Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesIn this article, the author discusses the many opportunities for scholars interested in conducting interdisciplinary research on the individual and organizational benefits of companion animals in the workplace. The selected literature in the management, medical, psychosocial, and communication realms provides areas for research connections within our field and between these disciplines. An exploratory model and future research suggestions are developed to provide direction for additional study.
Keywords: companion animals and business communication; business benefits of companion animals; positive use of companion animals in marketing; interdisciplinary research
**********
"On the edge or not" is deliberately placed in the title of this article. That I have gone off the edge or to the dogs (no pun intended, as you will see) may be in some of your minds at this moment or still in your minds for those who listened to my plenary speech at our 2004 annual convention in Cambridge. Why this topic? Why this motivation to look at an area not seen in our Association for Business Communication (ABC) journals? The answer lies not only in my academic scholarship and business practice these many years but in the very nature of our field and in my nature, too.
In this article, I will present the current psychosocial, medical, and potential marketing benefits of the human-animal bond and then build a case for the need for business communication research and companion animals within the workplace. Let me start with support for interdisciplinary research in its basic forms.
For instance, look at what other ABCers have said: "We are a community of interdisciplinary scholars who embrace great diversity" (Thomas, 2001, p. 24). "This diversity gives us an opportunity to publish in a variety of disciplines, and an opportunity to stretch our scholarly muscles in several directions" (Wardrope, 2001, p. 244). "Conceiving of ourselves as a multidiscipline may be the most accurate picture of our situation, so long as we are housed in different departments that value different subjects, goals, and methods" (Graham & Thralls, 1998, p. I0). And as Lamar Reinsch (1993) noted in a discussion of why we conduct research, we need "to add value to a regional or national economy (and to improve the quality of people's lives)" (p. 201).
I could go on and on with justification and qualification from many of our scholars (and even mention the recent [January 2005] Journal of Business Communication Forum on interdisciplinary issues) but think these comments provide argument enough to look in another interdisciplinary direction. So why propose linking communication and human-companion animal research in the workplace ? Let me try to answer that question by first giving some background material and then looking at what has been established in various types of studies including anecdotal, epidemiological, and experimental.
BACKGROUND
What follows is a discussion of the multidisciplinary literature that has helped me begin to develop an exploratory model of study. A series of questions will serve to structure the following sections of this article.
Why, Look at the Human-Animal Bond?
In the United States alone, 60% of households include companion animals (American Pet Products Manufacturers Association [APPMA], 2000). Worldwide, research into the importance of the human-animal bond includes the role of service animals, the human health benefits of companion animal ownership, and the health benefits of interacting with visiting companion animals. Although there are cultural differences in the perception and use of animals, results from a global survey support the connection or bond people have with their animals (Nolen, 2003).
More economically developed countries appear to have a stronger bond with companion animals. People of prosperous countries such as the United States, England, and Germany tend to have stronger bonds with animals than those in less prosperous countries. In addition, societal values and beliefs play a role in the moral value of companion animals in general. For instance, in the Leo Bustad Memorial Lecture, Dr. B. Beaver (Nolen, 2003) noted that people exhibit basic attitudes toward animals including an interest in the beauty of animals, a desire to master them, a strong affection for them, a sense of kinship with them, a view of them as a means to an end, and consideration of them as sacred. In many western European countries it is not uncommon to see animals accompanying their owners in restaurants and shopping areas.
In spring 2004, the Affinity Foundacion (a nonprofit education organization) sponsored a conference in Barcelona, Spain, examining the close relationship humans have to their animals. At this conference, presentations dealt with such topics as the role animals play in the lives of special populations (such as the elderly, juvenile offenders, and those with mental illness), the advances in human-animal research, and the need for further research and application of what has been discovered thus far in these and other potential areas.
Groundbreaking research on the human-animal bond compared the emotional closeness of dog owners to their dogs with the owners' closeness to human family members (S. Barker & Barker, 1988). Results showed no significant differences in closeness between owners and their dogs and owners and their closest human family members, and almost a third of dog owners were closer to their dogs than to any human family member. Participants completed the Family Life Space Diagram (FLSD), a diagram in which symbols are used to represent living entities within one's life space.
