dogs for the disabled: benefits to recipients and welfare of the dog

Ž .Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59 1998 49–60

Dogs for the disabled: benefits to recipients andwelfare of the dog

D.R. Lane a, J. McNicholas b,), G.M. Collis b

a Veterinary Surgeon, Dogs for the Disabled, Frances Hay House, Banbury Road, Bishops Tachbrook,Warwickshire CV33 9UQ, UK

b Department of Psychology, UniÕersity of Warwick, CoÕentry CV4 7AL, UK

Abstract

Dogs for the Disabled is an organisation recently established in the UK to provide trainedassistance dogs to enhance the mobility and independence of people with physical disabilities.

Ž .Fifty-seven recipients of a Dog for the Disabled 90% of all recipients took part in a question-naire survey to assess satisfaction with their dog, commitment to the dog’s welfare, and otherchanges in their life brought about by obtaining their dog. Subjects reported an increased sense ofsocial integration, enhancement to self-perceived health, and an affectionate, often supportive,relationship with their dog. Levels of satisfaction with the dog’s work and the quality of therecipient–dog relationship were greater in subjects for whom the idea to have a dog was their ownthan in subjects who were influenced by other people to acquire a dog. These differences weresmall but statistically significant and may be a useful predictor in future applicants of the successof the working relationship. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Assistance dogs; Pet ownership; Health

1. Introduction

Trained assistance dogs are now established as a means of enhancing the indepen-dence and mobility of people with a variety of disabilities. Guide Dogs for the Blind wasfounded in 1931 and Hearing Dogs for the Deaf since 1982. Both organisations are nowwell-recognised in the United Kingdom. The most recent assistance dog organisation inthe U.K. is ‘Dogs for the Disabled’.

) Corresponding author. Tel.: q44-01203-523-759; fax: q44-01203-524-225; e-mail:[email protected]

0168-1591r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Ž .PII S0168-1591 98 00120-8

( )D.R. Lane et al.rApplied Animal BehaÕiour Science 59 1998 49–6050

Dogs for the Disabled was formed in 1986 by Frances Hay who taught her own dogelementary tasks to assist her after she had a leg amputated as a consequence of bonecancer. The organisation has trained over 80 dogs, with 60 now working as assistancedogs to people with a wide variety of physical disabilities. Dogs are trained to carry outtasks such as opening and shutting doors; fetching and carrying objects such asnewspapers, letters, or cordless telephones; operating switches and alarms. The organisa-tion is based near Warwick and works closely with the Guide Dogs for the BlindAssociation, sharing training facilities, exchanging staff, and retraining dogs foundunsuitable for guide dog work.

1.1. The role of the Õeterinarian

Organisations training assistance dogs have close contacts with the veterinary profes-sion, and the welfare of the working dog is a prime consideration. Dogs will bewithdrawn from work if they are not adequately cared for or are unfit for work. Mostorganisations now have a ‘leasing arrangement’ which allows them to retain legalownership of the dog so that it may be removed if it shows signs of illness, suffering orstress. Veterinary inspections of all working guide dogs and dogs for the disabled areconducted twice yearly to assess general health and condition and to ensure that they arefit for work. These veterinary inspections may also extend beyond an assessment of anindividual dog’s suitability to work. For example, physical problems that can be tracedto a hereditary cause have important implications for breeding programs. Other assis-tance dog organisations have similar programs of 6-monthly veterinary inspections.

It is not only physical health that the veterinary surgeons must inspect. They must bevigilant for signs that the dog cannot cope with the high demands placed on a workingdog. Dogs, like people, may be subject to stress, which may make them less reliable in

Ž .their work Lane, 1988 or which may result in deterioration of the dog–ownerrelationship that is so vital in making a successful working team. Training staff are alsowatchful for signs of a dog’s illness or problems in working when making regular visitsto recipients’ homes as part of the aftercare service. The continued commitment of therecipient to establishing and maintaining a good relationship with the dog is regarded asa vital component of the successful working unit and this, too, is carefully monitored byvets and training staff during check-ups.

Such contact between owners, vets and training staff often reveals more than just thehealth status or working ability of the dog. Insights are gained into the satisfaction of therelationship between dog and recipient, and the occurrence of beneficial changes oractivities in the owner’s life that have arisen as a result of acquiring an assistance dog.These reports strongly suggest that receiving an assistance dog may confer benefitsbeyond those of increased independence and mobility. In particular, recipients reportincreased self-esteem, better social activities and a generalised feeling of enhancedphysical well-being.

