|
E-mail this page to a friend!
Do Plants or Pets Offer the Most Therapy for Older
People?
 June
28, 2005 - Editor's Note: A reader with the Oklahoma State University,
School of Family Medicine, sent us a study she did to determine if
plants or pets provided the greater therapy for older people. She did
her study in assisted living facilities and the animals won. Following
is her scholarly report, with a lengthy background on the benefits
of pets through the ages.
Pets or Plants: Are They
Therapeutically Different?
By Sherril M. Stone, PhD, Oklahoma State University
Research has shown that pets enhance the
psychological and physical functioning of humans and at times were more
effective than other humans in treatment of psychological, physical, and
emotional disorders. However, fewer studies have examined the benefits
of plants. This study compared the benefits of pets to plants with
elderly citizens. The Pet therapy group reported decreased Social
Avoidance and Depression on the post-test questionnaires. In contrast,
the Plant therapy group reported an increase in Social Avoidance with no
change in Depression from the pretest to the post-test responses to the
questionnaire.
History of Human and Animal Interaction
Animals have played a significant role in the lives
of humans throughout history. The first species to make the transition
towards domestication with humans was the wolf (Canis lupus), the
predecessor of the modern domestic dog (Levine, 1971). Soon, sheep,
goats, cattle, and pigs were kept with humans. Next, horses, asses,
camels, water buffalo, alpaca, llama, turkey, guinea pig, and domestic
fowl appeared with humans.
More recently, Egyptians domesticated wildcats and
kept them as house cats. Egyptians also placed dogs in the same sacred
category as the dog-headed god Anubis. The early Greeks favored the
longhaired Maltese lap dogs (Serpell, 1996) and also placed them in
sacred positions. They greatly admired monkeys as pets as well. It was a
common practice for the Greeks to embalm their cats when they died and
either bury them with their own elaborate tombstones or bury them later
with the owner.
The Romans kept birds, monkeys, Maltese dogs, and
fish as pets. They were very affectionate towards them, went to great
extremes to honor them upon their death, and adorned them with gold
jewelry and expensive clothing (Serpell, 1996). British citizens kept
lap dogs. The Noble ladies fed the dogs and carried them about in their
arms. Szasz (1968) reported that Mary Queen of Scots dressed them in
blue velvet suits in the winter and paraded them around in society.
Henry III became so attached to his dog that he carried it around in a
basket everywhere he went. James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II
were also avid dog keepers. The spaniel became Charles II’s favorite and
it retained his namesake into modern times (Ritchie, 1981).
The Chinese Emperor Ling of the Han dynasty named
his dogs as senior officials of his court (Serpell, 1996). The majority
of successive dynasties also maintained large quantities of dogs. In
contrast, the rulers of the Ming dynasty replaced the dogs with cats.
Cats remained in high status until the seventeenth century when the
Manchurian LCh’ing dynasty reinstated dogs as the preferred pet,
specifically, the Pekinese dog. Women breast fed the puppies along with
their own children.
Japanese and Korean citizens treated animals in
similar manners. For instance, Shogun Tsunayoshi was frequently referred
to as the Dog Shogun because of his obsessions with dogs. In an attempt
to protect all dogs, he passed a law that all citizens were to treat
them with kindness and use polite words when talking to them (Watts,
1985). The result of owning 100,000 dogs brought hardships for the
citizens because the expense of taking care of the dogs increased
inflation and was subsidized by imposing taxes on the farmers.
Hernandez found raccoons living with the tribal
people of Mexico. The raccoon was also a favorite for the Indians of
California (Elmendorf & Kroeber, 1960) and modern Americans (Beck,
1983).
The North American Indians kept large moose, young
of bison, calves, wolves, and bears as pets (Galton, 1883). The West
Indies and Jamaica people kept small dogs similar to the Maltese lap
dogs. It was very common to see a Jamaican women carry her dog on her
shoulder and breast-feed it when it was hungry. Similarly, the Indians
of South America kept many species for pets including dogs, monkeys,
possum-rats, deer, and birds and suckled them.
The Brazilians were observed by Fleming (1984) to
be very devoted to their pets. None of the animals kept as pets were
ever eaten and when they died they often were buried close to the owner
(Basso, 1973). The devotion of the Brazilians to their birds was similar
to European’s love of their dogs and cats. Polynesians kept and raised
dogs as pets and food (Luomala, 1960). However, the pet dogs were exempt
from slaughter because the Polynesians allowed themselves to develop
strong bonds with them. This attitude is similar to the one found in
some Eskimo and Inuit communities. Briggs (1970) found that Inuits
routinely adopted a puppy, kept it as a pet, and doted on and loved on
it openly.
Benefits of Human and Pet Bond
From an evolutionary perspective pets pose a
reduced risk of survival (Archer, 1997) for the human and, therefore,
human-pet attachments should not occur. Specifically, when a human
becomes attached to an animal they expend time, energy, and resources on
it that could otherwise be spent on their offspring.
Research has shown, however, that pets enhance
psychological functioning, at times, even more than other humans. For
instance, Beck and Katcher (1996) found that people, regardless of age,
benefited from interacting with dogs, cats, kittens, guinea pigs,
hamsters, fishes, and birds.
Pet therapy, has also been shown to be effective
for those suffering from emotional disabilities and posttraumatic
disorders (Engel, 1994; Heipertz-Hengst, 1994). For instance, Kidd and
Kidd (1994) found that pets reduced loneliness in homeless individuals
and elderly citizens. Likewise, Ory and Goldberg (1983) demonstrated
similar benefits in elderly women while Zasloff and Kidd (1994) reported
reductions in all elderly regardless of gender. Pets have also been
shown to strengthen social interaction skills of the elderly (Brasic,
1998) and mentally disabled (Corson, Corson, Gwynne, & Arnold, 1977).
Studies have indicated that pets reduce stress more
than the presence of a good friend (Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, & Kelsey,
1991). Other research has demonstrated that pets enhance self-esteem
(e.g. Serpell, 1996) and decrease disturbed psychological functioning
(Corson & Corson, 1981).
Brickell (1979) placed a mascot cat into a
hospital-based nursing home in California. He believed that ward mascots
would have as many positive effects on the patients as if each one was
given their own pet. The staff reported that after introduction of the
cat the patients were more responsive to others. Beck and Katcher (1989)
showed that psychiatric patients who met in a room that contained
finches had significantly lower hostility scores than patients who met
in a room without them. Also, the patients reported feeling safer and
more open when the finches were present.
Ory and Goldberg (1983) found that older persons
who were strongly attached to their pets also reported being happier.
Similarly, Garrity, Stallone, Marx, and Johnson
(1989) found that older persons who reported a stronger attachment to
their pets correlated with lower self-report of depression. Savishinsky
(1985) found that pets triggered the memories of nursing home residents.
When the visiting pets were present many residents talked about their
childhood pets, reminisced about their childhood, and increased
communication with other residents and their own family members.
Residents from rural backgrounds often related their experiences with
the farm animals. Additionally, farmers reminisced about working
accomplishments linked with animals such as milking the cows, plowing
the fields with a horse, and learning husbandry techniques.
Pets as Therapy
 Various
types of animals have been increasingly used for their therapeutic
nature on human psychological disabilities. In addition to dogs, cats,
and fish, horses (DePauw, 1992), birds (Netting, Wilson, & New, 1987),
hamsters or gerbils, and rabbits (Katcher, Beck, & Levine, 1989; Levy,
1975; Stone, 2000) have also been shown to enhance psychological
functioning. Even monkeys have been shown to be effective therapeutic
agents. For example, after the Oklahoma City bombing, a rhesus monkey
was used to calm and entertain victims waiting word of their loved ones.
Despite the numerous findings of the psychological
and physical benefits derived from animals, fewer studies have examined
the benefits of plants. Therefore, it is unknown if the psychological
and physical benefits are attributable solely to animals. If it is the
exclusive presence of animals that results in enhanced psychological and
physical functioning, then other objects should not provide similar
therapeutic benefits. In contrast, if the benefits are a consequent of
interacting with any living organism, then other stimuli may serve the
purpose. For example, Robb, Boyd and Pristash (1980) studied the social
responses of elderly male veterans exposed to a wine bottle, a potted
plant, and a caged puppy. Their results indicated that the puppy
elicited the most social responses with the plant eliciting the next
greater number of responses.
They suggested that both animals and plants result
in favorable socialization in the chronically ill elderly. However, no
studies have compared the psychological and physical benefits of animals
to plants. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine
the therapeutic benefits of pets and plants, including flowers, as an
alternative mechanism by which the elderly receive therapeutic benefits.
It was hypothesized that the pets would provide the greater
psychological benefits such as (a) decreased social avoidance, (b)
decreased depression, and (c) increased self-esteem.
Method
Participants
Residents of Alterra Sterling House Assisted Living
Center (75-96 years old, m =
75.1 years) and elderly citizens at Daybreak Eldercare Center (64-83
years old, m = 74.7 years) in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, volunteered to participate in the study. All of
the participants were cognitively capable of physical or verbal
interaction with the pets and plants. The residents of Alterra Sterling
Houses Assisted Living Center (8 females, 2 males) served as the Pet
therapy group while the elderly from Daybreak Center (7 females, 3
males) served as the Plant therapy group. All participants were treated
in accordance with APA ethical guidelines.
Twenty participants from each facility began the
study. However, due to health issues, family moves, and death rates
among the volunteers, only ten from each facility completed the study.
All residents were provided with an Informed Consent form and photograph
release form prior to the commencement of the study. All the procedures
were explained to them. All of the individual results remained
confidential and only non-identifying material was used in future
analyses. All study results and questionnaires were kept in a locked
file cabinet in the principal investigator’s office.
Materials
Pets. The animals used were trained therapy pets
from Pet-Me PetsÒ and all had
prior experience with elderly citizens. The pets included a Springer
Spaniel female dog (Patches) and her sister a Golden Spaniel (Precious),
a female Husky (Sugar), a female Potbelly pig (Pringles), a female Pygmy
goat (Pixie), a male Mini Rex rabbit (Peanut), a female Holland lop ear
rabbit (Pretzel), and a male orange Tabby cat (Pedro). All of the pets
were spayed or neutered and were current on vaccinations.
The Mini Rex rabbits were chosen due to the quality
of their fur and their docile nature. Their fur, for example, is very
similar to chinchilla. Due to the frequent occurrence of allergies to
cat dander, Pedro was kept in his carrier until a resident requested to
hold him. All of the pets were treated in accordance with APA ethical
guidelines.
 Plants.
The plant life included both plants and flowers. After consultation with
a local nursery a 6” Chinese evergreen and the dwarf Peace Lily were
chosen as the plants to be included in the study. These plants are
tolerant of various temperatures and have seasonal blooms. The flowers
varied depending on the time of the season, their color, hardiness, and
availability. Examples included pansies, tulips, irises, and various
ground cover flowers. Additionally, marigold seeds were included so the
participants could plant them and watch them grow.
Student Presenters. Undergraduate students from the
Human-Animal Interaction and Learning (PSYC 2033) class at Rogers State
University, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, participated as presenters.
Inclusion in the project fulfilled the applied application requirement
of their course. Additionally, the experience exposed undergraduate
students to real world research. They learned all aspects of scientific
experimentation and were involved in each step of implantation. Not only
will they be involved in research, they also benefited by interacting
with the elderly residents. All of the previous volunteers indicated
they enjoyed participating in the program and benefited personally by
their participation.
