pet vs plant therapy for older people

Do Plants or Pets Offer the Most Therapy for Older People?Pets or Plants:

Are They Therapeutically Different?

Research has shown that pets enhance the psychological and physical functioning of humans and at times were more effective than other humans in treatment of psychological, physical, and emotional disorders. However, fewer studies have examined the benefits of plants. This study compared the benefits of pets to plants with elderly citizens. The Pet therapy group reported decreased Social Avoidance and Depression on the post-test questionnaires. In contrast, the Plant therapy group reported an increase in Social Avoidance with no change in Depression from the pretest to the post-test responses to the questionnaire.

History of Human and Animal Interaction
Animals have played a significant role in the lives of humans throughout history. The first species to make the transition towards domestication with humans was the wolf (Canis lupus), the predecessor of the modern domestic dog (Levine, 1971). Soon, sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs were kept with humans. Next, horses, asses, camels, water buffalo, alpaca, llama, turkey, guinea pig, and domestic fowl appeared with humans.

More recently, Egyptians domesticated wildcats and kept them as house cats. Egyptians also placed dogs in the same sacred category as the dog-headed god Anubis. The early Greeks favored the longhaired Maltese lap dogs (Serpell, 1996) and also placed them in sacred positions. They greatly admired monkeys as pets as well. It was a common practice for the Greeks to embalm their cats when they died and either bury them with their own elaborate tombstones or bury them later with the owner.

The Romans kept birds, monkeys, Maltese dogs, and fish as pets. They were very affectionate towards them, went to great extremes to honor them upon their death, and adorned them with gold jewelry and expensive clothing (Serpell, 1996). British citizens kept lap dogs. The Noble ladies fed the dogs and carried them about in their arms. Szasz (1968) reported that Mary Queen of Scots dressed them in blue velvet suits in the winter and paraded them around in society. Henry III became so attached to his dog that he carried it around in a basket everywhere he went. James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II were also avid dog keepers. The spaniel became Charles II’s favorite and it retained his namesake into modern times (Ritchie, 1981).

The Chinese Emperor Ling of the Han dynasty named his dogs as senior officials of his court (Serpell, 1996). The majority of successive dynasties also maintained large quantities of dogs. In contrast, the rulers of the Ming dynasty replaced the dogs with cats. Cats remained in high status until the seventeenth century when the Manchurian LCh’ing dynasty reinstated dogs as the preferred pet, specifically, the Pekinese dog. Women breast fed the puppies along with their own children.

Japanese and Korean citizens treated animals in similar manners. For instance, Shogun Tsunayoshi was frequently referred to as the Dog Shogun because of his obsessions with dogs. In an attempt to protect all dogs, he passed a law that all citizens were to treat them with kindness and use polite words when talking to them (Watts, 1985). The result of owning 100,000 dogs brought hardships for the citizens because the expense of taking care of the dogs increased inflation and was subsidized by imposing taxes on the farmers.

Hernandez found raccoons living with the tribal people of Mexico. The raccoon was also a favorite for the Indians of California (Elmendorf & Kroeber, 1960) and modern Americans (Beck, 1983).

The North American Indians kept large moose, young of bison, calves, wolves, and bears as pets (Galton, 1883). The West Indies and Jamaica people kept small dogs similar to the Maltese lap dogs. It was very common to see a Jamaican women carry her dog on her shoulder and breast-feed it when it was hungry. Similarly, the Indians of South America kept many species for pets including dogs, monkeys, possum-rats, deer, and birds and suckled them.

The Brazilians were observed by Fleming (1984) to be very devoted to their pets. None of the animals kept as pets were ever eaten and when they died they often were buried close to the owner (Basso, 1973). The devotion of the Brazilians to their birds was similar to European’s love of their dogs and cats. Polynesians kept and raised dogs as pets and food (Luomala, 1960). However, the pet dogs were exempt from slaughter because the Polynesians allowed themselves to develop strong bonds with them. This attitude is similar to the one found in some Eskimo and Inuit communities. Briggs (1970) found that Inuits routinely adopted a puppy, kept it as a pet, and doted on and loved on it openly.

