Pet Ownership, Type of Pet, and Socio-emotional Development of School Children

Pet Ownership, Type of Pet and Socio-emotional Development of School Children. Vlasta Vizek Vidovic, Vesna Vlahovic Stetic and Denis Bratko. Originally published in Anthrozoos, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1999, pps 211-217.

Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Address for correspondence: Prof. Dr. Vlasta Vizek Vidovic, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, I. Lucica 3, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia. Fax: +385-1-6120-037; e-mail: vvlahovi@ffzg.hr.

Abstract

The current study was designed to compare the socio-emotional characteristics of school children pet owners and children without pets and to examine whether the type of pet is a variable which can differentiate the socio-emotional development of their owners. The subjects, 425 girls and 401 boys, were students of fourth (n=265), sixth (n=295) and eighth (n=266) grade of elementary schools from the metropolitan area of Zagreb, Croatia. Socio-emotional variables assessed in the study were: child attachment to pet, child prosocial orientation, empathy, loneliness, perception of family climate and social anxiety. The data showed that 54.4% of children in the sample were pet owners (26.2% of children in the study had a dog, 9.2% had a cat, and 19.0% had some other pet). In order to answer the main research question, several analyses of variance (gender by grade by pet ownership) were computed for each criterion of socio-emotional development. Significant main effects were obtained for empathy, prosocial orientation and pet attachment, with dog owners being more empathic and prosocially oriented than non-owners, and dog owners and cat owners being more attached to their pets than owners of other kinds of pets. Additional analyses of variance were computed in order to examine the role of attachment in the socio-emotional functioning of the children. Subjects were divided in three sub-groups: non-owners, lower then average attached owners, and higher than average attached owners. Children who scored higher than average on the attachment to pets scale showed significantly higher scores on the empathy and prosocial orientation scales than non-owners and children who scored lower than average on the attachment to pets scale. It was also found that children with higher levels of attachment to pets rated their family climate significantly better than children who had lower attachment to pets.

Introduction

The role of animals, especially pets, has recently been the focus of much interest in developmental research. Theories and models of child development concentrate on different aspects of development and the variables which influence it. The conceptual framework for our research was Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1986) ecological model of environment. Child and social environment influence one another in a transactional (bi-directional) manner. In Bronfenbrenner's model, the ecological system is viewed as a series of concentric, interrelated layers of context. At the center is the child. Today the nuclear family is the place in which human relations, love and empathy are being taught. In such circumstances, animal companions may play a more important role than they did when extended families and close-knit neighborhoods provided more learning experiences for attaining socio-emotional needs (Levinson 1980).

From a developmental perspective, the research evidence indicating the impact of the child-pet relationship on the cognitive and socio-emotional development of children concentrates mainly on the period of preadolescence and early adolescence. One of the main issues in this area is whether companionship with pets, gratifying in itself, could also help children to achieve more satisfactory relationships with human beings.

The basic prerequisite for forming and maintaining close relationships is the establishment of mutual attachment. It has been shown that children view their pets as special friends to whom they can be strongly attached (e.g. Davis, 1987; Stevens 1990; Melson 1991). Pets are a source of pleasure, fun, exercise, physical security and protection. They can also be perceived by children as empathic and attentive listeners; the pet-owner relationship can be a substitute for other social relationships (Van Houtte and Jarvis 1995).

Research data indicates that having a pet is positively correlated with feelings of importance, social competence and self-esteem. In addition, significant differences have been found between pet owners and non-owners; there are higher levels of self-concept, self-esteem and autonomy in preadolescent and early adolescent pet owners (Covert et al. 1985; Davis and Juhasz 1985; Davis 1987; Van Houtte and Jarvis 1995).

It has also been shown that children with pets are better socially integrated, have wider social networks and are more popular with their classmates (Endenburg and Baarda 1995). The care of pets can also promote in children certain social values and skills (empathy and prosocial behavior), taking responsibilities as well as acquisition of certain habits (tidiness, punctuality, self-discipline) which contribute greatly to better coping skills both at home and at school (Bryant 1985; Melson and Fogel 1988; Poresky and Hendrix 1990).

The aim of this study was to compare some socio-emotional characteristics of school children (pet owners and non-owners) with special regard to possible gender and age differences. We were also interested in whether the type of pet differentiates the socio-emotional development of their owners.

Methods

Participants

Our sample comprised of 826 participants (fourth to eighth graders) from six elementary schools from the metropolitan area of Zagreb, with a mainly middle-class socio-economic background. There were 425 girls and 401 boys. In order to get a developmental perspective, a cross-sectional research design was used: 265 participants were fourth grade students (age range: 9-10 y), 295 were sixth grade students (age range: 11-12 y), and 266 were in eighth grade (age range: 13-14 y). Overall, the age range varied from 10 to 15 years.