Measurement scales
Questions were randomly selected from three
measurement scales and compiled into a survey for use in the pretest and
posttest portion of the study (Appendix A). The scales were self-report
questionnaires with (a) Yes/No, (b) True/False, (c) or Likert Scale
ratings. All of the scales had been shown to be reliable (Janda, 2001;
Weiten, 2000).
The Self-Esteem Rating Scale. Nugent, W. R. and
Thomas, J. W. (1993). Validation of the Self-Esteem Rating Scale.
Research on Social Work Practice, 3, 191-207.
Beck Depression Inventory. Beck, A. T. (1967).
Social Avoidance and Distress Scale. Watson, D. L.
and Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social evaluative anxiety. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
Procedure
All participants were recruited on a volunteer
basis. They were told that they were participating in a program to teach
college students the proper way to present pets or plants to elderly
citizens. All of the willing participants signed an informed consent to
participate in the program. It was explained to them that the students
would visit once every other week.
Prior to the pet and plant visitations, the
residents were asked to complete several self-report questions. For
those residents unable to complete the questionnaire on their own, a
nursing aide or other employee assisted them. The residents were told
that the students were learning how to analyze statistics for the
scales. Additionally, the residents were told that their name would
remain confidential and that none of the students would see any
identifying information. This was done in an effort to obtain true
answers on the scales rather than “impressive” answers. At the
conclusion of the four-month visitation program the residents completed
the same questionnaires. The data was analyzed for differences in pre
and posttest results and therapy group stimuli. The participants were
debriefed at the conclusion of the study. Specifically, they were told
the specifics of the research project and what part they played in it.
The visitations occurred every other week for four
months. To control for presenter bias, all students visited each
facility. The students visited the dayroom or living room of the
facilities and allowed the residents to look at, touch, smell, and talk
to the pets and plants. Each visit lasted approximately 20-30 minutes.
The questions from the survey addressed three
separate areas of psychological well being; (a) Social Avoidance, (b)
Depression, and (c) Self-esteem. Data was collected using a pretest and
a posttest survey. Each psychological area was analyzed within the
treatment groups and between the treatment groups using a repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The treatment groups consisted of
Pet therapy and Plant therapy.
Results
| |
 |
|
| |
Figure 1.
The results of the Social Avoidance repeated measures ANOVA. |
|
The results of a Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed a
significant difference between the therapy groups in both Social
Avoidance and Depression.
Specifically, the Pet therapy group had a
significantly lower level of Social Avoidance (Figure 1) than the Plant
therapy group F(1,18) = 8.896, p < .05. Additionally, there was a
significant main effect for Question F(9,162) = 5.553, p < .05 and
significant interaction differences for Test (Pre/Post) x Question
F(9,162) = 2.447, p < .05, Question x Therapy Group F(9,162) = 2.089, p
< .05. Further analysis with a paired samples T-test revealed
significant differences in pretest and posttest responses in the Pet
therapy group for Question 4 t(19) = 3.684, p < .005 and Question 10
t(19) = 2.854, p < .05.
The results also indicated a significant Therapy
group effect for Depression. Specifically, the Pet therapy group
reported a significantly lower level of Depression (Figure 2) in the
posttest than the Plant therapy group F(1,18) = 12.115, p < .05.
Discussion
| |
 |
|
| |
Figure 2.
The results of the Depression
repeated measures ANOVA. |
|
The results of the current study support two of the
three hypotheses. Specifically, the Pet therapy group reported (a)
decreased Social Avoidance and (b) decreased Depression after
visitations from the pets. However, unlike Serpell’s (1996) findings
that pets enhance self-esteem, the current data indicated no effect.
These results could be attributed to the questions chosen from the
previously mentioned surveys to include in the single questionnaire. The
questions may not have addressed the self-esteem issues of interest to
this study. Additionally, due to the counterbalancing of negative and
positive questions, the participants may have misinterpreted them.
Finally, the time of year may have skewed the results because
self-esteem may have been higher or lower due to the holiday season and
expectations of family or friends.
