What question did this study set out to answer?

February 12, 2026Human-Animal Interactions0 citationsOpen Access

Head, middle, or tail-end? A pilot examination of the differential effects of interacting with different parts of a therapy dog on college student well-being

JBJohn-Tyler Binfet FGFreya L.L. Green RGRebecca J.P. Godard

Key Points

This study aims to explore how interacting with different parts of a therapy dog affects student well-being.
Random assignment of 198 college students to head, middle, or tail-end therapy dog interactions.
Participants completed self-reported measures of well-being, including stress, happiness, and loneliness.
Paired samples t-tests and ANCOVAs were used to analyze pre- and post-interaction changes.
Significant decreases in stress, negative affect, and loneliness were observed.
Increases in happiness, optimism, and positive affect were reported post-interaction.
No significant differences in well-being measures were found between different interaction conditions, though head condition elicited mixed results.

Abstract

Abstract 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.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper