The Role of Companion Animals in Human Development. G.F. Melson. Ph.D..Professor. Department of Child Development & Family Studies, Purdue University. (Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Human-Animal Interactions, Animals, Health and Quality of Life, September 6-9, 1995, Geneva, Switzerland).

Summary

This paper considers the role of companion animals in children’s development, with emphasis on how companion animals may affect quality of life for children. Because companion animals must be available to children in order to exert influence on their development, evidence for availability of companion animals is first reviewed. Then, a framework, derived from existing theories on human development, is applied to examine quality of life in children’s development. Hypotheses about how companion animals might affect children’s quality of life are advanced. Existing literature is examined as it bears on each of these hypotheses, and directions for future research are suggested. The major goals of this paper are: (a) to link research and theory related to human-companion animal relationships; (b) to apply broad, a mainstream ideas about children’s development to consideration of the role of companion animals; and (c) to suggest a programmatic, theory-based blueprint for future research.

Quality of life (OL), measured in adults by indicators of general well-being, subjective symptoms and feelings, and functional social status (Wilson, 1994), generally has not been applied to children’s development. However, OL provides a useful umbrella construct that can be applied across the lifespan, including childhood. For children, QL may be defined as the perceived ability of the child to meet developmental challenges resulting in a sense of well-being. This definition, while consistent with the broader OL construct emphasizing subjective evaluation of well being, adds an emphasis on (a) quality of life as related to the developmental needs of children; and (b) developmental tasks associated with different developmental periods.

Erickson’s life cycle theory and Bowlby’s attachment theory are useful for describing developmental challenges, while ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) suggests multiple levels of environmental influence and multidirectional pathways of influence, with children playing an active role in their own development.

The First Developmental Challenge: Secure Attachment or Basic Trust

The foundational developmental challenge of basic trust, the reassurance that ones needs will be met, leads the child to believe in the world as benign and hence, interesting. There is considerable evidence that basic trust stems from secure attachments to others, which particularly under stress, reassure the child of her safety and provide a secure base. This suggests the first hypothesis: Companion animals may promote OL in children by forming secure attachment relations with the child and thereby contributing to the child’s sense of basic trust. The methodologies developed by attachment theorists have not been utilized to examine the possible role of companion animals as a secure base for very young children, but studies of children age five and older (Rost & Hartmann, 1994; Melson & Schwarz, 1994; Bryant, 1985) suggest that many children tum to companion animals for reassurance when feeling stressed.

However, it is presently unclear which children are most likely to derive emotional support from companion animals and what qualities of animals or interaction with them are most supportive. An additional important question is the possible link between attachment to a companion animal and attachment to humans. Finally, is the quality of attachment to a companion animal predictive of later competency? In general, an important direction for HCAB research that can link it more closely to basic developmental questions is the examination of the attachment relationship to companion animals in the context of human attachments.

The Developmental Challenges of Autonomy and Initiative

Reassured about their own basic safety through secure attachments, children then feel able to face the challenge of mastery over the physical and social environment through the development of self-control and independence. This is achieved in part through exploration of the expanding world through play, new relationships and testing the capacities of maturing bodies and brains. This suggests the second hypothesis: Companion animals may promote quality of life in children by facilitative play, exploration and independence. Considerable evidence documents children’s perceptions of companion animals as play partners (Melson, Peet & Sparks, 1991; Rost & Hartmann, 1994).

Needed research directions in this area include: (a) more detailed descriptions of the form, content and quality of children’s play with companion animals, particularly its similarities and differences to play with human companions; (b) examination of animal play partners in the contaxt of human interaction, for example, the role of companion animals as social lubricants to adult-child or child-child play; and (c) attention to sources of individual differences in involvement with a companion animal as play partner.

The Developmental Challenge of Industry

The elementary school or pre-adolescent years are described by Erikson as focused on the developmental challenge of learning skills, of being industrious in the sense of deriving pleasure from completing tasks. The child’s success in this domain is mirrored in feelings of self-competence, in being good at learning tasks. Influences on meeting the challenge of industry stem, not only from success at previous developmental challenges, but also from a variety of other environmental influences. Research has been informative about the role of authoritative parenting (a combination of warmth, firmness and acceptance), peer acceptance, and moderately challenging problems to solve. However, the role of companion animals in fostering learning skills and self-confidence has been little explored, and existing research does not point to consistent patterns. Hence, the third hypothesis-Companion animals may promote quality of life in children by aiding in learning and in acquisition of self-competence-remains to be tested. Future research might address the following questions: (a) By what process may animals facilitate learning? The use of classroom animals is widespread, but outcome-based process research, examining how they are used and employing outcomes to measure learning and feelings of competence, is lacking. (b) Why is attachment to pets linked to perceived competence in some children but not others? What processes underlie such a link?

Erickson describes the adolescent challenge as achieving a sense of personal identity. The process of identity search, involving reassessment of one’s childhood in the light of one’s future, is well known, but the role of companion animals in the context of this developmental challenge has not been studied. Thus, the last hypothesis: Companion animals may promote quality of life by facilitating the process of identity development. One possibility is as social support, an echo of their attachment role as reassuring presences in times of stress. Warm, accepting relationships with parents and friends have been shown to predict positive identity exploration in adolescents, but the supportive function of companion animals during this process is unclear. Because of multiple influences on identity development, it is likely that companion animals play a peripheral role. However, one should explore the characteristics of adolescents for whom relationships with companion animals are particularly significant.

In summary, a focus on stage-related developmental challenges of childhood combined with examination of environmental influences provides a framework for a research agenda on the role of companion animals for children’s quality of life.

References

1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
2. Bryant, B.K. (1987). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (Issue No. 210).
3. Melson, G.F., Peet, S. & Sparks. C. (1991). Children’s attachment to their pets: Links to socio-emotional development. Children’s Environment Quarterly, 8, 55-65.
4. Melson, G.F. & Schwarz, R. (1994, October). Pets as social supports for families for young children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Delta Society, New York.
5. Rost, D. & Hartmann, A. (1994). Children and their pets. Anthrozoös, 7(4), 242-254.
6. Wilson, C.C. (1994). A conceptual framework for human-animal interaction research: The challenge revisited. Anthrozoös, 7(1), 4-12.