As indicated in Figure 1, the Pet therapy group
reported a significant reduction in Social Avoidance while the Plant
therapy participants indicated an increase in Social Avoidance.
In addition, while the Pet therapy group reported a
decrease in Depression, the level of Depression in the Plant therapy
group remained virtually unchanged. One explanation for this could
include the novelty aspect of the plants. For example, the participants
had a tendency to lose interest in the plants after the first two
visits.
Specifically, upon the first visit, residents
enjoyed planting their marigold seeds and looking at the different
plants and flowers. Later, they enjoyed watching their seeds grow into
flowers. Some residents even became upset when they were told they could
not keep the flowers although they were reassured the students would
care for them until the following visit. At times, the facility
employees had to misdirect the participant’s attention so the students
could slip the flower back into the carrying crate. Future studies
should examine this possessive phenomenon by presenting participants
with a resident plant they can care for entirely themselves.
 When
it became apparent that the Plant therapy participants were
disinterested, and in an effort to arouse interest in the plant life
stimuli, the experimenters regularly purchased different plants and
flowers. Additionally, supplies for such activities as water spraying
the plants and repotting them were also used in an attempt to rekindle
interest. However, these efforts failed to maintain the level of
involvement and the participants stopped coming.
Although this study presents evidence of
therapeutic value of pets over plants, several limitations should be
addressed. For instance, this study used two different types of
locations. Specifically, the Pet therapy group consisted of long-term
residential facility individuals whereas the Plant therapy group
participants were from an eldercare drop-in center. This difference in
living arrangements may account for the variation between the two
psychological constructs. A drop-in client may have a lower degree of
depression and a higher incidence of Social Anxiety, while the opposite
could be true for a resident client. Future studies should use similar
facilities or reverse the stimuli with facilities similar to the current
study in an effort to determine if any psychological differences occur.
Another limitation of the current study was the
visitation aspect of the stimuli. As evident in the Plant therapy group,
the participants wanted to keep their flowers. Additionally, many
residents of the assisted living center wanted to keep a pet in their
room.
A future study could examine the therapeutic
benefit of both resident pets and plants. If similar results as the
current are found, then studies of specific types of pets or plants
could be conducted to determine if therapy value is dependent on the
species of stimuli. Finally, future studies should be conducted on the
physiological effects of pet and plant therapy to determine if there are
differences in them.
References
Allen, K., Blascovich,
J., Tomaka, J., & Kelsey, R. (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.
Archer, J. (1997). Why
do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 237-259.
Beck, A. (1983).
Animals in the city. In New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion
Animals. A. Katcher and A. Beck (Eds.). University of Pennsylvania
Press. Philadelphia: PA.
Beck, A. & Katcher, A.
(1996). Between Pets and People: The Importance of Animal Companionship.
Purdue University Press, West Lafayette: IN.
Beck, A. & Katcher, A.
(1989). Bird-human interaction. Journal of the Association of Avian
Veterinarians, 3, 152-153.
Beck, A. (1967). Beck
Depression Inventory.
Becker, M. (2002). The
Healing Power of Pets. Hyperion Press. New York: NY.
Brasic, J. (1998).
Pets and health. Psychological Reports, 83, 1011-1024.
Brickell, C. (1979).
The therapeutic roles of cat mascots with a hospital-based geriatric
population: A staff survey. The Gerontologist, 19, 368-372.
Briggs, J. (1970).
Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo family. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge: MA.
Corson, S. & Corson,
E. (1981). Animals as bonding catalysts in geriatric institutions. In B.
Fogle (Ed.). Interrelations Between People and Pets, Charles C. Thomas
Publisher, Springfield: IL.
Corson, S., Corson,
E., Gwynne, P., & Arnold, L. (1977). Pet dogs as nonverbal communication
links in hospital psychiatry. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 18, 61-72.
DePauw, K. (1992).
Review of research in therapeutic riding. In B. Engel (Ed.), Therapeutic
riding programs: Instruction and rehabilitation. Engel Therapy Services,
Durango: CO.
