By Diane Nelson Bryen, Allison Carey, Beverly Frantz, and Angela Caristo
Studies have documented that assistance animals, and pets more generally, provide many benefits beyond assistance with specific tasks. Among the best documented benefits concern the health and social integration of owners. Pets and assistance animals help us deal with stress (Siegel 1993; Wells and Perrine 2001), ameliorate feelings of loneliness and depression (Crowley-Robinson et al 1996; Hart 2000; Hart et al 1996; Valentine et al 1993), and generally seem to enhance our overall physical and mental health (Allen & Blascovich 1996; Heady 1999). The social benefits are just as dramatic. Pets, especially dogs, may increase our social interaction and improve the way people perceive us (Rogers et al 1993; Rossbach and Wilson 1992). Focusing on assistance dogs, Mader, Hart, and Bergin (1989) found that children with disabilities who used assistance dogs received more social acknowledgements than children with disabilities who did not use assistance dogs; in school and at the mall, people were more likely to smile at and start conversations with children with disabilities when they were accompanied by an assistance dog. Similarly, Eddy et al (1988) found that the presence of a dog increased the positive social acknowledgement of people in wheelchairs by people passing by. Not only are non-disabled persons friendlier towards persons with disabilities who have assistance dogs, but assistance dog owners are more likely to go out in public places and use public facilities than prior to dog ownership (Allen & Blascovich 1996).
It seems that assistance animals serve another important function as well. Assistance dogs may enhance owner's perceptions of their own safety and may help protect them from becoming victims of crime. Dogs have long been used as an efficient and low-cost means of crime prevention (Frate 1997), and some studies have shown that dogs are among the most effective deterrents of crime (Tilly et al 1991). This potential benefit, however, has received little examination. In their study of assistance dog owners, Valentine et al (1994) showed that assistance dog owners reported many psychological benefits, including feeling safer, more capable, and more assertive. And, Hart et al (1996) found that those with hearing dogs rated protection as the second most important reason for obtaining a hearing dog, second only to alerting owners to sounds.
In order to investigate this possible benefit, the Susquehanna Service Dogs disseminated surveys to people attending a national conference focusing on assistance dogs as well as to dog owners on their mailing list. Twenty-one surveys were returned and given to the Institute on Disabilities at Temple University for analysis. The survey asked respondents if they felt safer since getting their assistance dog. The survey also asked respondents if they were a victim of a crime or abuse before getting their assistance dog, and if they were a victim of crime or abuse after getting their assistance dog.
Ninety percent (19 of 21) of respondents reported that they felt safer since getting their assistance dog (see Table 1). Clearly assistance dog owners feel safer, but are they? Our own results indicate mixed messages. Fifty-two percent reported that they had been victimized prior to dog ownership (11 of 21), whereas only 14% reported victimization after dog ownership (3 of 21). However, these results need to be interpreted cautiously, especially because we do not know the amount of time spent prior to and after obtaining the assistance dog. If, for example, a person did not get an assistance dog until the age of 30 and we surveyed them at the age of 35, we would expect the likelihood of crime to be greater in the non-dog period merely due to the disproportionate length of time.
In addition, we found a disturbing, but highly tentative, difference between those who used assistance dogs for mobility assistance versus hearing assistance. Before owning an assistance dog, there was not a large difference in the likelihood of victimization between people with mobility disabilities and people with hearing disabilities, although people with mobility disabilities were somewhat more likely to report victimization than those with hearing disabilities. After getting an assistance dog, however, the likelihood of victimization for people with mobility disabilities seems to decline dramatically whereas the likelihood of victimization for people with hearing disabilities actually increases! Only one (1) of the 18 respondents with a mobility disability reported victimization after getting an assistance dog, yet 2 of the 3 persons with hearing disabilities reported victimization since getting their assistance dog. We are not sure why persons who use dogs for hearing assistance may be more susceptible to victimization than those who use dogs for mobility assistance. Our numbers are very small, and the issue deserves further research.
| Victimization | Mobility Disabilities | Hearing Disabilities | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before - Yes | 10 (42%) | 1 (33%) | |
| Before - No | 8 (58%) | 2 (67%) | |
| After - Yes | 1 (5%) | 2 (67%) | |
| After - No | 17 (95%) | 1 (33%) | |
These findings should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, even if assistance dogs do offer protection, owners should not assume that they are safe. Nancy Fierer, Program Director of Susquehanna Service Dogs, Inc. warns, "it would be wrong to assume that a person will be protected by a dog. If a person truly wants to hurt or rob someone, the dog will just be in the way. The dog's life may actually be in jeopardy. Reputable assistance dog programs select dogs that are not protective." However, our results suggest that assistance dogs clearly make people with disabilities feel safer, and that they may reduce victimization, especially for people with mobility disabilities.
References:
- Allen, Karen; Blascovich, Jim; "The Value of Service Dogs for People with Severe Ambulatory Disabilities. A Randomized Controlled Trial," Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 13, p. 1001-1006, 1996.
- Crowley-Robinson, Patricia; Blackshaw, Judith K.; "Pet Ownership and Health Status of Elderly in the Community," Anthrozoös, 11, 3, p. 168-171, 1998.
- Crowley-Robinson, Patricia; Fenwick, Douglas C.; Blackshaw, Judith K.; "Long-term Study of Elderly People in Nursing Homes with Visiting and Resident Dogs," Applied Animal Behavior Science, 47, 1-2, p. 137-148, 1996.
- Eddy, Jane; Hart, Lynette A.; Boltz, Ronald P.; "The Effects of Service Dogs on Social Acknowledgements of People in Wheelchairs," Journal of Psychology, 122, 1, p. 39-45, 1988.
- Frate, Anna Alazzi del; "Preventing Crime: Citizens' Experiences Across the World," Issues and Reports-United nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, 9, p. 1-16, 1997.
- Hart, Lynette A.; "Psychosocial benefits of animal companionship," in Handbook on Animal-assisted Therapy, edited by Fine, Aubrey H; p. 59-78, 2000.
- Heady, Bruce; "Health Benefits and Health Cost Savings due to Pets," Social Indicators Research, 47, 2, p. 233-243, 1999.
- Mader, Bonnie; Hart, Lynette A.; Bergin, Bonita; "Social Acknowledgements for Children with Disabilities: Effects of Service Dogs", Child Development, 60, p.1529-1534, 1989.
- Rogers, John; Hart, Lynette A.; Boltz, Ronald P; "The Role of Pet Dogs in Casual Conversations of Elderly Adults," Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 3, p. 265-277, 1993.
- Rossbach, Kelly Ann; Wilson, John P.; "Does a Dog's Presence Make a Person More Likeable?" Anthrozoös, 5,1, p. 40-51, 1992.
- Siegal, Judith M.; "Companion Animals: In Sickness and in Health," Journal of Social Issues, 49,1, p. 157-167, 1993.
- Tilly, Nicholas; Webb, Janice; Gregson, Michael; "Vulnerability to Burglary in an Inner-city Area: Some Preliminary Findings," Issues in Criminology and Legal Psychology, 2, 17, p. 112-119, 1991.
- Valentine, Deborah P.; Kiddoo, Mary; LaFleur, Bruce; "Psychosocial Implications of Service Dog Ownership for People Who Have Mobility or Hearing Impairments," Social Work in Health Care, 19,1, p. 109-125, 1993.
- Wells, Meredith; Perrine, Rose; "Critters in the Cube Farm: Perceived Psychological and Organizational Effects of Pets in the Workplace," Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 1, p. 81-87, 2001.