Benefits of Human and Pet Bond

From an evolutionary perspective pets pose a reduced risk of survival (Archer, 1997) for the human and, therefore, human-pet attachments should not occur. Specifically, when a human becomes attached to an animal they expend time, energy, and resources on it that could otherwise be spent on their offspring.

Research has shown, however, that pets enhance psychological functioning, at times, even more than other humans. For instance, Beck and Katcher (1996) found that people, regardless of age, benefited from interacting with dogs, cats, kittens, guinea pigs, hamsters, fishes, and birds.

Pet therapy, has also been shown to be effective for those suffering from emotional disabilities and posttraumatic disorders (Engel, 1994; Heipertz-Hengst, 1994). For instance, Kidd and Kidd (1994) found that pets reduced loneliness in homeless individuals and elderly citizens. Likewise, Ory and Goldberg (1983) demonstrated similar benefits in elderly women while Zasloff and Kidd (1994) reported reductions in all elderly regardless of gender. Pets have also been shown to strengthen social interaction skills of the elderly (Brasic, 1998) and mentally disabled (Corson, Corson, Gwynne, & Arnold, 1977).

Studies have indicated that pets reduce stress more than the presence of a good friend (Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, & Kelsey, 1991). Other research has demonstrated that pets enhance self-esteem (e.g. Serpell, 1996) and decrease disturbed psychological functioning (Corson & Corson, 1981). Brickell (1979) placed a mascot cat into a hospital-based nursing home in California. He believed that ward mascots would have as many positive effects on the patients as if each one was given their own pet. The staff reported that after introduction of the cat the patients were more responsive to others. Beck and Katcher (1989) showed that psychiatric patients who met in a room that contained finches had significantly lower hostility scores than patients who met in a room without them. Also, the patients reported feeling safer and more open when the finches were present.Ory and Goldberg (1983) found that older persons who were strongly attached to their pets also reported being happier. Similarly, Garrity, Stallone, Marx, and Johnson (1989) found that older persons who reported a stronger attachment to their pets correlated with lower self-report of depression. Savishinsky (1985) found that pets triggered the memories of nursing home residents. When the visiting pets were present many residents talked about their childhood pets, reminisced about their childhood, and increased communication with other residents and their own family members. Residents from rural backgrounds often related their experiences with the farm animals. Additionally, farmers reminisced about working accomplishments linked with animals such as milking the cows, plowing the fields with a horse, and learning husbandry techniques. Pets as TherapyVarious types of animals have been increasingly used for their therapeutic nature on human psychological disabilities. In addition to dogs, cats, and fish, horses (DePauw, 1992), birds (Netting, Wilson, & New, 1987), hamsters or gerbils, and rabbits (Katcher, Beck, & Levine, 1989; Levy, 1975; Stone, 2000) have also been shown to enhance psychological functioning. Even monkeys have been shown to be effective therapeutic agents. For example, after the Oklahoma City bombing, a rhesus monkey was used to calm and entertain victims waiting word of their loved ones.Despite the numerous findings of the psychological and physical benefits derived from animals, fewer studies have examined the benefits of plants. Therefore, it is unknown if the psychological and physical benefits are attributable solely to animals. If it is the exclusive presence of animals that results in enhanced psychological and physical functioning, then other objects should not provide similar therapeutic benefits. In contrast, if the benefits are a consequent of interacting with any living organism, then other stimuli may serve the purpose. For example, Robb, Boyd and Pristash (1980) studied the social responses of elderly male veterans exposed to a wine bottle, a potted plant, and a caged puppy. Their results indicated that the puppy elicited the most social responses with the plant eliciting the next greater number of responses. They suggested that both animals and plants result in favorable socialization in the chronically ill elderly. However, no studies have compared the psychological and physical benefits of animals to plants. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine the therapeutic benefits of pets and plants, including flowers, as an alternative mechanism by which the elderly receive therapeutic benefits. It was hypothesized that the pets would provide the greater psychological benefits such as (a) decreased social avoidance, (b) decreased depression, and (c) increased self-esteem. MethodParticipantsResidents of Alterra Sterling House Assisted Living Center (75-96 years old, m = 75.1 years) and elderly citizens at Daybreak Eldercare Center (64-83 years old, m = 74.7 years) in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, volunteered to participate in the study. All of the participants were cognitively capable of physical or verbal interaction with the pets and plants. The residents of Alterra Sterling Houses