Introduction: Despite its importance, animal-assisted intervention (AAI) research is often hindered by applied, nonexperimental design. Studies comparing effects of AAI with traditional therapies are confounded by potential therapeutic variables other than the animal (i.e., setting, experiential approach). The present research aimed to fill these gaps through laboratory research isolating the animal while holding extraneous variables constant.
Methodology: A sample of 26 college students participated in an experiment by attending a group experiential learning session and completing self-report measures. The group learning sessions were randomly assigned to include a horse, a dog, or a stuffed animal. Sessions followed the ground-based eagala model. After the session, participants completed self-report instruments measuring human-animal interaction, motivation, positive and negative emotion, and metaphor use.
Results: Analyses of variance indicated significant differences between sessions including an animal compared to no-animal sessions. Positive emotions were greatest following dog sessions (M = 30.88, SD = 7.51), then the horse sessions (M = 21.20, SD = 8.98), then the no-animal sessions (M = 14.63, SD = 9.40), F (2, 23) = 7.09, p = .004. Intrinsic motivation was higher for dog sessions (M = 25.38, SD = 3.54) than horse sessions (M = 18.80, SD = 5.83) and no-animal sessions (M = 18.75, SD = 6.25), F (2, 23) = 120.53, p = .029. There were no differences in reported learning or metaphor use between any of the conditions.
Principle Conclusions & Implications for Field: The study provides an experimental model for more clearly isolating the role of the animal in AAI. The data suggest individuals may be more motivated during and feel more positive after interventions with animals than without animals. The differences between horse and dog sessions suggest species-specific factors influence outcome when other variables are held constant.