to communicate with you about the photos. You will not be subscribed to any email lists. (Click here to subscribe to Companion Animal Psychology; or read the privacy policy).

Please include your pet’s name. You have up to 50 characters if you wish to say something about your pet (e.g. “Bodger loves snow”).

The winning photo will be published on the blog and shared on social media when the winner is announced. By taking part, you consent for this to happen if your photo wins.

Only two entries per person. If you change your mind, you may delete your photo at any time. You must have copyright of the photo.

Photos are moderated so you may have to wait for yours to appear. Photos are displayed in a random order, so if you submit two photos, they may not appear together.

I have recruited an independent judge to choose the winner. The judge’s decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.

The winner will be sent an email to request their postal address to send the mug to. In the event that the winner does not respond to this email within 7 days, they will forfeit the mug and another winner will be chosen.

Companion Animal Psychology supports the humane treatment of animals and photos showing prong, choke or shock collars are not permitted.

Photo: Africa Studio (Shutterstock.com)

The benefits of pets for children

children pets research science

The benefits of pets for children

Comment  

A review of the literature concludes that pets may have psychological benefits for children – such as better self-esteem – but more research is needed.

The review, by Rebecca Purewal (University of Liverpool) et al involved searching the scientific literature from 1960 to 2016 for studies that examine the effects of pets on children’s psychological health. 22 studies were identified and analysed further.

The results show benefits in some areas, but not enough evidence to draw conclusions in other areas. The paper also considers the potential mechanisms for such effects.

The scientists write,

“This paper provides a review of the evidence on the effects of pet ownership on emotional, behavioural, cognitive, educational and social development. Overall, the evidence suggests that pet ownership, and dog ownership in particular, may benefit these outcomes for children and adolescents. However, the evidence is mixed partly due to a broad range of different methodological approaches and varying quality of studies.”

The scientists used quite broad criteria in selecting the studies for their review. The 22 studies they looked at include two that have been covered on Companion Animal Psychology: Geerdts et al on pets and children’s understanding of biological concepts, and Rhoades et al on the effects of pets on the mental health of homeless youth.

First, the good news. Purewal et al found evidence that pets may be good for children’s emotional health, especially in terms of better self-esteem and reduced loneliness. There also seemed to be benefits in terms of being better able to take another person’s perspective, and for intellectual development.

They also found social benefits – bigger social networks, better social competence, and more social play. (Interestingly, pets have also been found to increase social networks for adults).

However, they did not really find evidence for improvements in depression and anxiety, and there was not enough evidence to come to any conclusions about behaviour development.

The paper describes several potential mechanisms by which pets might benefit children. The effects of the hormone oxytocin may lead to reduced stress, and pets may provide social support. Pets may help to meet children’s needs for a secure attachment, and this could be especially important in cases where a child has poor attachment to their parents. Indeed, it is possible that attachment to pets may be more important than simply owning a pet.

The authors provide illustrations of how effects might occur for each of the domains where an effect was found. For example, improved educational outcomes may be due to better social support and reduced stress, which in turn may cause better executive functioning which will improve learning. Interactions with the pet (such as having conversations with the pet) may also lead to better language skills and social cognition.

Potential benefits of pets may also be related to the stage of a child’s development. For example, young children who are learning about social relationships may especially benefit from interactions with a pet. For self-esteem, it seems that pet ownership is of most benefit to younger children (under 6) and those over 10 years old.

The review highlights a number of problems with the available evidence, such as small sample sizes,  only collecting data at one time-point (therefore not able to assess potential effects over time), and sometimes classifying children as non-pet owners at a particular time when they may have previously had a pet that is now deceased.

Also, there are differences in the kinds of pets studied, and although it appears that dogs had the greatest potential, in some cases other pets (that were not dogs or cats) were not included as pets in the research. So more research is needed to understand the relationship children have with different kinds of pets, and whether this means some pets are more likely to be beneficial than others.

The authors also highlight potential confounding variables. For example, there might be differences in the kind of parent who acquires a pet compared to those who don’t, and it’s possible this could account for some of the effects.

As well as summarizing the literature, the article highlights the need for better quality evidence on the possible benefits of pets. While the potential risks of pets are outside the scope of the paper, they are mentioned. The most obvious might be the risk of dog bites, which young children are especially vulnerable to, but there are also risks of allergies, acquiring an infection from a pet, and of grief on the loss of pet.

That's why it's so helpful to know that research finds dogs and cats may benefit children in some aspects, such as improved self-esteem and bigger social networks. The review highlights priorities for future research, and shows that improving the quality of research in this field is essential. Hopefully it will be a catalyst for better-designed and longitudinal studies in this area.

The paper is open access so you can read it in full. You can also follow one of the authors of the study, Dr. Carri Westgarth, on twitter.

How do you think pets might help children?

You might also like: Reading to dogs may improve literacy and what pets do children have and which do they prefer?

You may also read this post in Chinese, courtesy of our friends at Bambiland Pet Photography and Dog Training.



Reference
Purewal, R., Christley, R., Kordas, K., Joinson, C., Meints, K., Gee, N., & Westgarth, C. (2017). Companion Animals and Child/Adolescent Development: A Systematic Review of the Evidence International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 (3) DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14030234
Photos: Africa Studio (top) and zagorodnaya (both Shutterstock.com).

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

My Thoughts About Vaccinations

My Thoughts About Vaccinations

Comment  

I do not discriminate. If your pet is not current on their vaccinations for whatever reason...
If you have made a conscientous choice to NOT vaccinate your pet...
If you haven't had time to go to the vet...
If you haven't had money to go to the vet...
It makes no difference to me.

What does make a difference is that your pet is in obvious good care. I am not a vet! I do not diagnose or treat illness! But I have worked with animals long enough that I can usually recognize when a pet is too ill, or is contagious, and should receive other care before I advise you.

Corporate salons such as Petco and Petsmart require at least a rabies vaccine before they will make an appointment, as well as some private salons. I'm sure most trainers have the same policy.

Honestly, I have done my own research and don't really like vaccinations period. But YOU must do your own due diligence, your own research, and follow your own heart about such matters. Just because I'm convinced doesn't mean I'm right by anyone's standard but my own.

I feel very strongly that the entire veterinary industry is about fear, misinformation, manipulation, and control in order to harvest money.
Even the bleeding-heart, animal-loving, raised-on-the-farm kids who made it thru vet school in order to "make a difference" have come out of the system completely brainwashed. They sincerely believe all the shit they tell you.

But I don't buy into the system.... Not any of it. I don't understand going blindly thru life accepting everything you're told. The fact that students never question or stand up to information that doesn't feel right causes me to lose faith in them right out of the gate.
If one is "gifted" then they have instincts, intuition, an inner knowing that is beyond any book learning.
This describes me more than it does any vet I've ever met.

Look at dogs today compared to when some of us were kids. They all suffer from human diseases now! That NEVER happened until they started mandatory, mass vaccinations and neutering!

These solutions were meant to get humanity to higher understanding, but instead it became a for-profit industry that has a guaranteed success rate due to stacking the deck.
Industry owns all the scientist who write the text books and peer reviewed journals, and do all the research that is published, and make the meds and, "funds" the schools.... They own the pet industry. They guarantee you'll always need them!

Don't you find this suspicious???????

​I think for myself, do my own research, and I don't play into antiquated fears based on a herd mentality! I encourage you to do the same. Again, this is why I do what I do, the way that I do it.

But you must be responsible for your own choices, in all things, including your animals!

The Posts of the Year 2016

cats dogs pets popular posts

The Posts of the Year 2016

Comment  

The most popular posts from Companion Animal Psychology in 2016.

 
Looking back, I'm surprised by how much I wrote this year. During 2016 I published 58 blog posts, including 28 reviews of individual research papers on dogs, cats, ferrets, and the human-animal bond. I feel very lucky to have interviewed both Dr. Sarah Ellis and Jean Donaldson, and thank them both for such interesting and inspiring interviews. I published the first guest post, an important piece by James Oxley and Clare Ellis about how rabbits are missing out on basic pet care practices.

I really enjoyed hosting the Train for Rewards Blog Party, which was a huge lot of fun (look out for it again in 2017!). Thank you to everyone who participated, whether by writing a post or sharing your favourites. I also kept my list of dog training research resources up to date, and there you will find a list of research articles on dog training and places where you can read about those articles for free.

This year saw the start of the Companion Animal Psychology Book Club, and I am thrilled to have the chance to talk about books with like-minded people. The first books were The Trainable Cat: A Practical Guide to Making Life Happier for You and Your Cat by John Bradshaw and Sarah Ellis, and The Secret History of Kindness: Learning from How Dogs Learn by Melissa Holbrook Pierson.

These were the most popular posts of the year:

1. Losing a pet can lead to different types of grief.

2. Enrichment tips for cats (that many people miss)

3. Seven reasons to use reward-based dog training.

4. Clicker training vs treat: Equally good in dog training.

5. Dog bite strength: It's not what you think.

6. Testing an automated and humane way to resolve barking.

7. In dog training, balance is off.

8. Why science matters to our dogs and cats.

9. Less stress at the vet for dogs and cats.

10. Why do people choose certain dogs?

Honourable mention: Although it looks like posts about cats haven't done very well this year, there's an older post that's consistently had readers all through the year: Where do cats like to be stroked?

Thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement throughout the year. One of the best things about my blog is the way it has helped me get to know so many wonderful people.

What would you like to see on Companion Animal Psychology in 2017? Please feel free to send me an email at companimalpsych at gmail dot com with your ideas (subscribers can just hit the reply button - if you're not yet a subscriber, why not sign up?). I do my best to follow up these suggestions, and there are a couple of reader-inspired posts in the works at the moment.

And if you would like to propose a post, my guest post guidelines are here.

Wishing you a very Happy New Year and all the best for 2017!

Photo credit: Olga_i (Shutterstock.com). For other photo credits, follow the links.

Pets May Help Children Learn About Animal Welfare

animal welfare children humane education pets research

Pets May Help Children Learn About Animal Welfare

Comment  

Children’s beliefs about animal welfare and sentience are linked to their own experiences with animals.

Surprisingly little is known about children’s beliefs and knowledge about animals. Yet this information could help to improve humane education programs for children. Two recent studies begin to fill this gap, with recommendations for how humane education is taught.

We know from previous research that even very young children like animals, and that children with pets are more likely to attribute biological concepts to animals than those without. Children’s experiences of caring for their pets mostly involve play, while the actual pet care is carried out by parents. Is it possible that even though these experiences are mostly social, children with pets will still have a better understanding of the care that pets need?

A series of group discussions with children aged 7 to 13 was conducted by Janine Muldoon (University of St. Andrews) et al (2016). The discussions lasted from 40 to 60 minutes, depending on school timetabling, and focussed on four types of animal: dogs, cats, guinea pigs and goldfish. Children were asked questions about how to care for the animals, how they knew when they needed care, and whether the animals have feelings.

 

Children’s answers showed a difference between what animals need in theory, and what was actually done in practice. Where they were unsure about an animal’s needs, their answers were framed in terms of their own experience, such as saying that a dog needed breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Answers also depended on the animal species. Dogs were seen as easier to understand if they needed something, although for all species the default position for an animal that needed something seemed to be ‘hunger’. Older children showed an understanding that some animals needed affection and interaction.

Children showed most knowledge about fish, and it seems that experiences of fish dying prompted them to consider what might have gone wrong. They also had knowledge about animals they did not themselves keep as pets. As you might expect, there were many gaps and variability in what they knew about animals and the five welfare needs.

Children talked about how they know what animals want. For instance, 11-year-old Caitlin* said,

“You can tell with a dog, because if they need the toilet they prance about and they brush up against your leg and they’ll go and sit at a door and then you kind of know. But then next they’ll be needing to be fed and he’ll go to this cupboard in the house and it’s where his biscuits sit. So he goes in and pulls the bags open and he’ll be able to get his head in and he brings it through in his mouth and he’ll drop it at my mum.”