Elmendorf, W. &
Kroeber, K. (1960). The structure of Twana culture with comparative
notes on the structure of Yurok culture. Washington University Research
Studies, Monograph, 2, 28.
Engel, B. (1994).
Bibliography of the Federation of Riding for the Disabled International.
B. Engel Therapy Services, Durango: CO.
Fleming, P. (1984).
Brazilian Adventure. Penguin Books, London.
Galton, F. (1883).
Inquiry into Human Faculty and its Development. MacMillan, London.
Garrity, T.,
Stallones, L., Marx, M., & Johnson, T. (1989). Pet ownership and
attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly.
Anthrozoos, 3, 35-44.
Heipertz-Hengst, C.
(1994). Evaluation of outcome in hippotherapy. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Therapeutic Riding Congress (pp. 217-221). National
Training Resource Center, Levin: New Zealand.
Janda, L. (2001). The
Psychologist’s Book of Personality Tests. Wiley and Sons, New York: NY.
Katcher, A. H., Beck,
A. T., & Levine, D. (1989). Evaluation of a pet program in prison: The
Pal Project at Lorton. Anthrozoos, 2, 175-1980.
Kidd, A. & Kidd, R.
(1994). Benefits and liabilities of pets for the homeless. Psychological
Reports, 74, 715-722.
Leland, L., Kirsch,
J., & Stone, S. M. (2004). The Effects of Therapy Pets on Elderly
Citizens’ Blood Pressure and Heart Rate. Great Plains Student Research
Conference, Kansas City, KS.
Levine, M. (1971).
Prehistoric art and ideology. In Man in Adaptation: the Institutional
Framework, Y. A. Cohen (Ed.). Aldine Press, Chicago: IL.
Luomala, K. (1960).
The native dog in the Polynesian system of values. In Culture in
History. S. Diamond (Ed.). Columbia University Press, New York: NY.
Netting, F., Wilson,
C., & New, J. (1987). The human-animal bond: Implications for practice.
Social Work, 32, 60-64.
Nugent, W. & Thomas,
J. (1993). Validation of the Self-Esteem Rating Scale. Research on
Social Work Practice, 3, 191-207.
Ory, M. & Goldberg, E.
(1983). Pet possession and life satisfaction in elderly women. In A. H.
Katcher and A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with
companion animals. University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 303-317,
Philadelphia: PA.
Reisman, J. (1983).
SACRAL: Toward the Meaning and Measurement of Friendliness. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 47, 405-413.
Robb, S., Boyd, M., &
Pristash, C. (1980). A wine bottle, plant, and puppy; catalysts for
social behavior. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 6, 721-728.
Savishinsky, J.
(1985). Pets and family relationships among nursing home residents: Pets
and the Family, The Haworth Press.
Serpell, J. A. (1996).
In the Company of Animals: A study of Human-Animal Relationships.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: Great Britain.
Stone, S. (2000).
Human-Animal Interaction, A Guideline to Therapeutic Intervention.
Pet-Me PetsÒ:
A Bond for LifeÔ, Sherril M. Stone (Ed.).
Szasz, K. (1968).
Petishism: Pet Cults of the Western World. Hutchinson, London.
Watson, D. L. &
Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social evaluative anxiety. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
Watts, D. (1985).
Touching tribute to canine loyalty. The Times, 28 February.
Weiten, W. (2000).
Personal Explorations Workbook. Wadsworth/Thomas, Stamford: CT.
Zasloff, R. & Kidd, A.
(1994). Loneliness and pet ownership among single women. Psychological
Reports, 75, 747-752.
Send all correspondence to
Dr. Sherril M. Stone, Oklahoma State University,
Department of Family Medicine, Tulsa, OK 74107
Phone 918-561-8289 – Fax 918-699-8680 -
sherril.stone@okstate.edu
Click to More Senior News on the
Front Page
Copyright: SeniorJournal.com |