Another purpose for this research was to determine the construct validity of the FLSD. Participants completing it showed the emotional relationships between the owners and humans and dogs indicated on the diagrams that were displayed by relationship descriptors. The descriptors were compared with the physical distance between entities on the diagram, revealing that physical closeness on the diagram reflects the emotional closeness between the owner and the family member and dogs (S. Barker & Barker, 1988, 1990).
Figure 1 displays an example of this diagram. As can be seen in the diagram, the individual placed the dog closer to himself or herself than the other members of the family. The physical closeness was found to equate with the emotional closeness of the individual and members of the family.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Further work with the FLSD focused on child abuse survivors, using a retrospective approach. The purpose was to study the supportive and abusive roles of pets and humans during childhood. Pets were placed closer to the survivors and rated as more supportive than humans (S. Barker, Barker, Knisely, & Dawson, 1997).
Clearly, the human-animal bond is an important part of one's biopsychosocial environment. These research findings prompt further attention to the potential benefits provided by the human-animal bond reported from interdisciplinary inquiry.
What Do We Know About the Benefits of the Human-Animal Bond?
Companion animals (pets) have been found to have many beneficial effects on the members of diverse groups such as children, families, health care patients, senior citizens, and prisoners. Pet owners have been found to have lower cardiovascular risk factors and less depression. Such people are more self-sufficient and positive than non--pet owners. Even brief interaction with unfamiliar pets in the form of animal-assisted activities and animal-assisted therapy appears to foster social interaction, exercise, and reduced anxiety, fear, and depression for certain patient populations (S. Barker & Dawson, 1998; S. Barker, Pandurangi, & Best, 2003, Jessen, Cardiello, & Baun, 1996; Marr et al., 2000).
Through the years, we have seen a growing trend to include pets in hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care facilities to boost the spirits, and thus the physical health, of patients (Wilson & Turner, 1998), but few have looked at the impact on the work environment. Other intrapersonal and interpersonal positive effects have been found for those in prisons and other institutions, but again, studies have not been done of the employees of these facilities.
Both social support and stress research provide a strong case for companion animals serving as a type of social support that appears to improve self-esteem, internal locus of control, and psychological well-being. Introducing a pet into the social environment has been shown to positively alter blood pressure reactions to stress (Allen, 2003; Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, & Kelsey, 1991; Fine, 2000).
Anderson, Reid, and Jennings (1992) directed a large-scale study of 5,741 pet and non--pet owning adults representative of the Australian population. This study, which was conducted at cardiovascular screening clinics, provides descriptive data supporting the above research. Comparing pet owners to non--pet owners, the researchers found pet owners had lower systolic blood pressure and plasma triglyceride levels than non--pet owners. No significant differences were found for type of pet.
Odendaal (2000) explored the neurochemical response of humans interacting with companion animals. In a study of 18 dog owners interacting with their own and unfamiliar dogs, he found increases in neurochemical indicators of affiliation (beta endorphin, oxytocin, prolactin, phenylacetic acid, and dopamine) in both humans and dogs and decreased stress (serum cortisol) in owners after 5 to 24 min of interacting with either their own or an unfamiliar dog.
When this brief interaction with a dog is compared to other lengthy relaxation-technique programs, including stress management training, massage therapy, transcendental meditation, and Tai Chi, which have been reported in some studies to produce reduced stress hormone levels (Cruess, Antoni, Kumar, & Schneiderman, 2000; Field, Grizzle, Scafidi, & Schanberg, 1996; Gallois, Forzy, & Dhont, 1984; Jin, 1989), the human and cost benefits of interacting with a visiting dog are obvious. Other anecdotal reports and surveys published have found positive staff attitudes and reactions to the presence of animals in health care facilities, (Cassidy, Webb, McKeown, & Stiles, 1995; Chinner & Dalziel, 1991). Health care providers can be readily observed to smile, pet, talk to, and briefly play with therapy animals brought into health care facilities, creating a positive work environment. A pilot study of stress response by health care professionals to brief interactions with a visiting therapy dog found significant reductions in the stress hormone cortisol after as few as 5 min of interacting with the dog (S. Barker, Knisely, McCain, & Best, in press).
FEED