Photos: Irina Kozorog (top) and Blend Images (Shutterstock.com)  

Muldoon et al conclude,

“Children often express confusion and report being able to identify hunger and injury, but recognize few other cues of welfare state in their pets. As certain types of animals may not have the behavioral repertoire or reinforcement history to give clear cues of need, it seems important that educators cultivate some form of emotional concern for the specific animal they want children to understand better. Perhaps most at risk of negative welfare experiences are animals that are not perceived by children to be reciprocal in their interactions or appear less dependent on them for daily care and attention.”

A large questionnaire study of children from 6 to 13 years old was conducted by Roxanne Hawkins and Joanne Williams (University of Edinburgh) (2016). They investigated the relationship between beliefs about animal minds (BAM), namely that animals are sentient and have feelings, and attachment, compassion and attitudes to animals. This study looked at a range of animals: humans, dogs, goldfish, cows, chimpanzees, robins, badgers and frogs.

Children rated humans as the most sentient animals, followed by dogs and chimpanzees. They rated frogs and goldfish as least sentient.

Children who lived with pets had higher scores for beliefs about animal minds (BAM) than those without, and those who had their own pet or more than one pet had higher scores still. Those with dogs specifically gave higher ratings for the sentience of dogs.

Hawkins and Williams write that,

“The results from the study confirmed the hypothesis that Child-BAM [beliefs about animal minds] is positively related to attachment to pets and compassion to animals, humane behavior toward animals, as well as attitudes toward animals. The findings also confirmed that Child-BAM was negatively associated with acceptance of intentional and unintentional animal cruelty and animal neglect.”

Neither study shows a causal relationship between children’s pet ownership and beliefs or knowledge. Further research would be needed to look at this.

Photo: AlohaHawaii (Shutterstock.com)

Dogs were most often considered to be sentient in both studies. Muldoon et al write that,

“the overwhelming emphasis on dogs throughout all phases of the focus groups suggests that they are the easiest animal with which to “connect.”” 

In Hawkins and Williams study, dogs were rated as having greater sentience than chimpanzees, though this could be because children were more familiar with dogs. In both studies, dogs were the most common pet.

These studies suggest that humane education should include developing emotional connections with animals and education about animal minds, as these are both likely to lead to more compassion toward animals and less tolerance of animal cruelty.

They also suggest that having a pet is a positive experience in terms of learning about animals and animal welfare. Further research can investigate the best ways to teach children about how to care for animals, whether or not they have a pet at home.

Do you think it’s important for children to have pets?




References

Hawkins, R., & Williams, J. (2016). Children’s Beliefs about Animal Minds (Child-BAM): Associations with Positive and Negative Child–Animal Interactions Anthrozoös, 29 (3), 503-519 DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1189749 

Muldoon, J., Williams, J., & Lawrence, A. (2016). Exploring Children’s Perspectives on the Welfare Needs of Pet Animals Anthrozoös, 29 (3), 357-375 DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1181359
*Not her real name; the children were given pseudonyms.

Companion Animal Psychology is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Companion Animal Psychology is also a participant in the Etsy Affiliate Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Etsy.com.

Are rabbits lagging behind in basic pet care practices?

animal welfare guest post pets rabbits

Are rabbits lagging behind in basic pet care practices?

Comment  

A recent study highlights pet rabbit management practices. Although some owners take extra steps to protect their rabbit, many do not.

Guest post by James Oxley (Independent Researcher, UK; Twitter) and Clare Ellis (Moulton College, UK; Twitter; Web).

Rabbits sometimes get labelled as an easy pet to keep, and some owners may not consider that common pet care practices used for dogs and cats may also be beneficial for rabbits. In fact, a recent study by Oxley et al. has highlighted how few pet rabbit owners take precautions such as microchipping and pet insurance for their furry bunny friends.

In the UK, it is now a legal requirement to microchip your pet dog and a recent call for compulsory microchipping of cats has been highlighted . Millions of pet owners are microchipping their pets, including dog, cats and smaller commonly kept pets. Compulsory dog microchipping in the UK came about as an effort to increase accountability of dog owners and to reduce the number of stray dogs that end up in rescue centres so that owners may be traced. But what about rabbits?

A recent internet survey explored rabbit management practices of pet rabbit owners to see how many pet rabbits were insured and microchipped and asked the owners for their opinions on the idea of compulsory microchipping for pet rabbits.

