Fluff or Enough: Does Research Support Animal-Assisted Therapy?

With the spotlight on mental illnesses and their treatment growing daily, distinguishing between scientifically supported treatment techniques and pseudo-psychiatric treatments can become difficult. Systematic research is necessary in every step of mental illness – in determining etiology, symptoms, prevalence and efficacy of treatments. The problem in research persists both ways – often, psychotherapeutic techniques that have ample sound research supporting their effectiveness are dismissed as redundant and results of placebo effects, while unempirical mumbo-jumbo is supported and followed.

A large portion of research and information over history has come from case studies, self-reports, and direct observation. Together, these provide a great deal of information, but not quite enough to determine empirical information, as they are prone to being anecdotal, and falling prey to confirmation bias among others. Experimental designs gain importance here, as controlling for a specific variable can either verify or negate a hypothesis. With studies on mental health, however, it is ethically problematic to create situations that could cause harm to the participants. Correlational studies avoid this problem by comparing groups of interest on different variables, without direct manipulation of any variable. The strength of the relationship between the variables can be measured to show how they may be associated. In isolation, none of these methods can function to ascertain the efficacy of a treatment, but must be used and analysed in conjunction through metanalyses for more concrete results.

One such treatment that has been showing a rise in popularity is Animal Assisted Therapy. AAT is a treatment that “strategically incorporates human-animal interactions into a formal therapeutic process” (Chandler, 2012). AAT has been commonly criticised for lacking sufficient evidence-based support, as while clinical evidence is plenty, controlled-research findings are fewer. While several attempts are now being made to experimentally prove the impact of AAT, the question remains if they are methodologically sound or flawed in either the data collected or inferences drawn. 

A therapy cat with an adolescent client at a juvenile detention facility (Chandler, 2012) 

One such biologically-based experiment measured the levels of six neurochemicals associated with a decrease in blood pressure in both humans and dogs before and after they had a positive interaction. The findings? Blood pressure and stress-levels dropped in both humans and dogs. Three different controls were used that conclusively showed that the results were due to interaction with an animal, and not an owner-pet relationship, or low-stress activity (Odendaal, 2000). 

Another experiment served to show that petting an animal reduced state-anxiety, measured by a tested reliable and valid inventory. The study controlled for various variables and concluded that it was interaction with the animal, and not just the petting action that led to this reduction. Some limitations of this study, however, were in the nature of the stress produced, and the accuracy of the self-report responses (Shiloh et al., 2003).

Unfortunately, these studies were not conducted with psychiatric patients. A third experiment that also showed strong positive results was done on a randomly assigned sample of adult psychiatric in-patients. The group receiving AAT scored significantly better on measures of sociability and responsiveness even though there were no baseline measures (Marr et al., 2000). 

So where are the gaps? Some metanalyses of other widely-referenced studies have identified errors in the research design that make the findings invalid. Marino and Lilienfeld examined five peer-reviewed studies specific to Dolphin-Assisted Therapy and found flaws in all five (2007). Many studies lack internal validity or construct validity. Like with much of scientific research, there are practical and ethical difficulties faced at every step of designing an experiment, which have been examined in depth by Johnson et al (2002). There remain several gaps in what research has shown and what hasn’t yet been experimentally verified.

With all this information, what’s important to be aware of is how legitimate a treatment is, and how reliable the research backing it is. Those diagnosed with mental illnesses, or just going through difficult times, should be careful not get looped in and swayed by fraudulent treatments. Mental health fads often promise a quick fix – including mental health apps, adult colouring books, laughter therapy, the use of drugs such as LSD, and even “scream therapy”, which briefly was the subject of a celebrity controversy (Anderson, 2018).

As seen with Animal Assisted Therapy, even for a treatment that has many experimental studies scientifically backing its efficacy, there are many links that remain missing in devising proper treatment plans using animals. This holds true for treatment of mental health as a whole. The vast unexplored areas bring to question the potential for discovering fresh, valuable remedies through more extensive, well-designed research that ensures its accuracy, reliability, and validity.

References

Anderson, A. (2018). Behavioral Health: Fad Treatment Methods, Exposure Therapy, and the Importance of Data. Penn Medicine News.

Carolyn A. Marr, French, L., Thompson, D., Drum, L., Greening, G., Mormon, J., … & Hughes, C. (2000). Animal-Assisted Therapy in Psychiatric Rehabilitation. Anthrozoös, 13:1, 43-47. doi:10.2752/089279300786999950.

Chandler, C. (2011). Animal Assisted Therapy in Counseling. doi:10.4324/9780203832103.

Johnson, R. A., Odendaal, J. S. J., & Meadows, R. L. (2002). Animal-Assisted Interventions Research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 24(4), 422–440. doi:10.1177/01945902024004009.

Marino, L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007). Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions. Anthrozoös, 20(3), 239–249. doi:10.2752/089279307x224782.

Odendaal, J. S. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy — magic or medicine? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49(4), 275–280. doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(00)00183-5.

Shiloh, S., Sorek, G., & Terkel, J. (2003). Reduction of State-Anxiety by Petting Animals in a Controlled Laboratory Experiment. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 16(4), 387–395. doi:10.1080/1061580031000091582.