The field of Human-Animal Interaction (HAI) is plagued with mixed results. Some findings appear to indicate that interacting with a companion animal is beneficial for some aspect of human health and well-being, while other research outcomes are inconclusive or even indicate the opposite. The purpose of this paper is to take a closer look at this variability in research outcomes and to provide plausible explanations and potential remedies. Some of the reasons for mixed results are likely due to the wide variety of methodologies implemented, intermittent use of standardized measures and manualized protocols, variability in human and animal participants, and limited quantification of human-animal interactions or definitions of pet ownership. Variability in research outcomes is not unique to HAI and is, in fact, not uncommon in many more established fields such as psychology and medicine. However, the potential reasons for the variability may be linked to the unique nature of HAI in that, in its' simplest form, it involves two complex organisms, a human and an animal, interacting in dynamic ways. We argue that this complexity makes research in this field particularly challenging and requires a broad spectrum of theoretical and methodological considerations to improve rigor while ensuring the validity and reliability of conclusions drawn from study results.

Humans have long realized that dogs can be helpful, in a number of ways, to achieving important goals. This is evident from our earliest interactions involving the shared goal of avoiding predators and acquiring food, to our more recent inclusion of dogs in a variety of contexts including therapeutic and educational settings. This paper utilizes a longstanding theoretical framework- the biopsychosocial model- to contextualize the existing research on a broad spectrum of settings and populations in which dogs have been included as an adjunct or complementary therapy to improve some aspect of human health and well-being. A wide variety of evidence is considered within key topical areas including cognition, learning disorders, neurotypical and neurodiverse populations, mental and physical health, and disabilities. A dynamic version of the biopsychosocial model is used to organize and discuss the findings, to consider how possible mechanisms of action may impact overall human health and well-being, and to frame and guide future research questions and investigations.

Family dogs and dog owners offer a potentially powerful way to conduct citizen science to answer questions about animal behavior that are difficult to answer with more conventional approaches. Here we evaluate the quality of the first data on dog cognition collected by citizen scientists using the Dognition.com website. We conducted analyses to understand if data generated by over 500 citizen scientists replicates internally and in comparison to previously published findings. Half of participants participated for free while the other half paid for access. The website provided each participant a temperament questionnaire and instructions on how to conduct a series of ten cognitive tests. Participation required internet access, a dog and some common household items. Participants could record their responses on any PC, tablet or smartphone from anywhere in the world and data were retained on servers. Results from citizen scientists and their dogs replicated a number of previously described phenomena from conventional lab-based research. There was little evidence that citizen scientists manipulated their results. To illustrate the potential uses of relatively large samples of citizen science data, we then used factor analysis to examine individual differences across the cognitive tasks. The data were best explained by multiple factors in support of the hypothesis that nonhumans, including dogs, can evolve multiple cognitive domains that vary independently. This analysis suggests that in the future, citizen scientists will generate useful datasets that test hypotheses and answer questions as a complement to conventional laboratory techniques used to study dog psychology.

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed.

Beyond the functional tasks that assistance dogs are trained for, there is growing literature describing their benefits on the psychosocial health and wellbeing of their handlers. However, this research is not only widely disparate but, despite its growth, has not been reviewed since 2012. Our objective was to identify, summarize, and methodologically evaluate studies quantifying the psychosocial effects of assistance dogs for individuals with physical disabilities. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted across seven electronic databases. Records were independently screened by two authors. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed outcomes from guide, hearing, medical, or mobility service dogs, if they collected original data on handlers’ psychosocial functioning, and if the outcome was measured quantitatively with a validated, standardized measure. Studies on psychiatric service dogs, emotional support dogs, and pet dogs were excluded. Of 1,830 records screened, 24 articles were identified (12 publications, 12 theses) containing 27 studies (15 cross-sectional, 12 longitudinal). Studies assessed the effects of mobility (18), hearing (7), guide (4), and medical (2) assistance dog partnerships with an average sample size of N = 83. An analysis of 147 statistical comparisons across the domains of psychological health, quality of life, social health, and vitality found that 68% of comparisons were null, 30% were positive in the hypothesized direction, and 2% were negative. Positive outcomes included significant effects of having an assistance dog on psychological wellbeing, emotional functioning, self-esteem, and vitality. However, it is of note that several methodological weaknesses of the studies make it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions, including inadequate reporting and a failure to account for moderating or confounding variables. Future research will benefit from stronger methodological rigor and reporting to account for heterogeneity in both humans and assistance dogs as well as continued high-quality replication.