Regarding pet ownership, 377 (45.6%) participants were non-owners and 449 (54.4%) were pet owners. Out of the pet owners, 216 (26.2% of whole sample) had a dog, 76 (9.2%) had a cat, and 157 (19.0%) owned other kinds of pets.

Variables

The following variables were selected as indicators of some aspects of socio-emotional development: attachment to pets (Child Pet Attachment Scale), empathy (Child Empathy Scale, prosocial orientation (Child Prosocial Orientation Scale), loneliness (Child Loneliness Scale), social anxiety (Social Anxiety Scale for Children), and perception of family climate (Perception of Family Climate Scale).

In order to measure these variables separate questionnaires as well as a demographic survey were developed. All instruments, except Child Pet Attachment Scale, were designed to be completed by all students regardless of pet ownership status. The demographic survey was used to obtain general information about participants such as gender, age, grade, birth order, number of family members and information about pets in the family. The other surveys were made up of multiple choice questions.

All questionnaires used for the assessment of socio-emotional variables consisted of items requiring responses on 4-point Likert scales. The psychometric properties of the instruments are summarized in Table 1.

Procedure

Prior to administration of the instruments, permission was obtained from school authorities, and children were given a brief explanation of the purpose of the study. Data collection was conducted in the classrooms during regular school hours and lasted approximately 60 minutes.

Results

In order to answer the main question of the study, namely if there are any differences in aspects of socio-emotional development of children of different grade, gender, pet ownership status and type of pet owned, several analyses of variance (gender by grade by pet ownership) were computed for each criterion of socio-emotional development. Pet ownership was a three-level variable (1=dog owners; 2=cat owners; 3=other pet owners) for the criterion variable "attachment to pet," while for the other criteria variables it was a four-level variable (the category of non-owners was included). Statistically significant main effects and interactions are shown in the Table 2.

Inspection of Table 2 reveals a significant main effect of grade for all included variables, as well as a significant main effect of gender for all variables except social anxiety. On the other hand, a significant main effect for pet ownership was obtained only for attachment, empathy and prosocial orientation. In addition, some significant interactions were obtained between pet ownership and gender, and pet ownership and grade in regards to attachment and prosocial orientation. These effects will be more closely described based on the tables of results to follow.

The Child Pet Attachment Scale was administered to 449 pet owners in our sample. Analysis of variance revealed significant main effects for gender, grade and pet ownership. Scheffe post hoc tests of significance (p<0.05) were computed between sub-groups, showing that girls had higher levels of attachment for their pets than boys, that fourth graders were more attached to their pets than the sixth graders, who were more attached than the eighth graders (Table 3). In addition, dog and cat owners reported higher levels of attachment then owners of other kinds of pets. Table 4 shows that although girls were more attached to their pets then boys, girls who owned pets other than dogs or cats had by far the lowest mean scores on the attachment to pets scale. Analysis of variance for empathy revealed significant main effects for all three independent variables: gender, grade and pet ownership. Scheffe post hoc tests of significance (p<0.05) were computed. The results showed that girls were more empathic than boys, that fourth and sixth graders were more empathic than eighth graders, and that dog owners were more empathic than non-owners (Table 5). There was a gender/grade interaction, showing that the eighth grade boys had the lowest mean scores on the empathy scale.

Analysis of variance for prosocial orientation also revealed significant main effects for gender, grade and pet ownership. Post hoc analyses showed that girls were more prosocially oriented than boys, the fourth graders scored higher than the sixth graders, who scored higher than the eighth graders, and dog owners scored significantly higher on the prosocial orientation scale than non-owners (Table 6). Significant interactions were obtained for pet ownership and gender, and pet ownership and grade. Table 7 shows that girl dog owners were more prosocially oriented than non-owners, regardless of their gender. Table 8 shows that the eighth grade non-owners had the lowest average results on prosocial orientation.

Analysis of variance for the social anxiety variable revealed a significant main effect for grade. A Scheffe post hoc test of significance (p<0.05) showed that the fourth grade children (M=21.1) were more socially anxious than the sixth (M=18.9) and eighth graders (M=19.5).

Analysis of variance for loneliness revealed significant main effects for gender and grade. Post hoc tests showed that eighth graders (M=24.8) were more lonely than the sixth graders (M=22.9), and boys (M=24.1) were more lonely than girls (M=23.2).

Analysis of variance for perception of family climate also showed main effects for gender and grade. Girls (M=74.7) perceived their family climate to be better than did boys (M=73.3) and the fourth (M=76.0) and sixth graders (M=74.3) perceived it to be better than the eight graders did (M=71.8).

Additional analyses of variance were computed in order to examine the role of attachment in the socio-emotional functioning of school children. Participants were divided in three sub-groups: non-owners, lower then average attached owners, and higher than average attached owners. Significant differences between these sub-groups were obtained for empathy, prosocial orientation and perception of family climate.

