Your humble narrator finds himself sick with a cold, so here's a post from the archives.
There is considerable research on how children interact with other children and with adults, and how child development can be influenced by those interactions. But research on children's interactions with non-human animals seem to be limited. Given how ubiquitous pets are in the homes of children (at least, in WEIRD cultures), it is somewhat surprising that there hasn't been more work on the way pet ownership might affect child development.
According to the US Humane Society:
- There are approximately 77.5 million owned dogs in the United States
- Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog
- Most owners (67 percent) own one dog
- Twenty-four percent of owners own two dogs
- Nine percent of owners own three or more dogs
- On average, dog owners spent $225 on veterinary visits (vaccine, well visits) annually
- There are approximately 93.6 million owned cats in the United States
- Thirty-three percent of U.S. households (or 38.2 million) own at least one cat
- Fifty-six percent of owners own more than one cat
- On average, owners have two cats (2.45)
- Cat owners spent an average of $203 on routine veterinary visits
Developmental scientist Gail F. Melson noted this paucity in research in a 2003 review paper in The American Behavioral Scientist. Melson points out that most parents report that they acquired their family pets "for the children," and given the ubiquity of child-pet bonding and interaction, she suggests that it is an important area for child development research to investigate. She goes through several topic areas in child development and examines what has been learned, or could be learned, by investigating human-animal bonding.
Perceptual and Cognitive Development
Melson starts with Eleanor Gibson's work on perceptual development, and in particular, her theory of perceptual affordances - that is, infants extract knowledge from the world by interacting with the world; by looking at, hearing, feelings, tasting, and acting on objects, and discovering what objects "afford" - the "what can I do with this" for each object.
Babies can readily differentiate pet dogs and cats from "life-like" battery-operated toy dogs and cats. Babies will smile at, hold, follow, and make sounds in response to the live animals more than in response to the toys. In one study, 9 month olds were more interested in a live rabbit than an adult female stranger or a wooden turtle. A 1989 study of 2- to 6-year-olds with animals in their classrooms showed that children ignored realistic stuffed animals (80% never looked at them), but that live animals - especially dogs and birds - captured the attention of the children. Seventy-four percent touched the dog, 21% kissed the dog, and more than 66% talked to the bird.
Living with pets seems to stimulate children's learning about basic biology. In one study, Japanese researchers showed that kindergarteners who had cared for pet goldfish better understood unobservable biological traits of their goldfish, and gave more accurate answers to questions like "does a goldfish have a heart?" They also showed better reasoning about other species by using analogies: one child inferred that a baby frog "will grow bigger, much as the goldfish got bigger."
Though there haven't been any studies, Melson hypothesizes that caring for animals may also give children more elaborated and accurate ideas about life and death.
Finally, Melson points out that animals present good learning opportunities for the simple reason that children learn and retain more when they are emotionally invested, and that children's learning is optimized when it occurs within the context of meaningful relationships. There is no reason that the only meaningful relationships for young children should be human relationships.
Social and Emotional Development
When asked to name the 10 most important individuals in their lives, 7- and 10-year-olds on average included 2 pets. Melson offers two important functions of companion animals that might support social/emotional development.
The first is social support. Dozens, if not hundreds, of studies demonstrate that lack of human social support is a risk factor for physical and psychological problems, especially for children, and there is evidence that pet-owning children derive such emotional support from their pets. A 1985 study of 7- and 10-year-olds in California showed that pet owners were equally likely to talk to their pets about sad, angry, happy, and secret experiences as with their human siblings. Seventy-five percent of Michigan 10- to 14-year-olds reported that when upset, they turned to their pets. Forty-two percent of Indiana 5-year-olds spontaneously mentioned a pet when asked "who do you turn to when you are feeling sad, angry, happy, or wanting to share a secret?" Even more interesting: when comparing parents, friends, and pets, elementary school children considered their relationships with their pets as most likely to last "no matter what" and "even if you get mad at each other." Among pet-owning children, those who did turn to their pets for support were rated by parents as less anxious and withdrawn than those who owned pets, but did not seek such social support from them.
The second is nurturance. Since pets are dependent on human care, pets provide children with the opportunity to learn about how to care for another being. Further, Melson argues that the development of nurturance underlies future effective parenting, non-family childcare, and caregiving for the elderly, sick, and disabled.
One study of 5-6 year olds showed that those more attached to their pets showed greater empathy towards peers. Another study of 7 and 10 year olds showed that those who reported more "intimate talks" with their pets, also reported more empathy.
It is important to note that most of these studies are correlational, and it is therefore difficult to make any causal claims. For example, the association between pet-caring and empathy identified may be due to the possibility that parents obtain pets for children who are already empathic. Or, empathic children may be better at bonding with animals.
I agree that more research needs to be done on child-animal relationships, particularly within the context of the family. Many children (and adults) consider their pets as family members. Some children consider their pets as though they were younger siblings, peers, or even as security-providing attachment figures. One study suggested that both adults and children within a family context may deflect their emotional responses onto their pets (a mother is angry at her children, but yells at the dog instead), or routing communication to their pets meant for other family members (a father talks to the cat intending his son to overhear). It would be interesting to know how pets alter and are altered by the dynamics of the family system.
