WANTED: More Participants!Self-Disclosure with Dogs:

Getting the Public to Talk About What They Talk AboutBy Aislinn Evans-Wilday Supervised by Daniel

Mills & Todd HogueINTRODUCTIONHaving a confidante to confide in has reported health benefits from both a psychological and physical perspective (Farber, 2006), but who says this confidante has to be human? This research is investigating the health benefits of canine confidantes.

BACKGROUNDThis research started out as an undergraduate dissertation project, asking the question: “Do dog owners confide differently in their partner vs their dog?” This stemmed from the abundance of literature (albeit largely anecdotal) on the health benefits of dog ownership, combined with research on the benefits of intimate relationships – of which a key component is self-disclosure (Prager, 1995). Since no scale existed to measure self-disclosure to one’s pet, the Emotional Self-Disclosure Scale (ESDS, Snell et al, 1988) was adapted for use with dogs and released as an online survey.

Online Survey

DISCUSSING THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS

SOCIAL MEDIA

MAGAZINESKENNELS, GROOMERS, DOG

WALKERS

“Self-Disclosure with Dogs” Adapted from ESDS40 items, 8 subscales5 point Likert scale

Kolmogorov-SmirnovCronbach’s AlphaKruskal-WallisWilcoxon Signed-RankFactor AnalysisDiscriminant Function Analysis

Self-Disclosure with DogsQuality of Life Scale (QoLS)Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS)

Qualitative dataReasons why/ why not to confide in a dogTopics / contextPerceived benefits

POSTERS IN SHOP

WINDOWS

HIGH STREET RECRUITMEN

T

PRESS RELEASE

UNIVERSITIES

THIS POSTER!

Depression

Happiness

Jealousy

Anxiety

Anger

Calmness

Apathy

Fear

5 10 15 20 25

Females (n = 232)

Dog Partner

Not at all willing to confide

Depression

Happiness

Jealousy

Anxiety

Anger

Calmness

Apathy

Fear

5 10 15 20 25

Males (n = 74)

Dog Partner

Totally willing to confide

Not at all willing to

confide

Totally willing to confide

The number of female participants vastly outnumbered the male participants to a point that only data from the heterosexual females could be used. The current research set out to first establish a male dataset for comparison before assessing whether there is a link between quality of life and perceived health (as measured by the Quality of Life Scale, (QoLS, Burckhardt & Anderson, 2003)) and self-disclosure pattern (topics talked about and to whom).

Given that a large proportion of the literature reports a link between attachment to one’s pet and the level of benefits they receive, a measure of attachment, the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS, Johnson et al, 1992), will also be included to determine whether there is a correlation between attachment and quality of life.

METHODS: Getting The Public To TalkRaising awareness of the research and encouraging members of the public to take part proved more difficult than anticipated. Initially, social media was used to spread the word, but soon new ways to boost responses were needed.

Virtual poster!SEE THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH HERE!

REFERENCES: Burckhardt, C. S., & Anderson, K. L. (2003). The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): Reliability, Validity, and Utilization. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 60. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-60Farber, B. A., (2006) Self-disclosure in Psychotherapy. New York. Guilford Press.Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1992) Psychometric Evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS) Anthrozoös vol. 5 (3) pp. 160-175Prager, K., (1995) The Psychology of Intimacy. New York. Guilford Press. Snell, W. E., Miller, R. S., & Belk, S. S., (1988) Development of the Emotional Self-Disclosure Scale. Sex Roles vol. 18 pp. 59-73

Significant Results from Heterosexual Female Dataset:

Prefer to confide in partners about feelings of Fear (p < 0.001) and Anger (p < 0.001).Prefer to confide in their dogs about feelings of Apathy

(p < 0.001), Calmness (p = 0.001), Jealousy (p < 0.001) and Depression (p < 0.001).

Significant Results from Male Dataset:No significant differences in preference of confidante, although Happiness is approaching significance, in favour of partner. Topics participants were most willing to talk about are Calmness and Happiness.

So far, we know that there is a substantial difference between male and female self-disclosure patterns. Using Discriminant Function Analysis, we can correctly predict a participants gender based on which topics they prefer to confide in their partner and which topics they prefer to confide in their dog, 58% of the time. The next phase in this project is to roll out the Self-Disclosure with Dogs survey again, this time with the QoLS and the LAPS. Using the data from these three surveys we will be able to determine whether there is a correlation between people’s self-disclosure pattern, their attachment to their pet and their self-perceived quality of life and health.

This research has implications in the future of Animal Assisted Therapy/Intervention as it will help uncover which individuals benefit most from animal companionship. If attachment is the deciding factor on the range of benefits one receives from an animal then it may be that visiting therapy dogs are less effective than resident therapy dogs and guide dog ownership. Differences in confidante preference (as determined by the Self-Disclosure with Dogs survey) may also have an impact on the extent to which a therapy dog can provide social support to an individual.

If you are willing to take part please leave your email address!

Statistics

Systematic Literature Review

Online Surveys

Interviews“What do we know

about the health benefits of

interacting with animals?”