Oxley et al (2015) received 1183 responses from pet rabbit owners. They found that 78.3% of rabbit owners do not microchip their rabbits. Given that pet rabbits are commonly kept in some kind of enclosure, it may seem odd to suggest that rabbits would benefit from microchipping as they potentially have less chance to stray than pet dogs and cats might.

The Rabbit Welfare and Association Fund (RWAF) estimates that 67,000 rabbits pass through UK rescue centres each year. This is currently an area which is being researched by PhD student Clare Ellis as part of her PhD at Moulton College.

She states: “It is very difficult to quantify the number of rabbits that are being given up by owners or entering re-homing centres as strays. Research from the USA and my current area of study indicates that large numbers of rabbits are becoming 'stray', as in their owner cannot be traced.

"If more rabbits were microchipped it may help ease the burden on re-homing centres so that escaped pets can be reunited with their owners and the centres can focus more efforts on rabbits in more urgent need of care." 

Oxley, who led the study the rabbit management practice study, suggests that owners may not consider the long-term benefits of microchipping and insuring their pet rabbits.

“Rabbits are a commonly kept pet in many countries these days but the numbers entering rescue centres as strays are large for an animal that should be housed in a secure enclosure or building. Microchipping a pet gives the owner more chance of being reunited if the animal manages to escape the enclosure or garden. And it doesn’t cost as much as some people may think.”

“In comparison to dogs and cats it may be that people are less willing to make the financial commitment to microchip and insure a rabbit or simply not see the potential benefits. I definitely think more work is needed to educate potential pet rabbit owners about the cost and effort involved in having rabbits as pets. They should not be viewed as ‘an easy pet’ to keep.”

To help address this issue, Pets at Home have introduced a policy where all rabbits they sell are to be microchipped (RWAF, Rabbiting on, Winter 2014, p18).

Microchipping, is beneficial for a number of reasons, including tracing owners whilst also being a cheap, safe and permanent method of identification which is quick and generally a pain fee procedure, especially in comparison to other forms of rabbit identification methods such as tattooing or banding.

Furthermore the microchip records can hold a variety of important information such as vet contact details and medical information about the animal.

In comparison to other pet species, rabbits are less likely to be insured (73.9% of 1,174 respondents stated that their rabbits were not insured in Oxley et al). Insurance of pet animals is important to prevent paying large veterinary bills when a rabbit falls ill.

The RSPCA has previously stated that veterinary treatment for rabbits, such as a fractured limb, could cost £1,000 or more (RSPCA, 2012). It is important to ensure that the insurance conditions are read as insurance companies may differ about what they do and do not cover.

If thinking about microchipping and insuring your rabbit, it is important to gain guidance through your local veterinary practice.

Further rabbit related information can be offered through the relevant UK organisations such as the RWAF (Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund), RSPCA (Royal Society for the Protection of Animals), BVA (British Veterinary Association), Animal Welfare Foundation and PDSA (The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals).

Are your rabbits microchipped and insured?


About the authors

James Andrew Oxley is currently an independent researcher with a broad interest in research relating to human-animal interactions and animal welfare.  He has a BSc (Hons) in Animal Management and a Masters by Research which investigated Dog owners perceptions of English laws relating to dogs.

Clare Frances Ellis MSC BSc (Hons) PGCE is currently a PhD Animal Behaviour and Welfare candidate at the University of Northampton and Moulton College, UK. She is exploring factors surrounding the relinquishment of pet rabbits to re-homing centres in the UK and is developing a tool to assess individual behavioural differences in the species.







References
Oxley, J., Previti, A., Alibrandi, A., Briefer, E., & Passantino, A. (2015). A Preliminary internet survey of pet rabbit owners’ characteristics World Rabbit Science, 23 (4) DOI: 10.4995/wrs.2015.3771
RWAF 2014 Rabbiting On Magazine. Winter 2014. RWAF.
RSPCA. 2012. The time and costs involved in keeping rabbits: RSPCA companion animal pet care factsheet. RSPCA: West Sussex
Photos of rabbits: Francesco83 (top) and Serhii Ostapenko (both Shutterstock.com)
Propose a guest post to Companion Animal Psychology.