Effect of Pet Dogs on Children's Perceived Stress and Cortisol Stress Response

Abstract

The present study tested whether pet dogs have stress-buffering effects for children during a validated laboratory-based protocol, the Trier Social Stress Test for Children (TSST-C). Participants were 101 children aged 7–12 years with their primary caregivers and pet dogs. Children were randomly assigned in the TSST-C to a pet present condition or one of two comparison conditions: parent present or no support figure present. Baseline, response, and recovery indices of perceived stress and cortisol levels were computed based on children’s self-reported feelings of stress and salivary cortisol. Results indicated that in the alone (no social support) condition, children showed the expected rise for both perceived stress and cortisol response to stress. Pet dog presence significantly buffered the perceived stress response in comparison to children in the alone and parent present conditions. No main condition effect was observed for cortisol; however, for children experiencing the stressor with their pet present, lower cortisol response to stress was associated with more child-initiated petting and less dog proximity-seeking behavior. The results support the notion that pet dogs can provide socio-emotional benefits for children via stress buffering.

Pet dogs: Does their presence influence preadolescents' emotional responses to a social stressor?

“…The sample size was relatively large for this type of research. The study, like Kertes et al (2016), is also unique in the child literature in focusing on the potential benefits of pets rather than service animals. We included multiple measures of emotional responding, as well as examining interaction between the child and his or her pet dog.…”

“…Previous studies have used small samples (15-20 children in a group; e.g., Beetz et al, 2011;Krause-Parello & Friedmann, 2014;Tsai et al, 2010) and thus had limited power, or used specialized samples (e.g., hospitalized children; Kaminski et al, 2002;Tsai et al, 2010) or settings (e.g., child visit to a doctor; e.g., Hansen et al, 1999;Havener et al, 2001;Nagengast et al, 1997) which limits their generalizability. Although it might be expected that the positive impact of human animal interaction might be greatest when children have an ongoing relationships with the animal (e.g., is a family pet), as has been found in studies with adults (Beetz et al, 2012), the prior studies we found with children that examined the impact of human animal interaction on emotional adaptation used trained unfamiliar animals rather than family pets (for a recent exception, see Kertes et al, 2016). Moreover, most studies have not controlled for whether children have prior experience with pets, a factor that might moderate the impact of human animal interaction.…”

“…The evidence base for these conclusions is, however, still sparse, and based primarily on non‐experimental studies in which either pet ownership or children's reports of the quality of their relationship with pets has been loosely related to measures of children's social or emotional adjustment (Griffin et al, ). There are few experimental studies of the effects of human animal interaction that include children (Beetz, Uvnas‐Moberg, Julius, & Kotrschal, ; Kertes et al ).…”

“…Indeed, interacting positively with a loved pet might, much like interacting with supportive humans, enhance positive mood, which in turn could enhance regulatory responses through broadening attentional focus and creative thinking about coping responses (Fredrickson, 1998;Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998). Further, social interaction, especially when there is physical contact (e.g., petting a dog), might also have direct physiological effects such as reducing sympathetic arousal (Beetz et al, 2011) or cortisol stress responses (Kertes et al, 2016), and/or promoting the release of oxytocin (Beetz et al, 2012).…”

Pharmacological challenge studies with acute psychosocial stress

“…These reviews confirm that the task reliably induces several indices of responses to social stress, and they identify several variables that can influence TSST responses, including, for example, sex, menstrual cycle phase and hormones, age, genotype, time of day of testing, psychiatric diagnosis, symptomatic state (Zorn et al, 2017) and even the presence of a pet dog (e.g., Kertes et al, 2017). The fact that many variables can influence the stress response somewhat complicates the interpretation of pharmacological challenge studies with the TSST (referred to here as ph-TSST), because the drugs could affect the perception or impact of the stress indirectly, by influencing other variables.…”