The results in Table 9 show that children with higher than average attachment to pets scored significantly higher on the empathy and prosocial orientation scales than non-owners and children lower than average on the attachment to pets scale. There was no significant difference in empathy scores between groups of non-owners and children with lower than average attachment to pets. It was also found that children with higher levels of attachment to pets rated their family climate significantly better than children with lower attachment to pets. The mean ratings of family climate for non-owners were in between these two groups of owners.

Discussion

The construct of attachment, first used in developmental psychology for the description of relations of children to "important adults" (Bowlby 1969), proved to be appropriate for descriptions of relationships between children and their pets. Generally speaking, results from our study confirm the popular belief that school children show a high degree of emotional closeness to their pets.

Our data analysis revealed significant main effects of gender and grade. Results showed that girls were more attached to pets than boys. However, although the difference between means was statistically significant, the difference in absolute values was relatively small. A literature review reveals that some studies in the past have reported no significant differences between male and female attachment to pets (Ganster and Voith 1983; Melson and Fogel 1988; Stevens 1990), while others, especially those that used self-report measures as we did, reported higher attachment in females (Kidd and Kidd 1980; Holcomb, Williams and Richards 1985).

As mentioned previously, the main effect of grade was also statistically significant. Our data showed that attachment to pets gradually decreased with age. Kellert and Westervelt (1983) found that older children expressed a greater liking for animals than younger children. But some authors (Davis and Juhasz 1985) suggest that pets may have the greatest influence on an owner during the preadolescent years and in early adolescence (Van Houtte and Jarvis 1995). Melson (1991) stressed that after the age of 13, attachment to pets tends to diminish. She concluded that in later adolescence strong attachment to pets may even interfere with developmentally appropriate relationships with peers and outside-home activities. Melson (1991) assumed that adolescents who showed very high levels of attachment to their pets may have been experiencing difficulties with peers and may have retreated to the pet for comfort and understanding. Bakker (1986) found that adolescent pet owners were more lonely than adolescent non-owners. That finding has not been confirmed in our study because pet owners, regardless of their age, were not lonelier than non-owners, nor were they socially more anxious.

Our data concerning types of pets owned showed that dog and cat owners were more attached to their pets than owners of other pets. It is easier for a child to communicate and play with a dog and a cat than, for instance, with a fish or canary. Dogs and cats are more interactive than many other pets and this is probably a reason why children become more attached to them.

Significant interaction on attachment was obtained for pet ownership by gender. Girls who had pets other than dogs or cats were less attached to them than other pet owners. This might be explained by the notion that girls in general have stronger needs for active affiliation, and that this need could not be successfully satisfied in interactions with pets other than dogs or cats.

It should be noted that attachment to pets has greater implications as a moderating variable for socio-emotional functioning of children than pet ownership per se (Levinson 1984).

The care and interaction with a family pet is an appropriate domain where children can prove their need for independent and responsible actions. By taking responsibility for the well-being of the pet, children learn experientially about the importance of empathy in responding to other beings' feelings and needs, as well as appropriate forms of prosocially oriented behavior. In our study, results concerning empathy revealed significant main effects for gender, grade and pet ownership. It was shown that girls were more empathic than boys, that the fourth and sixth graders were more emphatic than the eighth graders, and that dog owners were more emphatic than non-owners. Other studies have shown that child pet owners feel more empathy towards people and towards pets than non-owners (Bryant 1985; Poresky and Hendrix 1990), but in our sample only dog owners were more empathic than non-owners. Results for prosocial orientation were similar. One possible explanation for these results is the already-mentioned moderating effect of attachment to pets. Poresky (1990) showed that children with pets did not have significantly higher empathy scores than those who did not have pets, but children who had a strong bond with a pet had higher child empathy scores than those without pets.

As mentioned, interaction between pet ownership and grade on prosocial orientation was observed. While mean scores of non-owners and owners of pets other than dogs or cats gradually decreased with age, prosocial orientation of dog and cat owners remained relatively stable. This could indicate a beneficial impact of dog and cat ownership on prosocial orientation.

Since in other studies attachment to pets has been clearly identified as a moderating variable between pet ownership and child socio-emotional development during the school years, we have additionally attempted to examine that relation. Indeed, data analysis revealed that in some aspects of socio-emotional functioning (empathy and prosocial orientation) children with higher levels of attachment significantly differed from non-owners and less attached owners. More attached owners were at the same time more empathic toward people and animals and more prosocially oriented.

