24113

Marinę Grandgeorge and Martine Hausberger

ANIMAL-ASSISTED INTERYENTIONS IN MENTAL HEALTH

located close to thc housc. But human cxpectations arecloser to those towards pets {i.e. companionship, spccific bond).

Beyond these generał trends, humans have probably rcali/cd vcry carly a bchavioural sclcction by choos-ing as brceders animals the oncs thcy had particulariy apprcciatcd ąualities. Although this was probably un-conscious, the eflects on a succession of generations havc ccrtainly bccn major, leading to our currcnt bc-havioural and morphological types of dogs or cats. Studics pcrformcd in thc last dccadcs havc dcmon-strated that it was possiNe. using a divergent selec-tion, to favour somc bchavioural types. The pioncering study of Bclyacv and Trut [5] on silver foxes is remark-able in this sense. By choosing wilhin broods the young animals that werc cithcr thc most or thc least aggrcs-sive towards an experimenter and Crossing them with-in cach catcgory, thcsc scicntists obtaincd, after a fcw generations. foxes that werc eitherextremely aggrcsshe or cxtremcly familiar, with behaviours rcminding of dog pups (e.g tai) wagging. licking). Intcrcstingly. this procedurę was also associated with the devdopment of dog typc morphological charactcristics: taił, fur and ears were closer to those of dogs rather than foxes.

Thcrcforc, our currcnt pets arc thc rcsults of both their phylogcnctic history and their long history with humans. Both aspeets may bc involvcd in thc finding that dogs arc particulariy efficient in the pcrception - and use - of human cues such as the attentional State (through thc direction of body and gazę) that they can use, for example, in order to locate a food source (6-8J.

HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSIIIP

FROM THE DOUBLE POINT OF VIEW

Human and pets: why do humans wish

an interspecific relation?

Although there are some examples of interspecific relationships bctwccn animal spccics in the wild (e.g clown fishes and anemones, ants and aphids, mixcd species groups of primates) where both species have benefits from thc association, thc human-pet rcla-tionship is rather unique in itscurrent form. Pets are not ncccssarily cxpcctcd to work and humans just enjoy having them at home. Companionship with pets has, in many cascs, long lost its initial utilitar-ian form and one can wonder what humans expect from these animals. Could it be that pets fulfil some biological need, such as a need for bonding, cvcn with another species?

According to Mclson and Pcct [9], attachmcnt to pet is related to positive emotional functioning. A strong attachmcnt may havc a positivc impact on anxiety [10]. Pets might inerease the survival ratę of people who had experienccd coronary artery diseases [11]. But to datę evidence for a direct ben-cficial cfTcct of pet ownership on human hcalth is inconclusive and data would need further rcplica-tion. Overall, dog owners tend to present less minor hcalth problcms than non owners. It may be bccause they do morę recreational walks, which might be the cause [12]. However, cat owners tend also to have less of thcsc problcms despite of thc fact that cat prescnce is not associated with inereased walking [10]. Animals may act as “social lubricant” as their prcscncc (e.g. during walks) inereases thc chanccs of social contacts with other people [13-15].

According to Paul [16, 17], dog ownership would bc associated with greater family cohcsion. Sharcd attention between adults and children may create in-crcascd communication and cxchangcs [18]. Parcnts often obtain a pet bccause they consider it to be good for their children [19]. Childrcn’s sclf cstecm scorcs tend to inerease after 9 months of having kept a pet in the school classroom [20]. As the animals are en-tircly dependent upon their owner, children may learn to understand feelings and needs [17]. Pets are supposcd to bc a source of popularity and to help children developempathy [21]. Children may feel re-sponsiblc and compelent if they takc carc of the pet [19]. Thus, pets may bring“social support": children can go to them if they have a problem [22] without fccling “thrcatcncd" as it is a non judgcmcntal aflcc-tion. Children who owned a pet during childhood havc morę chanccs to acquirc a pet when adult [23]. Only children or children without younger siblings tend to bc morę pet oriented [19], rcinforcing thc idea that animals may constitute “social substitutes" especially in case of restricted social situations.

Neverthclcss causal relationships are difficult to prove while proper developmental studies would need longitudinal approaches that are time consum-ing. Many of these assertions rcmain thcrcforc to bc studied again at thc light of currcnt research stand-ards. In any case, animals arc a source of multimo-dal stimulation and attention that can ccrtainly trig-ger the development of cognitive abilities. Although limited to clinical cascs at first, Lcvinson s pioncering work on dogs [24] suggested that the presence of such an animal ncar an autistic child may stimulatc languagc production.

Animals and humans: the animal side

Domestic animals, as said before, develop real abili-tics to pcrccivc and interpret human signals. Farm animals are able to discriminate familiar and unfa-miliar humans [e.g. 25, 26] and to givc a valencc to the rclationship [27] as do horses [28]. This valence is cxtended from thc familiar caretaker to unknown humans, showing that animals may generalize [29, 30]. Each interaction is a source of positive or nega-tivc mcmory and thc rcsulting rclationship from a succession of interactions will depend on the rela-tivc wcight of thcsc mcmorics. Human actions may havc long term impact, resulting in avoidance of contact (if human actions are inappropriatc, e.g [31]) or proximity seeking (if appropriate, [32, 33]), cvcn scvcral months after loss of contact. Bccause difierent species may have dilTerent expectations and nccds, there may bc “misunderstandings": for example, horses seek mere proximity where humans