General satisfaction with the dog, and the range of benefits experienced, is in alllikelihood the best single factor for predicting the owner’s commitment to a relationshipwith the dog and to its welfare. Therefore, investigating the nature of the perceived

( )D.R. Lane et al.rApplied Animal BehaÕiour Science 59 1998 49–60 51

benefits of assistance dogs is of considerable importance for both the welfare of the dogsand for the quality of life of the recipients.

1.2. Background to study

Recent research in the field of companion animal studies has demonstrated anŽassociation between pet ownership, physical health and psychological well-being Fried-

.mann et al., 1980; Siegal, 1990; Serpell, 1991; Anderson et al., 1992 . However, as yetthere has been little research to investigate the underlying mechanisms that mediatethese effects, or investigate benefits that may accrue to owners of service dogs. Thestudy reported here seeks to combine an examination of the effects of receiving anassistance dog with current research at the University of Warwick into possible classesof explanation for the associations between pet ownership and health.

Ž .McNicholas et al. 1995 proposed three broad classes of explanation underlying theassociation between pet ownership and health. Firstly, there may be a non-causalassociation between pet ownership and health in that some other factor may beassociated with both health advantages and the propensity to own a pet. Research hasonly just begun to address this possibility but a recent study at the University of

Ž .Warwick has failed to find an association between Type A coronary prone personalityŽ .and a decreased likelihood of pet ownership McNicholas and Collis, in press .

Preliminary results from a current study, also at the University of Warwick, indicate thatŽthere is no relationship between hardiness a personality characteristic widely believed

.to help buffer against stress and stress-related illness and the desire to own a pet.Although this class of explanation may seem more pertinent to examinations of pet

ownership in people without disability, it would be highly relevant if it could be shownthat recipients of assistance dogs were less severely disabled than people who did notreceive assistance dogs. We are not aware of any facts that indicate that this is the case,but we cannot rule out that the motivation to apply for an assistance dog may beindicative of greater acceptance of disability, more optimism, a greater determination tochallenge the limitations imposed by disability, and so on. As yet, we know of noresearch that has examined the psychological factors that underlie the decision to applyfor an assistance dog and to test whether these same factors could bias recipients towardbetter health and well-being.

The second class of explanation proposes that there may be an indirect associationbetween pet ownership and health. In this class of explanation, pets are seen asfacilitators of social contact with other people, enhancing a sense of social integrationand belonging. This elevates psychological well-being and increases the number ofhuman contacts in a person’s social network which may provide social support andpractical help. It is well-known that being accompanied by a dog can increase the

Žnumber and quality of greetings and transitory social contacts received Messent, 1983;.Hunt et al., 1992; McNicholas et al., 1993 . This effect is widely experienced by

able-bodied people with dogs, but its impact is highlighted in owners of guide dogs andassistance dogs. Mobility problems arising from physical disability or visual impairmentcan severely limit the opportunities for social contact with other people, resulting infeelings of isolation or exclusion. In addition, there are studies that report that able-bodied


people find it difficult to initiate or maintain contact with people who have some form ofdisability. While this may not be due to prejudice, they appear to feel sociallyuncomfortable and avoid eye contact or increase social distance. Research suggests thatassistance dogs can act as powerful social facilitators and the role of the dog as a socialcatalyst may be at least as important as the increased mobility and independenceafforded by the dog. Studies into the socialising effects of assistance dogs havedemonstrated that people in wheelchairs are more frequently smiled at, spoken to, and

Ž .acknowledged when with their dogs. Eddy et al., 1988; Mader et al., 1989 . Delafieldalso reported a significant increase in the self-esteem of first time guide dog owners, atleast partially attributable to the increased number of social interactions they experi-

1 Ž .enced, and the feeling of integration within a community. Hart et al. 1996 reportssimilar qualitative and quantitative improvements in interactions between deaf recipientsof Hearing Dogs and members of the hearing community.

