Human–Animal Interactions and the Promotion of Social and Emotional Competencies

A Scoping Review

Bibliographic Data

ID14845451
AuthorsMelvin Chin-Hao Chan (0000-0002-3850-0794, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, corresponding author), Kimberly A Schonert-Reichl (0000-0003-3619-0566, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada), John-Tyler Binfet (0000-0002-1073-1806, Okanagan School of Education, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada)
Year2022
Volume35
Issue5
Pages647-692
Publication date2022-09-03
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAnthrozoös (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0892-7936 • E-ISSN: 1753-0377
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/08927936.2022.2042080
OpenAlexW4220669877
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited156

Interest in human–animal interaction (HAI) research is burgeoning. It is suggested that participation in universal programs that incorporate HAI can promote the social and emotional competencies (SECs) of children and youth. However, there is a dearth of empirical evidence (i.e., outcome evaluations) attesting to the effectiveness of such programs. To address this knowledge gap and consolidate findings across studies, a scoping review was conducted. The aim was to provide an overview of the research that combined HAI and the promotion of SECs. Three academic databases were searched for relevant publications published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2020. The reference lists of the included publications were also screened for additional relevant publications. From an initial pool of 3,618 publications, 28 unique publications were selected for inclusion in the scoping review. Most authors reported positive outcomes in their evaluations. Across publications, variability was evident in the participating animals (dogs, horses, and wild birds were most common), the designs of programs, and the settings in which programs took place. A lack of methodological rigor was also found across all evaluations reported, including inconsistencies in the reporting of demographic information regarding human and animal participants, minimal use of randomization or control groups, lack of validity and reliability evidence to support outcome measures, and minimal attention to program implementation and animal welfare. The implications for future research are discussed, including the need to conduct rigorous evaluations of programs using reliable and validated measures and to address the inconsistencies in the descriptions of programs and in the reporting of outcome evaluations

Animal welfare · Animal-assisted therapy · Medical education · Pet therapy · Political science · Animal and Plant Science Education · Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies · Applied Psychology · Clinical Psychology · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOI