Effects of Human-Animal Interactions on Affect and Cognition

Abstract

Human-animal interaction has clear positive effects on people’s affect and stress. But less is known about how animal interactions influence cognition. We draw parallels between animal interactions and exposure to natural environments, a research area that shows clear improvements in cognitive performance. The aim of this study is to investigate whether interacting with animals similarly enhances cognitive performance, specifically executive functioning. To test this, we conducted two experiments in which we had participants self-report their affect and complete a series of cognitive tasks (long-term memory, attentional control, and working memory) before and after either a brief interaction with a dog or a control activity. We found that interacting with a dog improved positive affect and decreased negative affect (in one of the two experiments), stress, and anxiety compared to the control condition. However, we did not find effects of animal interaction on long-term memory, attentional control, or working memory. Thus, we replicated existing findings providing evidence that interacting with animals can improve affect, but we did not find similar improvements in cognitive performance. These results suggest that either our interaction was not of sufficient dose or timed appropriately to elicit effects on cognition or the mechanisms underlying effects of human-animal interaction on cognition differ from effects generated by other cognition-enhancing interventions such as exposure to nature. Future research should continue to increase knowledge of the connection between nature exposure and human-animal interaction studies to build our understanding of cognition in response to animal interactions.

Can Interacting with Animals Improve Executive Functions? A Systematic Review

“…In a neuroimaging study by Nagasawa et al [ 62 ], participants demonstrated greater prefrontal cortex activation when interacting with a cat, with the authors concluding that this may transfer to overall EF ability. In comparison, Thayer and Stevens [ 64 ] found no significant changes in EFs when interacting with a dog across two independent experiments, as measured by performance on WM tasks. Similarly, results from Gee et al’s [ 60 ] counterbalanced study were mixed, with participants improving in EF task performance when either the human collaborator or the dog were simply sitting next to the participant.…”

“…Two of the studies did not provide enough detailed information to determine the time spent in the overall experiment (e.g., greeting researchers, receiving instructions, testing with animal present, finishing experiment) versus actual time spent directly interacting with the animal. Of the four studies that provided information about the total time spent with the animal [ 59 , 62 , 63 , 64 ], interactions ranged between 3 min and 15 min in length ( M time = 6.25, SD = 5.85).…”

“…There was no research exploring the benefits of caring for a pet for adults aged 18–59 years, although two studies in this age group explored whether the direct presence of an animal could improve performance on WM tasks [ 60 , 64 ], and two additional studies explored the benefits of animal-assisted services [ 67 , 69 ]. Across these research questions, results were mixed.…”

“…Nagasawa et al found that interacting with a cat activated the prefrontal cortex, the brain area implicated in EFs, and postulated that this would generalise to improved EF skills [ 62 ]. In comparison, Thayer and Stevens [ 64 ] found no significant differences in WM skills when completing the task in the presence of an animal, while Gee et al suggested that WM performance was poorest when participants were required to maintain contact with a dog [ 60 ]. For the long-term intervention studies, only Pendry and colleagues found significant improvements in EFs across time [ 67 ].…”

“… Note . a = dissertation or thesis; b = publication by Thayer et al [ 64 ] reports on two experiments (Ex 1 and Ex 2 = experiment one and experiment two), with the same outcome measures and research design, but different participants; CANDIT = Computer Assisted Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Therapy; fNIRS = Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy; NCPC = Necker Cube Pattern Control; NEPSY-II = A Developmental NeuroPsychological Assessment (second edition); PIR HEG = Passive Infrared Hemoencephalography; RCT = Randomised Controlled Trial; WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (fourth edition); WRAML-2 = Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning (second edition). * p < 0.05.…”