The second hypothesis of the study concerned the effect of the dog visitation intervention on loneliness scores among institutionalised older people. Loneliness was measured among all participants pre- and post-intervention using the UCLA LS-
3. The results did not reveal any significant differences in the loneliness scores of experimental and control group participants from pretest to posttest.
Specifically, participants in the experimental group did not exhibit a decrease in loneliness scores after exposure to the dog visitation intervention. The hypothesis that HAI in the form of a dog visitation intervention is effective for significantly
lowering loneliness scores of older people in a residential facility for the aged was
thus not confirmed by this study. This finding indicates that the dog visitation intervention in the present study had no impact on the loneliness scores of institutionalised older people.
The results of the present study contradict those of earlier studies that suggest loneliness symptoms can be reduced among institutionalised older people through companion animal visits in the residential facility of these people. Four studies by Banks and Banks (2002, 2005), Banks et al. (2008), and Vrbanac et al. (2013) that all used versions of the UCLA measure of loneliness, demonstrated that animal visitation interventions in residential facilities can reduce loneliness among residents. The studies by Banks and Banks (2002) and Banks et al. (2008) were both
randomised controlled studies.
It is important to consider why the results of the present study failed to reaffirm the loneliness-reducing beneficial effect of animal visitation interventions. For example, while Banks and Banks (2002, 2005) and Banks et al. (2008) demonstrated the loneliness-reducing efficacy of a dog visitation intervention for institutionalised older people, why did the present study fail to generate similar evidence?
Majić, Gutzmann, Heinz, Lang, and Rapp (2013) point out that it is unlikely that a specific AAA works equally well for all people. Therefore, it is conceivable that
certain aspects pertaining to the sample characteristics and/or the manner in which the intervention was applied influenced the impact or effect of the dog visitation intervention in the present study on participants’ loneliness levels.
Banks and Banks (2002) and Banks et al. (2008) were successful in demonstrating the loneliness-reducing effect of a dog visitation intervention on institutionalised older people. The present study differed from these studies in that cognitively impaired and/or mentally disabled individuals were not explicitly excluded from participation. An informal verbal request was made to staff members at the facility that they not encourage or refer residents who notably present with symptoms of cognitive impairment or mental disability to partake in the study. Information was also not formally gathered regarding participants’ mental state and level of cognitive
functioning. As such, it is not certain whether there were any participants with mild or severe cognitive impairments or mental disorders involved in the study.
If there were participants with severe cognitive impairments or mental disabilities involved in the present study, it may be that these participants’ responses to the UCLA LS-3 were confounded as a result of their cognitive limitations or mental abilities. It has been noted that people with severe cognitive impairments are sometimes unable to express distress adequately (Majić et al., 2013). A potential cognitive bias in participants’ UCLA LS-3 responses may explain why the present study failed to generate findings similar to those of the studies by Banks and Banks (2002) and Banks et al. (2008).
Nevertheless, a potential cognitive bias in participants’ responses on the UCLA LS-3 is not the only possible explanation as to why the results of the present study
the present study may be a consequence of the format or mode of delivery of the dog visitation intervention.
In terms of the format or mode of delivery, dog visitation interventions can be
administered individually or in a group environment (Stern & Chur-Hansen, 2013). In Banks and Banks (2002) and Banks et al.’s (2008) studies, the dog visitation
sessions were administered individually to older people in a residential facility while they were alone in their rooms. In contrast, the dog visitation sessions in the present study were delivered to all experimental group participants simultaneously while they were gathered in the entry lounge at the facility.
Considering this, it can be postulated that the discrepancy between the present study’s findings and the findings of Banks and Banks’ (2002) and Banks et al. (2008) are due to the variation in the format of delivery of the dog visitation interventions in these studies. It is possible that the present study would have obtained different results if the dog visitation sessions were administered individually. Dog visitation sessions with individual participants may have provided them with more time and privacy for rich and in-depth interactions with the visiting dogs. Indeed, Banks and Banks (2005) found that animal visitation sessions in a residential facility significantly decreased loneliness scores among participants who received the animal visits while they were alone in their rooms; In contrast, loneliness scores did not significantly decrease among participants who received the same intervention in groups of two to four residents. It is thus possible that the group format of the dog visitation sessions in the present study distracted participants’ attention away from the dogs during visits. Phelps et al. (2008) have suggested that interaction with the visiting dogs
during group format interventions may have to compete with social interaction between residents and with volunteers.