The third class of explanation is that there may be a direct causal associationbetween pet ownership and health, arising through the perception of the pet as asignificant relationship in the life of the owner. Loneliness is widely believed to elevate

Žvulnerability to health problems. Pets may combat feelings of loneliness Zasloff and.Kidd, 1994 . The relationship may also serve supportive functions recognised as having

a positive influence on health, such as providing a source of comfort and relief at timesof stress or emotional upset. Health Psychology has long recognised the importance ofhuman supportive relationships to physical and psychological health. Although person–pet relationships may not be identical to person–person relationships, they do seem tohave a great deal in common, particularly as a resource for support. Many pet ownersregard their pets as valued members of the family and may seek them out as a source ofcomfort at times of stress. The relationship can involve confiding and talking to the pet,a feeling of empathy and a sense of loving and being loved which can combat lonelinessand depression, particularly in individuals who feel socially isolated. Pets also meet anesteem function in providing a ‘need to be needed’. These aspects of pet ownershipmirror elements of supportive human relationships that are believed to have important

Ž .implications for health Glass et al., 1993 . For populations at risk of comparative socialisolation or with reduced social networks, a companion animal may fulfil many of these

Ž .functions even more than for ordinary pet owners Zasloff and Kidd, 1994 .

1.3. Benefits to recipients of a Dog for the Disabled

A study was designed to assess the nature and extent of benefits that may accrue torecipients of Dogs for the Disabled. This organisation was selected as it has onlyrecently become established, and recipients are less likely to hold pre-existing ideas orexpectations about having a dog than recipients of more well-known, longer-establishedorganisations. The collaboration between veterinary surgeons and psychologists is seen

1 Delafield, G., 1975. Self Perception and the Effects of Mobility Training. Unpublished PhD thesis,University of Nottingham.


as particularly valuable to this study since we are able to investigate a number of issuesthat relate to the quality of the dog–recipient relationship and the potential welfare ofthe dog. For example, the quality of the relationship and level of satisfaction with thedog’s work may have implications for the standard of care and concern for the dog’swell-being, as may any physical difficulties the recipient has in caring for his or her dog.In addition, increases in the recipients’ independence and mobility can result inincreased social activities, and this may lead to additional demands on the dog. Thus, thestudy examines the partnership from a perspective that includes the well-being of boththe dog and the recipient.

Our study examines claims that recipients of Dogs for the Disabled may benefit fromtheir dog by experiencing improvements in their lifestyle and well-being in the follow-ing dimensions, each of which is a focus of our questionnaire:

.a the dog as a social facilitator, enabling contact with other people and so enhancingsocial integration;.b the dog as an affectionate relationship, extending beyond a working relationship;. Žc the dog as a relationship offering emotional and esteem support e.g., as a source of

.comfort, empathy and the sense of being competent and valued ;.d the dog as an influence on self-perceived physical health.

We also sought information of practical importance to the organisation’s managementand trainers, for example, recipients’ assessments of the dog’s reliability in taskperformance, and whether recipients are likely to want a replacement dog when theirpresent dog was retired.

2. Method

A questionnaire was designed to assess the four dimensions outlined above. To avoidresponse bias, care was taken to include both negatively and positively phrasedstatements within each of the dimensions. We also included questions on demographic

Ž .variables age, gender, people in the household, other pets owned , length of time ofhaving the dog; and whether acquiring the dog was a recipient’s own idea or wassuggested by another person. The latter was included as we are aware that applicantsfrequently make preliminary enquiries on the advice of some other person who hasbecome acquainted with the work of Dogs for the Disabled. While this is often abeneficial referral, we are also aware that it is possible for people to be persuaded toapply for a dog against their own better judgement, such as when the primary benefitwould be independence for the carer rather than the recipient. We were concerned thatthis could affect the commitment of the recipient to establishing and maintaining theworking dog relationship, and influence the satisfaction of the working relationship.

Ž .Kidd et al. 1992 have reported that the outcome of pet adoptions may be leastsuccessful when the person has unrealistic expectations of pet behaviour, while Hart et

Ž .al. 1995 have demonstrated that many prospective owners of Hearing dogs do notrealise that even these highly trained dogs may have behavioural problems. We wereanxious to investigate whether either of these potential problems occurred in oursubjects.


As various forms of disability could cause difficulty in completing the questionnaire,subjects were given the choice of a telephone interview, a personal interview or postal

Ž .questionnaire. The majority over 80% elected the postal questionnaire. All question-naires were anonymous and confidentiality was assured. Completed questionnaires wereprocessed by the second author who had no acquaintanceship with any of the subjects.