The results obtained concerning perception of family climate were particularly interesting. Although there were no significant differences in the perception of family climate between pet owners and non-owners, significant differences were revealed when attachment was examined. The results showed that the children with lower levels of attachment perceived the climate in their families as least favorable, while the children with higher levels of attachment perceived their family climate as most favorable. Perhaps children with lower levels of attachment are not ready to invest energy in taking care of the pet, and this in turn provokes family conflicts and crises. Alternatively, less favorable family climates may be associated with lower capability to form close relationships with pets.

Conclusion

To a certain extent our findings support theories concerning the positive relationship between pet ownership, level of attachment and some aspects of socio-emotional functioning of elementary school children, especially with regards to empathy and prosocial behavior.

Unfortunately the correlational design of ours and other similar studies does not provide insight into cause and effect relationships of family patterns, pet-child bonding and socio-emotional functioning. It is still unclear whether pet ownership has direct effects on psychosocial dimensions or whether specific family characteristics lead simultaneously to the acquisition of pets and also beneficial effects upon children's socio-emotional development. Such questions can be answered only by properly planned and conducted longitudinal studies.

In spite of its limitations, we believe that our study has contributed to the better understanding of the role that pets play in development of empathy and prosocially oriented behavior, two aspects of socio-emotional development that are crucial for starting and maintaining close relationships with others.

Tables

^a - pet ownership is a four level variable (1=non owners; 2=dog owners; 3=cat owners; 4=other pet owners) for all criteria variables except "attachment to pet," where the analysis was performed only for different types of pets.

* p<0.05.

Higher scores indicate higher levels of attachment.

Higher scores indicate higher levels of empathy.

*p<0.05

**non-owners (n=377), lower than average attached owners (n=193) and higher than average attached owners (n=256).

References

1. Bakker, B. R. 1986. Adolescent pet owners vs. non-owners, friendship and loneliness. Dissertation Abstracts International.
2. Bowlby, J. 1969. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
3. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. Ecological systems theory. In Annals of Child Development. (Vol. 6). ed. R. Vasta. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
4. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1986. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology 22: 723-742.
5. Bryant, B. K. 1985. The neighborhood walk. A study of sources of support in middle childhood from child's perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, (No. 210).
6. Covert, A. M., Whiren, A. P., Keith, J. and Nelson, C. 1985. Pets, early adolescents and families. Marriage and Family Review 8: 63-78.
7. Davis, J. H. 1987. Preadolescent self-concept development and pet ownership. Anthrozoos 1: 90-94.
8. Davis, J. H. and Juhasz, A. M. 1985. The preadolescent pet bond and psychological development. Marriage and Family Review 8: 79-94.
9. Endenburg N. and Baarda B. 1995. The role of pets in enhancing human well-being: Effects on child development. In The Waltham Book of Human-Animal Interaction: Benefits and Responsibilities of Pet Ownership, 7-17, ed. I. H. Robinson. Exeter: Pergamon.
10. Ganster, D. and Voith, V. L. 1983. Attitudes of cat owners toward cats. Feline Practice 13: 21-29.
11. Holcomb, R., Williams, R. C. and Richards, P. S. 1985. The elements of attachment: Relationship maintenance and intimacy. Journal of the Delta Society 2: 28-34.
12. Kellert, S. R. and Westervelt, M. O. 1983. Children's Attitudes, Knowledge and Behaviors Toward Animals. Washington, D.C.: National Technical Information Service.
13. Kidd, A. H. and Kidd R. M. 1980. Personality characteristics and preferences in pet ownership. Psychological Reports 46: 939-949.
14. Levinson, B. M. 1980. The child and his pet: A world of non-verbal communication. In Ethology and Non-verbal Communication in Mental Health, 63-83, ed. S. A. Corson, E. Corson and J. A. Alexander. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
15. Levinson, B. M. 1984. Foreword. In Dynamic Relationships in Practice: Animals in Helping Professions, 1-20, ed. P. Arkow. Alameda, CA: Latham Foundation.
16. Melson, G. F. 1988. Availability of and involvement with pets by children: Determinants and correlates. Anthrozoos 2: 45-52.
17. Melson, G. F. 1991. Studying children's attachment to their pets: A conceptual and methodological review. Anthrozoos 4(2): 91-99.
18. Melson, G. F. and Fogel, A. 1988. Learning to care. Psychology Today, January: 39-45.
19. Poresky, R. H. 1990. The young children's empathy measure: Reliability, validity and effects of companion animal bonding. Psychological Reports 66: 931-936.
20. Poresky, R. H. and Hendrix, C. 1989. Companion animal bonding, children's home environment and young children social development. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Kansas MI.
21. Poresky, R. H. and Hendrix, C. 1990. Differential effects of pet presence and pet-bonding on young children. Psychological Reports 66: 931-936.
22. Stevens, L. T. 1990. Attachment to pets among eighth graders. Anthrozoos 3: 177-183.
23. Van Houtte, B. and Jarvis, P. A. 1995. The role of pets in preadolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 16: 463-479.