Adolescents’ Attachments to their Pets, Parents, and Peers Eleonora Gullone Department of Psychology Monash University

Companions animals and Us: Demonstrated 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).

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).

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

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.

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)?

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).

The Sample 165 adolescents aged years. 50 males and 165 females (85% female). All owned at least one pet. Dogs and cats were the most commonly owned pets.

Measures Personality 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. Talking to others makes me nervous. Most of the time I am a quiet person. Most of the time I am a quiet person.

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”.

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?”

Companion Animal Bonding Affective Pet Bonding Measure (McLean & Gullone, 2000). Response scale ranges from 1= “Not at all” to 5 = “Very (Much)” Three items: “How 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?”

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.

Results Total Sample Intercorrelations Behavioural Inhibition with Attachment: Parent -.45 ** Peer -.37 ** Pet (bhrl) NS Pet (affect) NS ** = p <.01 NS = Not significant

Results Total Sample Attachment Intercorrelations Parent& Peer.41 ** Parent & Pet (bhrl)NS Parent & Pet (affect).16* Peer & Pet (bhrl).18* Peer & Pet (affect).33** Pet (bhrl and affect).58** * = p <.05; ** = p <.01; NS = Not significant

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

Group Differences (t-tests) Parent Attachment (lo: 54.30; hi: *) Peer Attachment(lo: 66.54; hi: *) Pet Attachment (Bhrl) (lo: 27.11; hi: NS) Pet Attachment (Affective) (lo: 14.17; hi: NS)

Attachment Intercorrelations Low BIHigh BI Parent& Peer.21*.35*** Parent & Pet (bhrl)NS NS Parent & Pet (affect)NS NS Parent & Pet (affect)NS NS Peer & Pet (bhrl)NS.27** Peer & Pet (bhrl)NS.27** Peer & Pet (affect).22*.38*** Peer & Pet (affect).22*.38*** Pet (bhrl & affect).44***.69*** Pet (bhrl & affect).44***.69*** * = P <.05; ** = p <.01; *** = P <.001 NS = Not significant

Shared Variance amongst Attachment Types Regression Analyses by BI group: 1. DV = Pet Attachment (Behavioural) 2. DV = Pet Attachment (Affective) Predictor Variables Parent Attachment Peer Attachment

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 <.01)

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 <.05)

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.

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**).

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.

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.