Responses were obtained from 57 subjects. This represented 90% of the totalavailable recipients of Dogs for the Disabled at the time of the study. Our samplecomprised of 16 males and 41 females. Their ages ranged from 13 years to 84 years,with a mean age of 42 years. Disabilities included paraplegia and quadriplegia arisingfrom road traffic accident or industrial injury, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, spinabifida, arthritis, polio, limb amputation and thalidomide injury. Subjects had owned theirassistance dogs between 3 months and 7 years, with a mean time of ownership of 2.5

Ž .years. A surprising large number of subjects 30% reported that having a Dog for theDisabled was not their own idea but had been suggested by other people such as doctors,vets, partners, and family.

3. Results

Subjects were asked to specify what they considered to be the most important tasksŽ .their dog performed for them. The majority of subjects 84% considered retrieving andŽ . Ž .carrying as most important, followed by opening doors 40% , companionship 35% ,

Ž .and barking on command 35% . Only 12% saw their dog important as a guard ordeterrent.

When asked what motivated them to apply for a dog, 70% of subjects said they didso in the hope of being more independent. Companionship was specified by 35% ofsubjects, and 23% hoped to be able to socialise more. No subject reported that theirmotivation in acquiring a dog was to enhance obtaining or pursuing employment.

Our main analysis focused on changes that subjects perceived as being brought aboutthrough their dog, as measured using the questionnaire items presented in Table 1.Individual items are referred to below as Q1 for question 1, and so on. The dimensionsof change examined were: feelings of social integration; whether subjects had a close,affectionate relationship with their dog; the dog as a supportive relationship providingself-esteem and comfort; and improvement in self-perceived health. Analyses of Vari-ance were carried out on scores on individual questions relating to each of thesedimensions, and on an aggregate score for each dimension. Factors were the recipient’sage group, sex, length of time owning the dog, and whether getting the dog was theirown idea or not. This last factor was included in the analysis because of its potentialeffect on the satisfaction andror relationship with the dog.

3.1. Social integration

Ninety-two percent of subjects reported that people frequently stopped to talk withŽ .them when they were out with their dog Q11 , and 75% reported they had made new

Ž .friends since they had their dog Q16 . Over one-third of subjects reported they had anŽ .overall better social life Q29 .


Table 1Ž .Example questionnaire items scored on a 7 point Likert scale, 1sdisagree strongly, 7sagree strongly

Set 1. Social integrationQ11. People often stop me to talk when I am out with my dog.Q16. I have made new friends through my dog.Q29. I have a better social life now I have the dog.

aThe aggregate score for social integration is the sum of scores for Q11, Q16 and Q29.

Set 2. Affectionate relationshipQ13. My dog is a valued member of my family.Q18. I like to have the dog with me even when I do not need himrher to do things for me.Q34. My dog is more important as a friend than hershe is as a working dog.Q40. My dog is one of the most important relationships I have.

aThe aggregate score for affectionate relationship is the sum of scores for Q13, Q18, and Q40.

Set 3. SupportiÕe relationshipQ14. I often find myself telling my dog my troubles.Q22. When I am sad, my dog is one of the first I turn to.Q39. I share most of my feelings with my dog.

aThe aggregate score for supportive relationship is the sum of scores for Q14, Q22, and Q39.

Set 4. Self-perceiÕed healthQ12. My physical health seems better since I had the dog.Q19. I think the dog stops me worrying about my health.Q24. I do not seem to have so many days feeling poorly since I had the dog.Q31. I relax more since I had the dog.Q33. I feel less well in myself since I had the dog.

aThe aggregate score for supportive relationship is the sum of scores for Q12, Q19, Q24, and Q31.

Set 5. General satisfaction with dogQ21. I wish my dog were more reliable in hisrher work.

Ž .Q26. The dog has not made such a big difference to my life as I had hoped y .Q30. Perhaps having a dog was not the right decision for me.Q41. The dog causes more trouble than it is worth.

a Items were excluded from aggregate scores where there were low correlations with other items in the set.Items measuring satisfaction with the dog were not constructed with the expectation that they could beaggregated meaningfully.

Analysis of Variance showed a main effect of gender on assessment of a better socialŽ Ž . .life F 1,41 s4.49, ps0.04 with males reporting a mean score of 5.15 compared to

Ž .females, 3.87. Analysis of the aggregate score for social integration Q11qQ16qQ29revealed no significant effect of age, gender, length of time having the dog or whether itwas the subject’s own idea to have a dog.

3.2. Close affectionate relationship

Ninety-three percent of subjects stated that their dog was a valued family memberŽ . Ž .Q13 and 72% felt that the dog was one of their most important relationships Q40 ;

Ž .70% felt their dog was more important as a friend than as a working dog Q34 . There


was a significant main effect of ‘own idea’ on questions relating to perception of the dogŽ Ž . .as an important relationship F 1,42 s7.60, ps0.009 with people who had been

influenced by others to have a dog scoring a mean of 4.72 compared to 6.00 for peoplewhose decision to have a dog was their own. This group of subjects also scored lower onthe rating of whether the dog was more important as a friend than a working dogŽ Ž . .F 1,42 s7.73, ps0.010 . Subjects owning their dog between 12 and 30 months andfor whom the idea was not their own were more likely to state their dog was just a

Ž Ž . .working dog. F 3,42 s4.33, ps0.009 .Ž .Analysis of the aggregate score for relationship quality Q13qQ40qQ18 showed a

Ž Ž . .significant main effect of ‘own idea’ F 3,42 s8.72, ps0.005 . People influenced byothers to get a dog had a mean score of 17.37 on this dimension compared to a meanscore of 19.55 for people who made the decision themselves.

3.3. Dog as a proÕider of comfort, esteem and support

Seventy percent of subjects said they turned to their dog for comfort if they were sadŽ . Ž .Q22 and 59% told their dog many of their problems Q14 and shared most of their

Ž .feelings with their dog Q39 . Male subjects under the age of 45 years especiallyŽ Ž .reported that they shared most of their feelings with their dog F 3,42 s3.04,

.ps0.039 . Subjects who did not make their own decision to get a dog were less likelyŽ Ž . .to seek comfort from their dog when sad F 1,42 s5.52, ps0.024 . The mean score

for this group was 4.57 compared to 5.82 for people who made the decision forthemselves.

Ž .Analysis of the aggregate score Q14qQ22qQ39 relating to the dog as asupportive relationship showed no significant effects of age, gender, length of time thedog was owned or whether having the dog was the subjects’ own idea.

3.4. Enhancement of self-perceiÕed health

Sixty-nine percent of subjects reported that they relaxed more since having the dogŽ . Ž .Q31 and over half 51% thought that they worried less about their health since having

Ž .a dog Q19 . A surprising 47% believed their health had improved since acquiring theŽ . Ždog Q12 . There were no significant effects on the aggregate score Q12qQ19qQ24

.qQ31 of age, gender, length of time of having the dog or whether the idea to have adog was the subjects’ own. However, people who did not make the decision to have thedog themselves were less likely to strongly disagree with negative statements such as

Ž . Ž Ž . .feeling less well since having the dog Q33 F 1,41 s8.70, ps0.005 .

3.5. Association between social integration, quality of relationship, supportiÕe functionsand self-perceiÕed health

Reports from many of our subjects suggest that an enhanced sense of physical andpsychological health may be associated with the role of their dog as a means of socialintegration, a close affectionate companion and a source of support and comfort.


Fig. 1. Correlations between questionnaire items measuring social facilitation, affectionate relationship, socialsupport and recipients’ self-perceived health. Correlations are significant at a s0.05.

Fig. 1 illustrates correlations between questionnaire items measuring social facilita-tion, affectionate relationship, social support and recipients’ self-perceived health.

3.6. General satisfaction with dog

The questionnaire also included several questions that assessed subjects’ generalsatisfaction with their dogs. Our main finding is that subjects who were influenced byothers to get a dog were significantly more likely to wish the dog was more reliable in

Ž . Ž Ž . .its work Q21 F 1,42 s7.06, ps0.011 and to agree slightly more with theŽ . Ž Ž .statement that the dog was more trouble than it was worth Q41 F 1,42 s6.42,

.ps0.015 than subjects who made the decision to get a dog themselves. Subjectsowning their dogs for under 30 months, and who had not made the decision to have thedog themselves, were especially likely to say that the dog had not made such a big

Ž . Ž Ž . .difference to their life as they had hoped Q26 F 3,41 s3.67, ps0.020 . There wasalso a significant main effect of age and ‘own idea’ for subjects’ belief that getting a dog

Ž .was not the right decision for them Q30 , with people for whom it was not their ownŽ Ž .idea to get a dog being more likely to agree with this statement F 1,41 s7.90,

.ps0.008 and people aged between 31 and 45 years also being more likely to agreeŽ Ž . .F 3,41 s3.04, ps0.040 .

4. Discussion

The study sought to examine the range of benefits that may accrue to recipients ofassistance dogs. It investigated previously reported benefits such as enhanced social

Žfacilitation arising from the presence of service dogs Eddy et al., 1988; Hart et al.,.1996 as well as attempting to assess whether health benefits associated with pet

Ž .ownership e.g., Siegal, 1990; Serpell, 1991 may also apply to owners of assistancedogs, especially those for whom the relationship with their dog extended beyond that ofsimply a working dog. With reference to the tri-partite model discussed earlier, the focuson possible health benefits entailed examination of indirect mechanisms arising throughenhanced social integration, and direct mechanisms arising through the perception of thedog as a significant relationship that may afford some of the functions of human


Žsupportive relationships known to elevate physical and psychological well-being Sara-.son et al., 1990 . The third element of the tri-partite model, non-causal association, was

not addressed by this study. Nonetheless, it is very plausible that there may benon-causal links between ownership of an assistance dog and elevated levels ofwell-being. For example, it is plausible that this may have some application since itcould be argued that people who feel more positive about their current health status orwho are more optimistic in coping with their disability, may be more likely to apply foran assistance dog. Research has yet to address this issue.

Our findings support existing research demonstrating the socialising role performedby assistance dogs. The majority of our recipients experienced substantial improvementsin social integration. They particularly valued the casual contact such as when peoplestopped to chat with them or their dogs since this represented a stark contrast to thefeelings of avoidance and exclusion that so many subjects experienced prior to obtainingtheir dog. Not only were there more contacts with other people, recipients reported thatthese interactions differed qualitatively from those experienced when not with theirdogs. For example, many recipients spoke of interactions initiated by other people asbeing characterised by condescension, or being ‘talked down to’ when not with theirdogs. Having an assistance dog appears to not only increase the likelihood of interac-tions taking place but also serves to shift the focus of attention away from the recipient’sdisability toward their competence in handling a highly trained dog.

In focusing on the extension of the relationship between dog and owner, our mainaim was to assess whether further benefits could accrue through the quality of therelationship. However, we were also mindful that a relationship should be seen ashaving two partners, dog and owner, and that the well-being of both should beconsidered. For this reason we sought to assess the nature and the quality of therelationship, together with a recipient’s commitment to the welfare of the dog, asindicators of a working partnership which was successful for both dog and owner.

Most subjects had close, affectionate relationships with their dog that extendedbeyond a working relationship, many recipients stating that their dog was at least asimportant as a friend and companion rather than just a working dog. Many wished toretain their dog as a pet when it was retired from work as an assistance dog. Theaffection within the recipient–dog relationship bodes well for the continued welfare ofthe dog, with most recipients showing a vigilance for their dog’s health and well-beingbeyond a mere concern to keep the dog fit for work. In the most affectionaterecipient–dog relationships, recipients appeared to derive social support and comfortfrom their dog, demonstrated by their turning to their dog when upset, sharing theirfeelings with the dog, and confiding their problems. These supportive functions obtainedfrom the relationship may be a contributory factor in recipients who reported improve-ments in health.

Since all our subjects had irreversible, often degenerative, medical conditions we hadnot anticipated that so many subjects would report improvements in self-perceivedhealth. We cannot verify whether there was any true improvement to health but it islikely that enhancements to psychological well-being through increased independence,self-esteem, social integration, and the availability of a close supportive relationshipwith their dog, are reflected in improved coping strategies and a more positive


acceptance of a person’s own disability. We are currently planning a future study toinvestigate further these claims for health improvement.

Our study did not find direct evidence of incidents which could give rise to seriousconcern over the dogs’ welfare. However, the increased social activities and enthusiasmfor exercising their dogs reported by recipients may well lead to a reconsideration ofsuitability of training dogs known to have hip dysplasia problems. Several such dogs,rejected as guide dogs, have been retrained as assistance dogs in the expectation that

Žthey would lead less active lives. The results of this study together with reports from afew recipients that they obtained electric wheelchairs specifically to increase the speed,

.distance and frequency of their excursions suggest that such dogs should only be placedwhere there is a reasonable certainty that they will not be exposed to demands that maybe detrimental to their well-being. It would appear that potential recipients underestimatethe activity levels they require of their dogs, and this needs to be adequately addressedin the matching of dog and recipient.

