Pilot study examines well-being changes in college students interacting with therapy dogs, suggesting varied outcomes.
Background : Despite a plethora of research attesting to the benefits of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on participants’ well-being, little is empirically understood about the mechanisms within CAI interactions that elicit these outcomes. This study is a follow-up to research that examined the effects of touch during a CAI – establishing that direct touch was optimal in eliciting well-being benefits for student participants. Methods : The aim of the current study was to extend these findings by examining the differential effects of direct contact with different areas of the therapy dog. Participants ( N = 198) were randomly assigned to one of three therapy dog conditions ( head , middle , tail-end ). To assess self-reports of well-being, measures of optimism, positive and negative affect, happiness, connection to the campus community, stress, homesickness, and loneliness were administered. Results : Paired samples t -tests indicate that participants (from pre-to-post, regardless of condition) experienced significant decreases in stress (3.33–1.81; d = −1.85), negative affect (1.68–1.24; d = −1.06), loneliness (2.57–1.81; d = −0.92), and homesickness (2.5–2.24; d = −0.30) as well as increases in happiness (3.10–4.06; d = 1.15), optimism (3.28–3.64; d = 0.78), connection (2.54–3.03; d = 0.68), and positive affect (2.78–2.89; d = 0.19). A series of ANCOVAS revealed that stress, happiness, optimism, homesickness, and positive affect post-CAI scores varied significantly among experimental conditions, after controlling for pre-CAI scores. However, these effects were small, explaining at most 6% of the variance in outcomes. Although no follow-up pairwise comparisons were significant, participants in the head condition had the highest levels of post-CAI stress and homesickness, but also the highest levels of post-CAI happiness, optimism, and positive affect. For negative affect, loneliness, and connectedness, there were no significant effects of experimental condition. Conclusion : Findings are discussed within the broader field of human-animal interactions and hold both applied (i.e., program delivery) and empirical (i.e., the study of mechanisms within interactions) implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Binfet et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: