Parents often buy their children a

Parents often buy their children a companion animal because they think that having an animal to play with and look after is a good thing. Indeed, such parents may consider that having a companion animal helps their children become more responsible and more social, and develops their character (Endenburg, 1991). However, the relationship between humans and animals, and especially the influence of companion animals on children, is a relatively new area of research. To date, research on children’s contact with animals involves two distinct groups of studies, namely, those looking at the impact of contact with companion animals on the development of children, and those investigating the use in therapy of animals, such as dogs, horses and dolphins. These programmes are known as Animal Assisted Activities (AAA) and Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT), respectively. Both types of studies are reviewed here. Attention must also be given to the welfare of the animals used in AAA and AAT, but, as Serpell et al. (2006) have stated ‘Animal Assisted Intervention has encountered growing popularity in the absence of a systematic assessment of the potential threats to the welfare of the animals’.

Studies of children and animals touch on cognitive, social, and emotional development and involve diverse sub-populations of children. Many early reports were case studies, but in later work questionnaires, surveys, and interview approaches were used. Although several interesting investigations have been reported (see, for example, Nimer and Lundahl, 2007 and Melson, 2003), the mechanisms underlying the results remain unclear. A problem with this line of research is that it is difficult (although not impossible) to conduct experimental studies (Endenburg, 1991). For example, it is not feasible to ‘force’ people to take a companion animal whilst others are told that they are not allowed to do so. It is therefore difficult to say anything about causal relationships. Sometimes in care facilities it is possible to give an animal to certain groups of children but not to other groups, but this type of study is rare and it is difficult to generalise these data to children living with their families under ‘normal’ circumstances.

Despite the methodological weaknesses of existing studies, the evidence for contact with animals promoting healthy child development is promising (Faber Taylor and Kuo, 2006). Whilst there is ambiguity in the findings of individual studies, the persistence of positive findings across different investigations incorporating different methodological weaknesses makes it likely that this is a real effect.