Introduction

1. Companion Animal Bonding and Empathy Development Jackie Fullerton Mentor: Laraine Glidden Department of Psychology, St. Mary’s College of Maryland Introduction Results • Human beings rely on connectedness with others for mental healthvia (a) receiving social support, and (b) demonstrating care about people and other living things5 • 3 Components of Attachment Comprise the Companion Animal Bond • (1) Affective Attachment10 • Includes: Emotional expressions of interest and closeness with their pet • Promotes self-other differentiation, the ability to put oneself in someone else’s shoes • (2) Behavior Attachment10 • Includes: Physical activity with the pet, such as playing and caregiving • Stronger attachment to pets, increased likelihood to show caretaking behaviors5 • Successful caretaking requires recognition and accurate interpretation of nonverbal cues, and is correlated with empathy in children10 • (3) Cognitive Attachment10 • Includes: Ideas about the pet and its care • With maturation, the childhood tendency to display attachment by maintaining proximity diminishes, and the attachment relationship is instead maintained through thoughts of the attachment object9 • Saliency of Effects • Effects and interpretation of environment in early personality development relate to empathy levels throughout adulthood10,16 • A positive relationship exists between companion-animal bonding and empathy in children 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15. Across all related studies, only one considered pets’ effect into young adulthood14, but did so looking at pet ownership, which is not a reliable predictor of pets’ effects11, 12 Gender Differences Appeared in How Bonding Affects Empathy Figure 2. H3. A Gender (2) x Presence of Other Dogs (2) ANOVA on CABS scores revealed no significant main effects of gender on CABS scores, F(1, 78) = .193, p = .662.partial ε2 = .002. A trend approaching significance for a tendency for participants with no other dogs to have stronger bonding with The Dog than those with other dogs owned, F(1, 78) = 3.398, p = .069,partial ε2 = .042. Figure 1. H1. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between CABS and TEQ scores by gender revealed that females showed a trend approaching significance in the negative direction, as weaker bonding was associated with higher empathy scores on the TEQ, r (57)= -.237, p = .070. Males with strong bonding showed higher empathy, r (21) = .470, p = .024. Fisher’s r-to-z transformation showed that females and males significantly differed in how the strength of bonding with The Dogaffected empathy, z = 2.89, p = .004. MIE and TEQ Empathy Measures Did Not Correlate, r(81) = .03, p = .788 • Hypotheses Figure 3. H3. A Gender (2) x Presence of Other Dogs (2) ANOVA on TEQ scores revealed a significant interaction between gender and presence of other dogs on empathy, F(1, 78) = 9.337,p = .003.partial ε2 = .107. Males with other dogs owned showed lower empathy scores than those with no other dogs, while females did not show a relationship between presence of other dogs and empathy. No main effect of gender, F (1, 78) = 1.200, p = .277, partial ε2= .015, or presence of other dogs on TEQ scores was found, F(1, 78) = 2.473, p = .120. H1:A stronger bond with The Dog will lead to higher behavioral (MIE) and self-report (TEQ) empathy H2:Females will have stronger bonding and higher empathy than males H3:As a result of the empathy-activating writing task, the bond reminded condition will have equal or higher empathy scores than the bond-distracted condition H4:Ownership of other dogs will lead to weaker bonding with The Dog and lower empathy scores To test H2, a between-subjects t-test was explored for gender differences for CABS, MIE, or TEQ scores. Females’ scores did not significantly differ from males’ scores on the CABS, t (80) = .530, p = .597. Females and males did not significantly differ in scores on the MIE, t (80) = -1.031, p = .306, or on the TEQ, t (80) = -.800, p = .426. Methods Conclusions • Participants:83 SMCM students (59 females, 23 males) recruited in SP12 to participate in the study, Personality and Perceptions of Pets. Randomly assigned based on arrival time in alternating sequence into experimental manipulation group (n = 44) or control group (n = 38). Inclusionary criteria was the ownership of a dog prior to 16 years old. • Independent Variables: Experimental Condition, Companion-Animal Bonding (CABS) Score, Presence of Other Dogs • Two Groups, One 5-Minute Writing Prompt: • Prompt 1. Bond Reminded (Experimental Manipulation).Relationship with The Dog • Prompt 2. Bond Distracted (Control). Their interpretation of the meaning of personality • Companion Animal Bonding Scale (CABS)11: • 8-item scale developed by scientists in fields of child development and veterinary medicine • Assesses self-reported behaviors indicative of bonding in relationship with most important pet • Selected The Dog considered as most important in life • 5-point Likert Scale with