Adolescents Attachments to their Pets, Parents, and Peers

1
Adolescents Attachments to their Pets, Parents,
and Peers

• Eleonora Gullone
• Department of Psychology
• Monash University

2
Companions animals and UsDemonstrated Physical
Benefits

• Pet owners more likely to be alive one year after
  discharge from a coronary care unit compared to
  non-owners (Friedmann et al.,1980).
• Among people attending a cardiovascular
  disease-screening clinic, pet owners were at
  significantly reduced risk of coronary heart
  disease compared to non-pet owners (Anderson et
  al.,1992).
• Among coronary heart disease patients, dog owners
  approx. 8.6 times more likely to be alive after
  one year compared to non-dog owners (Friedmann
  Thomas,1995).

3
Other Benefits

• Reduced physiological responses to stressors when
  petting or observing animals (i.e. reduced blood
  pressure and heart rate) (e.g. Rossbach Wilson,
  1992).
• Watching fish in an aquarium found to be as
  relaxing as hypnosis for patients about to
  undergo surgery (DeSchriver Riddick, 1990
  Katcher et al. 1984)
• Presence of an animal increases social
  interaction among humans (e.g. Hart, Hart,
  Bergin, 1987) and perceived social
  attractiveness of others (Lockwood, 1983).

4
Psychological Benefits

• Increased empathy
• Provide Unconditional Positive Regard
• Provision of Support
• Increase sense of safety for the elderly
• Special Friends for children (Trienbacher, 1998)

5
Relationships with our Pets

• What are the mechanisms through which
  relationships with our pets provide benefits?
• Within the framework of Attachment Theory, this
  study aimed to gain a better understanding
  human-animal relationships.

6
The Present Study

• Do adolescents attachment relationships
  generalise across pets, peers, and parents?
• Are the relationships different depending upon
  psychological vulnerability (i.e. behavioural
  inhibition)?

7
Construct Definitions

• Attachment describes the presence of an emotional
  bond (Bowlby, 1969).
• Healthy (secure) attachment relationships provide
  individuals with a sense of warmth, confidence,
  and security (Raupp, 1999).
• Behavioural Inhibition is characterised by
  shyness and a tendency to withdraw from
  unfamiliar people or situations (Kagan et al.,
  1988).

8
The Sample

• 165 adolescents aged 12-14 years.
• 50 males and 165 females (85 female).
• All owned at least one pet.
• Dogs and cats were the most commonly owned pets.

9
MeasuresPersonality Inventory for youth
Withdrawal scale (Lachar Gruber, 1995)

• Good reliability and validity
• Response Format True or False
• Examples items
•  Talking to others makes me nervous.
• Most of the time I am a quiet person.

10
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden
Greenberg, 1987).

• Adequate Psychometrics
• Two Scales Parent Attachment (28 items) Peer
  Attachment (25 items)
• Response Scale 5-point ranging from "Almost
  always or always true" to "Almost never or
  never true".
• Example Items Parent I trust my parents.
  Peer My friends accept me as I am.

11
Companion Animal Bonding

• The Companion Animal Bonding Scale (Poresky,
  1987).
• Adequate Psychometric Properties
• Eight items assessing frequency of bonding
  behaviours
• Response Scale 5-point scale from Always to
  Never
• Example Items How often do you clean up after
  your pet?How often do you sleep near your
  pet?

12
Companion Animal Bonding

• Affective Pet Bonding Measure (McLean Gullone,
  2000).
• Response scale ranges from 1 Not at all to 5
  Very (Much)
• Three itemsHow much do you care about your
  pet?How happy do you generally feel when you
  are with your pet?If you were to lose your
  pet, how sad would you be?

13
Companion Animal Bonding

• For both measures, participant instructions were
  as follows
• If there are several pets in your household,
  answer the questions in relation to your pet or
  your favourite pet.

14
Results

• Total Sample
• Intercorrelations
• Behavioural Inhibition with Attachment
• Parent - .45
• Peer - .37
• Pet (bhrl) NS
• Pet (affect) NS
• p lt .01
• NS Not significant

15
Results

• Total Sample
• Attachment Intercorrelations
• Parent Peer .41
• Parent Pet (bhrl) NS
• Parent Pet (affect) .16
• Peer Pet (bhrl) .18
• Peer Pet (affect) .33Pet (bhrl and
  affect) .58
• p lt .05 p lt .01 NS Not
  significant

16
Results

• Sample was divided into two groups (median
  split)
• 1. Low Behavioural Inhibition
• 2. High Behavioural Inhibition

17
Group Differences (t-tests)

• Parent Attachment (lo 54.30 hi 41.70 )
• Peer Attachment (lo 66.54 hi 51.98 )
• Pet Attachment (Bhrl) (lo 27.11 hi 26.96
  NS)
• Pet Attachment (Affective)
  (lo 14.17 hi 13.83 NS)

18
Attachment Intercorrelations

• Low BI High BI
• Parent Peer .21 .35
• Parent Pet (bhrl) NS NS
• Parent Pet (affect) NS NS
• Peer Pet (bhrl) NS .27
• Peer Pet (affect) .22 .38
• Pet (bhrl affect) .44 .69
• P lt .05 p lt .01 P lt .001
• NS Not significant

19
Shared Variance amongst Attachment Types

• Regression Analyses by BI group
• DV Pet Attachment (Behavioural)
• DV Pet Attachment (Affective)
• Predictor Variables
• Parent Attachment
• Peer Attachment

20
Pet Attachment (Emotional)

• Low Behavioural Inhibition Group
• Analysis Not Significant
• High Behavioural Inhibition Group
• Peer Attachment explained 13 of the variance in
  Pet attachment (p lt .01)

21
Pet Attachment (Behavioural)

• Low Behavioural Inhibition Group
• Analysis Not Significant
• High Behavioural Inhibition Group
• Peer Attachment explained 5 of the variance in
  Pet attachment (p lt .05)

22
Summary of Findings

• Adolescents scoring high on Behavioural
  Inhibition (BI) were found to report weaker
  attachments to both Parents and Peers compared to
  those low on BI.
• Although groups differences on Pet Attachment
  were not significant, the means demonstrated
  similar trends.

23
Summary of Findings Continued

• Neither measure of Pet Attachment yielded
  consistent positive correlations with Parent
  Attachment
• However,
• Peer attachment was found to be significantly
  positively correlated with both pet behavioural
  (.18) and pet affective attachment (.33).

24
Summary of Findings

• Consistent with group differences analyses,
  correlations between attachment types were
  stronger for the adolescents in the high BI group
  compared to the low BI group.
• Regression analyses supported the finding that
  adolescents high on BI are more likely to report
  stronger attachments with their peers if they
  also report stronger attachments with their pets.

25
Conclusions

• The findings provide preliminary evidence that
  attachments with companion animals can serve a
  similar psychological function to that served by
  attachments that adolescents have with their
  peers.
• For the high BI group of adolescents, affective
  attachment to pets was a stronger predictor of
  peer attachment compared to the low BI group.
  This suggests that pets may indeed serve the
  social lubricant effect that has been proposed as
  one of the benefits of pet ownership.