Assisted Living Center (8 females, 2 males) served as the Pet therapy group while the elderly from Daybreak Center (7 females, 3 males) served as the Plant therapy group. All participants were treated in accordance with APA ethical guidelines.Twenty participants from each facility began the study. However, due to health issues, family moves, and death rates among the volunteers, only ten from each facility completed the study. All residents were provided with an Informed Consent form and photograph release form prior to the commencement of the study. All the procedures were explained to them. All of the individual results remained confidential and only non-identifying material was used in future analyses. All study results and questionnaires were kept in a locked file cabinet in the principal investigator’s office.MaterialsPets. The animals used were trained therapy pets from Pet-Me PetsÒ and all had prior experience with elderly citizens. The pets included a Springer Spaniel female dog (Patches) and her sister a Golden Spaniel (Precious), a female Husky (Sugar), a female Potbelly pig (Pringles), a female Pygmy goat (Pixie), a male Mini Rex rabbit (Peanut), a female Holland lop ear rabbit (Pretzel), and a male orange Tabby cat (Pedro). All of the pets were spayed or neutered and were current on vaccinations.The Mini Rex rabbits were chosen due to the quality of their fur and their docile nature. Their fur, for example, is very similar to chinchilla. Due to the frequent occurrence of allergies to cat dander, Pedro was kept in his carrier until a resident requested to hold him. All of the pets were treated in accordance with APA ethical guidelines.Plants. The plant life included both plants and flowers. After consultation with a local nursery a 6” Chinese evergreen and the dwarf Peace Lily were chosen as the plants to be included in the study. These plants are tolerant of various temperatures and have seasonal blooms. The flowers varied depending on the time of the season, their color, hardiness, and availability. Examples included pansies, tulips, irises, and various ground cover flowers. Additionally, marigold seeds were included so the participants could plant them and watch them grow.Student Presenters. Undergraduate students from the Human-Animal Interaction and Learning (PSYC 2033) class at Rogers State University, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, participated as presenters. Inclusion in the project fulfilled the applied application requirement of their course. Additionally, the experience exposed undergraduate students to real world research. They learned all aspects of scientific experimentation and were involved in each step of implantation. Not only will they be involved in research, they also benefited by interacting with the elderly residents. All of the previous volunteers indicated they enjoyed participating in the program and benefited personally by their participation.Measurement scales Questions were randomly selected from three measurement scales and compiled into a survey for use in the pretest and posttest portion of the study (Appendix A). The scales were self-report questionnaires with (a) Yes/No, (b) True/False, (c) or Likert Scale ratings. All of the scales had been shown to be reliable (Janda, 2001; Weiten, 2000).The Self-Esteem Rating Scale. Nugent, W. R. and Thomas, J. W. (1993). Validation of the Self-Esteem Rating Scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 3, 191-207. Beck Depression Inventory. Beck, A. T. (1967).Social Avoidance and Distress Scale. Watson, D. L. and Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.ProcedureAll participants were recruited on a volunteer basis. They were told that they were participating in a program to teach college students the proper way to present pets or plants to elderly citizens. All of the willing participants signed an informed consent to participate in the program. It was explained to them that the students would visit once every other week.Prior to the pet and plant visitations, the residents were asked to complete several self-report questions. For those residents unable to complete the questionnaire on their own, a nursing aide or other employee assisted them. The residents were told that the students were learning how to analyze statistics for the scales. Additionally, the residents were told that their name would remain confidential and that none of the students would see any identifying information. This was done in an effort to obtain true answers on the scales rather than “impressive” answers. At the conclusion of the four-month visitation program the residents completed the same questionnaires. The data was analyzed for differences in pre and posttest results and therapy group stimuli. The participants were debriefed at the conclusion of the study. Specifically, they were told the specifics of the research project and what part they played in it.The visitations occurred every other week for four months. To control for presenter bias, all students visited each facility. The students visited the dayroom or living room of the facilities and allowed the residents to look at, touch, smell, and talk to the pets and plants. Each visit lasted approximately 20-30 minutes. The questions from the survey addressed three separate areas of psychological well being; (a) Social Avoidance, (b) Depression, and (c) Self-esteem. Data was