frequency of bonding behaviors with The Dog, never (1) to always (5), Possible total scores range from 8 to 40, higher scores represent stronger bonding with The Dog • Presence of Other Dogs • Participants responded on number of other dogs present in the household at the same time as The Dog. The majority of participants either did not own another dog (50.6%) or owned only one other dog (36.1%), thus responses were recoded within a presence of other dogs variable, no other dogs owned = 0 (n = 42), one or more other dogs owned = 1 (n = 41). • Dependent Variables: Behavioral (MIE) and Self-Report (TEQ) Empathy Score, • CABS Score • Adult Revised Reading the Eyes in the Mind Test (MIE)2: • 36-item behavioral measure of empathy • Assesses ability to accurately interpret complex interpersonal stimuli by pairing static nonverbal cues (i.e. emotion in eyes) with one of four mental-state term choices • Correct responses worth one point each, possible total scores range from 0 to 36, higher scores represent higher empathy • Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ)12: • 16-item scale was developed using a factor analysis on all current self-report empathy measures to find core opinion on how empathy is measured • Researchers found scores on the TEQ to correlate with those on the MIE12, but relationship between two empathy measures was not apparent in this study H1:Partially Supported. Females with stronger companion-animal bonds showed a tendency towards lower empathy, whereas males with stronger companion-animal bonds reported higher empathy. There was not a relationship between the behavioral (MIE) and self-report (TEQ) empathy measures. Shared method variance may have contributed to this effect. H2:Not supported. Females did not report higher scores on the CABS, MIE, or TEQ compared to males. H3:Not supported. The experimental manipulation did not lead to differences between experimental conditions on empathy measures. H4: Partially Supported.Owning one or more dogs at the same time as The Dog led to weaker bonding with The Dog for all participants and for females, but not for males. Owning other dogs had a negative effect on empathy for males, but not for females. While the relationship between the formation of a companion-animal bond and empathy has been supported in childhood, results of this study suggest that these effects are likely to result in different empathy outcomes for females and males by young adulthood. References 1 Allen, K.M., Blascovich, J., Tomaka, J., & Kelsey, R.M. (1991). Presence of human friends and pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to stress in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 582-589. 2 Baron-Cohen. (2001). The "reading the mind in the eyes" test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism.Journalfor Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42, 241-251. 3 Bonas, S., Mcnicholas, J., & Collis, G.M. (2001). Pets in the network of family relationships: An empirical study. In A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion-animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4 Bryant, B.K. (1990). The richness of the child-pet relationship: A consideration of both benefits and costs of pets to children. Anthrozoos, 3, 253-261. 5 Endenburg, N., & Baarda, B. (1995). The role of pets in enhancing human well being: Effects on child development. The Waltham Book of Human-Animal Interaction: Benefits and Responsibilities of Pet Ownership, 7-17. 6 Gendler, H.D. (1997). The role of childhood pets in the development of empathy (Unpublished master's of science thesis). University of Maryland: Maryland. 7 Levinson, B.M. (1978). Pets and personality development. Psychological Reports, 42, 1031-1038. 8 Melson, G.F., Peet, S., & Sparks, C. (1991). Children's attachment to their pets: Links to socio-emotional development. Children's Environments Quarterly, 8, 55-65. 9 Paul, E.S. (2000). Empathy with animals and with humans: Are they linked? Anthrozoos, 13, 194-202. 10 Poresky, R. H., & Hendrix, C. (1990). Differential effects of pet presence and pet-bonding on young children. Psychological Reports, 67, 51-54. 11 Poresky. (1996). Companion-animals and other factors affecting young children's development. Anthrozoos, 9(4), 159-168. 12 Spreng, N.R., McKinnon, M.C., Mar, R.A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto empathy questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62-71. 13 Vidovic, V.V., Arambasic, L., Kerestes, G., Kuterovac-Jagodic, G., & Stetic, V.V. (2001). Pet ownership in childhood and socio-emotional characteristics, work values, and profession choices in early adulthood. Anthrozoos, 14, 224-231. 14 Vidovic, V.V., Stetic, V.V., & Bratko, D. (1999). Pet ownership, type of pet, and socio emotional development of school children. Anthrozoos, 12, 211-217. 15 Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J.L., & Emde, R.N. (1992). The development of empathy in twins. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1038-1047.