Melson, G. (2003). Child Development and the Human-Companion Animal Bond American Behavioral Scientist, 47 (1), 31-39 DOI: 10.1177/0002764203255210
â"Babies will smile at, hold, follow, and make sounds in response to the live animals more than in response to the toys."
Couldn't that just mean that the baby sees the real thing as a better than the toy? In the future you'll be able to make a toy that most people couldn't differentiate from the real thing, never mind a baby. Also if you made a toy that was even better than the real thing surely babies would smile at, hold, follow, and make sounds in response to that toy (e.g. a cat that could fly) more than in response to the real (less cool) animals.
I'm just saying that to me this seems like the baby's ability to decide what is more awesome, rather than its ability to classify things as biological or artificial.
I just love your blog; I swear when I read it sometimes that I picked the wrong field :). Child-(non-human)animal relationships are so fascinating and, in my opinion, very essential. What a fascinating study you've shared! Thank you!
I have to disagree with Jools, I'm afraid. I don't think the 'coolness' of the animal or toy has anything to do with it. A living, breathing animal (I count fish as breathing) behaves very differently from even the most sophisticated toy. Children instinctively react to a real mind and a real life behind real eyes, and I suspect most would prefer the company of a real kitten than that of a talking, flying toy.
Melson also points out that even caring for birds and other wild animals help children to see themselves as nurturing and care-giving.
I also find it interesting that the number of bonds within a family to humans is shrinking while the number of bonds within the "family" (including pets) is increasing.
Really enjoy when you right about dogs especially.
Some remarkable research you have collected! Thanks a million,I am conducting a dissertation about the interraction and benefits of young children with animals and it was just what I needed! :)
Coming from personal experience of having childhood pets, I definitely find some of the points to be true (at least in my case). I was an only child growing up, so my parents decided to buy a dog to be my companion. My parents were usually either working away from home or at home, so my dog and my momâs two cats provided me with a great deal of social interaction. I recall one memory of me carrying around my dog and talking to her, pretending we were preparing for an adventure. It didnât matter than the only response I got from her was a blank stare, having something to talk to and that would always be there for me mattered more. When my momâs cats died the year I was in sixth grade, I started to get a better understanding of death. Having childhood pets can be great, but the pets dying (hopefully from old age...) around the time you become a teenager is rough. Looking back on it, I see it as a parallel of the end of my childhood. Your research gave a very interesting biological/social perspective of something I can relate to on a very personal level.
Since I was 4 or 5 years old, I have had my standard poodle Tootsie by my side, through thick or thin, and she has never stopped loving me unconditionally. I think thatâs the greatest thing about a dog. You could have bad breath, the worst body odor in the world, or a bad hair day, and no matter what, your dog will still love you. I think that this blog raises a good point that having a dog is more than just having a pet; itâs having a companion. Dogs help us get through tough times in our lives. They listen, and they care, and they can help us express our emotions. It urks me when parents deprive their children of a pet, either because they donât want to spend the money on the animal, or because they donât think itâs necessary. It shouldnât be about the money, or the fact that youâll have to feed the dog and pick up his/her defecations. Itâs about happiness, and I canât think of one thing in this world that makes a family more complete, after all of the children, than a pet and a companion. Pets not only benefit you, but they also benefit the people around you. For example, my dog is a Therapy Dog. She has an official license and everything, and every day, she goes to work with my mom, who is a psychotherapist. The difference my dog makes in her office is exponential! My dog provides comfort for people in my momâs office, and makes my momâs office environment more relaxing. I will say that my dogâs work consists mostly of sleeping, but just her presence in my momâs practice is enough to help her patients that much more. You can learn more about therapy dogs at http://www.tdi-dog.org/. I really enjoyed reading this article, and I hope that it will inspire people to realize just how amazing pets truly are.
Child-animal relationships and their effect on childrens' development and personality is such an interesting field of study and I think it is introduced well in this article. It should have much more attention as a field of study!
I would like to ad that I am positive that human/pet bonding also helps adults to develop socially and emotionally. I suggest such relations have the power to indirectly improve the quality of their human/human relationships through the learning/improvement of social skills, empathy and 'theory of mind' (to understand another being fundamentally very different from one self).
I think that in some cases the basics of social interaction, bonding and reciprocality may be learned more easily from a dog than a human, due to the animal's simplicity and absence of complicated social agendas.
Then when the basic building blocks are in place and well understood, the skills can be generalised to build meaningful, loyal relationships to other people.
I think that effect can help socially vulnerable/delayed kids as well as adults to learn crucial social skills and begin to connect better to other people, as well as improve the general relationship-quality of normal kids and adults.
I am saying that it automatically happens ...just that the potential is there, and it has that effect on some.
I am saying that it automatically happens
should say: I am NOT saying that it automatically happens