collected using a pretest and a posttest survey. Each psychological area was analyzed within the treatment groups and between the treatment groups using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The treatment groups consisted of Pet therapy and Plant therapy.Results Figure 1. The results of the Social Avoidance repeated measures ANOVA. The results of a Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the therapy groups in both Social Avoidance and Depression. Specifically, the Pet therapy group had a significantly lower level of Social Avoidance (Figure 1) than the Plant therapy group F(1,18) = 8.896, p < .05. Additionally, there was a significant main effect for Question F(9,162) = 5.553, p < .05 and significant interaction differences for Test (Pre/Post) x Question F(9,162) = 2.447, p < .05, Question x Therapy Group F(9,162) = 2.089, p < .05. Further analysis with a paired samples T-test revealed significant differences in pretest and posttest responses in the Pet therapy group for Question 4 t(19) = 3.684, p < .005 and Question 10 t(19) = 2.854, p < .05.The results also indicated a significant Therapy group effect for Depression. Specifically, the Pet therapy group reported a significantly lower level of Depression (Figure 2) in the posttest than the Plant therapy group F(1,18) = 12.115, p < .05.Discussion Figure 2. The results of the Depression repeated measures ANOVA. The results of the current study support two of the three hypotheses. Specifically, the Pet therapy group reported (a) decreased Social Avoidance and (b) decreased Depression after visitations from the pets. However, unlike Serpell’s (1996) findings that pets enhance self-esteem, the current data indicated no effect. These results could be attributed to the questions chosen from the previously mentioned surveys to include in the single questionnaire. The questions may not have addressed the self-esteem issues of interest to this study. Additionally, due to the counterbalancing of negative and positive questions, the participants may have misinterpreted them. Finally, the time of year may have skewed the results because self-esteem may have been higher or lower due to the holiday season and expectations of family or friends. As indicated in Figure 1, the Pet therapy group reported a significant reduction in Social Avoidance while the Plant therapy participants indicated an increase in Social Avoidance. In addition, while the Pet therapy group reported a decrease in Depression, the level of Depression in the Plant therapy group remained virtually unchanged. One explanation for this could include the novelty aspect of the plants. For example, the participants had a tendency to lose interest in the plants after the first two visits. Specifically, upon the first visit, residents enjoyed planting their marigold seeds and looking at the different plants and flowers. Later, they enjoyed watching their seeds grow into flowers. Some residents even became upset when they were told they could not keep the flowers although they were reassured the students would care for them until the following visit. At times, the facility employees had to misdirect the participant’s attention so the students could slip the flower back into the carrying crate. Future studies should examine this possessive phenomenon by presenting participants with a resident plant they can care for entirely themselves. When it became apparent that the Plant therapy participants were disinterested, and in an effort to arouse interest in the plant life stimuli, the experimenters regularly purchased different plants and flowers. Additionally, supplies for such activities as water spraying the plants and repotting them were also used in an attempt to rekindle interest. However, these efforts failed to maintain the level of involvement and the participants stopped coming. Although this study presents evidence of therapeutic value of pets over plants, several limitations should be addressed. For instance, this study used two different types of locations. Specifically, the Pet therapy group consisted of long-term residential facility individuals whereas the Plant therapy group participants were from an eldercare drop-in center. This difference in living arrangements may account for the variation between the two psychological constructs. A drop-in client may have a lower degree of depression and a higher incidence of Social Anxiety, while the opposite could be true for a resident client. Future studies should use similar facilities or reverse the stimuli with facilities similar to the current study in an effort to determine if any psychological differences occur.Another limitation of the current study was the visitation aspect of the stimuli. As evident in the Plant therapy group, the participants wanted to keep their flowers. Additionally, many residents of the assisted living center wanted to keep a pet in their room. A future study could examine the therapeutic benefit of both resident pets and plants. If similar results as the current are found, then studies of specific types of pets or plants could be conducted to determine if therapy value is dependent on the species of stimuli. Finally, future studies should be conducted on the physiological effects of pet and plant therapy to determine if there are differences in them.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Features/5-06-28PetsOrPlants.htm