THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS TO EXPLORE COMPANION ANIMALS AS SOCIAL SUPPORTS
Background: Social support can be defined as receiving psychological and material resources from others to cope with stress. In this definition the term othersmay include companion animals. Research has demonstrated that the relationship one ascribes to a companion animal is considered unique and offers non-human social support. A majority of American households (56%) have a companion animal, and of those people 99% consider the animal as part of the family network. Currently, there is not a specific human-animal theoretical framework available to research the social support from human companion animal relationships.
Methods: A literature search was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, and PsycInfo using the keywords pets, human-animal bonding, and social support. The search was limited to research papers between 1946 and 2013, available in English, and on adult subjects. Articles identified (n=37) were screened by title and abstract to exclude unrelated articles and include articles reporting about an individual’s own companion animal and social support obtained from the companion animal. For example, articles about animal-assisted therapy and service animals were excluded. Thirteen articles met the criteria. To increase the number of articles, reference lists were searched to identify additional key literature (n=10) and were added to compose 23 articles to be reviewed.
Outcomes:Various theoretical frameworks were used to explore social support received from companion animals; many were borrowed from human-relationship theories. Of the 23 articles reviewed, 11 articles used explicit theoretical frameworks. These frameworks included: Bowlby’s attachment theory, Ainsworth’s attachment theory, Bartholomew and Horowitz’s theory of adult attachment, Lazarus and Folkman’s stress, coping and adaption theory, Weiss’ loneliness theory, stages of change theory, social ecological model of health framework, and contemporary evolutionary theory. The attachment theories emerged as the predominate theory. The studies that did not use a theoretical framework offered no explanation to justify the rationale.
Conclusions/Implications: The lack of a consistent framework to explore human-animal relationships, specifically social support from companion animals, has left researchers to borrow theories from human-human relationships. The design of a specific human-animal relationship theory could provide a more robust framework to examine the unique relationship people have with their companion animal. A specific human-animal framework could be useful to nurses when planning and implementing interventions for people living with a companion animal. Further research is needed to move beyond borrowed frameworks to create a specific human-animal relationship theory. Conducting a grounded theory study about the relationships people have with their companion animal is the next step towards a specific human-animal relationship theory.