For some recipients, the decision to apply for a dog was not their own but originatedthrough the influence of some other person. We found that these recipients were morelikely to register agreement to such statements that ‘the dog is more trouble than it isworth’ and ‘the dog has not made such a big difference to my life as I had hoped’. Thisgroup also gave lower ratings on their assessments of the dog as a close relationship andwere less likely to report improvements to health. Such differences were small butconsistent. Although we found no overall evidence that the quality of the recipient–dogrelationship had implications for the welfare of the dog in our current sample, suchfindings suggest that it would be useful to investigate the origin of the decision behindany application for an assistance dog since this may have implications for both thesatisfaction of the recipient and the welfare of the dog.

Acknowledgements

During the preparation of this paper June McNicholas and Glyn Collis were in receiptof financial support from the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition. June McNicholas is aWaltham Research Fellow. The authors would like to thank the recipients and staff ofDogs for the Disabled for their co-operation in this study.

References

Anderson, W.P., Reid, C.M., Jennings, G.L., 1992. Pet ownership and risk factors for cardiovascular disease.Med. J. Aust. 157, 298–301.

Eddy, J., Hart, L.A., Boltz, R.P., 1988. The effects of service dogs on social acknowledgement of people inwheelchairs. J. Psychol. 122, 39–45.

Friedmann, E., Katcher, A.H., Lynch, J.J., Thomas, S.A., 1980. Animal companions and one year survival ofpatients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Rep. 95, 307–312.

Glass, T.A., Matchar, D.B., Belyea, M., Feussner, J.R., 1993. Impact of social support on outcome in firststroke. Stroke 24, 64–70.


Hart, L.A., Zasloff, R.L., Benfatto, A.M., 1995. The pleasures and problems of hearing dog ownership.Psychol. Rep. 117, 969–970.

Hart, L.A., Zasloff, R.L., Benfatto, A.M., 1996. The socializing role of hearing dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.47, 7–15.

Hunt, S.J., Hart, L.A., Gomulkiewicz, R., 1992. Role of small animals in social interactions between strangers.J. Soc. Psych. 132, 245–256.

Kidd, A.H., Kidd, R.M., George, C.C., 1992. Successful and unsuccessful pet adoptions. Psychol. Rep. 70,547–561.

Lane, D.R., 1988. The problem of stress in guide dogs. Br. J. Vis. Imp. 1, 119.Mader, B., Hart, L.A., Begin, B., 1989. Social acknowledgements for children with disabilities: effects of

service dogs. Child Dev. 60, 1529–1534.Ž .McNicholas, J., Collis, G.M., in press. Can Type A coronary prone personality explain the association

Ž .between pet ownership and health? In: Wilson, C., Turner, D. Eds. , Pets, Health and Quality of Life.Sage, Newbury Park.

McNicholas, J., Collis, G.M., Morley, I.E., Lane, D.R., 1993. Social communication through a companionŽ .animal: the dog as a social catalyst. In: Nichelmann, M., Wierenga, H.K., Braun, S. Eds. , Proceedings of

the International Congress on Applied Ethology, Berlin 1993. Humboldt University, Berlin, pp. 368–370.McNicholas, J., Collis, G.M., Morley, I.E., 1995. Psychological support as a mechanism underlying health

Ž .benefits associated with pet ownership. In: Rutter, S.M., Rushden, J., Randle, H.D., Eddison, J.C. Eds. ,Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. UFAW,Potters Bar, pp. 119–121.

Messent, P.R., 1983. Social facilitation of contact with other people by pet dogs. In: Katcher, A.H., Beck,Ž .A.M. Eds. , New Perspectives in Our Lives With Companion Animals. Univ. of Philadelphia Press,

Philadelphia, pp. 37–46.Sarason, B.A., Sarason, I.G., Pierce, G.R., 1990. Social Support: An Interactional View. Wiley, New York.Serpell, J.A., 1991. Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behaviour. J.

Roy. Soc. Med. 84, 717–720.Siegal, J.M., 1990. Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: the moderating role

of pet ownership. J. Pers. Soc. Psych. 58, 1081–1086.Zasloff, R.L., Kidd, A.H., 1994. Loneliness and pet ownership among single women. Psychol. Rep. 75,

747–752.

dogs for the disabled: benefits to recipients and welfare of the dog

Documents