View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Love, Safety, and Companionship: The Human-Animal Bond and Latino Families

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Love, Safety, and Companionship: The Human-Animal Bond and Latino Families
Language: English
Authors: Faver, Catherine A., Cavazos, Alonzo M.
Source: Journal of Family Social Work. Aug 2008 11(3):254-271.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2008
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Animals, Safety, Intimacy, Hispanic Americans, College Students, Therapy, Social Services, Well Being, Socioeconomic Status, Questionnaires, Mexican Americans, Attitude Measures, Family Environment
Geographic Terms: Texas
DOI: 10.1080/10522150802292350
ISSN: 1052-2158
Abstract: A survey found that 69.2% of a sample of 208 Latino university students in south Texas owned companion animals. Dogs were the most commonly owned companion animals, and 92% of dog and cat guardians regarded their companion animals as family members. Over 80% of the dog and cat guardians specified companionship and unconditional love as benefits offered by their animals. Eighty-six percent of dog guardians, compared to 44% of cat guardians, received a sense of safety from their animals. Assessment of the role of a companion animal in a family should guide a practitioner's decision about whether and how to include the animal in therapeutic interventions. (Contains 5 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 35
Entry Date: 2009
Accession Number: EJ837859
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE5uQFzX6DiP-76JhP8wHP4AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBlwwq2xxW56AOf42QIBEICBmhJxfNI8Iw_z_e5RClR6Tfr8K6JNaTaH2Gg8x4tFHinSbn5Jgw-XKgTi9gPhIJ0-RGtj8cViMeFtu2GcWkBKxSGWuTWaIyVxx5NAMJtnKXjHb_ZpKOvRm_QGQpsYxRNUsPy86EyV9ONUH0OJ1B1PjtKcIcdX-gov51Ojq2Gr6Dtf8EzcwI7qzwFeZRGxhDQRFbSuMuo5f-VhRn4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0035048191;86z01sep.08;2019Mar27.14:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0035048191-1">Love, Safety, and Companionship: The Human-Animal Bond and Latino Families. </title> <p>A survey found that 69.2% of a sample of 208 Latino university students in south Texas owned companion animals. Dogs were the most commonly owned companion animals, and 92% of dog and cat guardians regarded their companion animals as family members. Over 80% of the dog and cat guardians specified companionship and unconditional love as benefits offered by their animals. Eighty-six percent of dog guardians, compared to 44% of cat guardians, received a sense of safety from their animals. Assessment of the role of a companion animal in a family should guide a practitioner's decision about whether and how to include the animal in therapeutic interventions.</p> <p>Keywords: companion animals; family therapy; Latinos; pets; Acculturation</p> <p>The social science literature reflects a growing awareness of the importance of companion animals to families. Social work researchers have examined the benefits of having companion animals (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]), the link between animal abuse and family violence (Faver & Strand, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]; Strand & Faver, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref3">12</reflink>]), and the role of companion animals in therapeutic interventions (Loar & Colman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]). Emerging from this research are two important conclusions: first, questions about companion animals should be included in assessment interviews with individuals and families in a wide range of practice settings (Faver & Strand, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]), and second, assessments and interventions must be guided by an understanding of ethnic group differences in attitudes toward companion animals (Risley-Curtiss, Holley, & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]). Yet, relatively little is known about the impact of ethnicity on attitudes toward companion animals (Risley-Curtiss, Holley, & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]), and only a few studies have focused explicitly on such attitudes among Latinos (Johnson & Meadows, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]; Poss & Bader, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order to broaden our understanding of companion animals in Latino families, this study surveyed Latino university students residing near the U.S.-Mexican border. The demographic profile of this sample is important because second generation Latinos are rapidly replacing new immigrants as the largest subgroup of the U.S. Latino population (Suro & Passel, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]). As highly educated, bilingual or English dominant Latinos, the participants in this study reflect the characteristics that will be most prominent in the U.S. Latino population for the next several decades. Thus, knowledge gained in this study may be useful in guiding practice with Latino families in the immediate future.</p> <p>Before proceeding, a word about terminology is necessary. Because the study described in this paper was conducted in the U.S.-Mexican border region of south Texas, most Latino respondents were of Mexican descent. In the literature review which follows, however, the authors will use the terminology for ethnicity used in the source cited. When referring to respondents in this study, the general term "Latinos" will be used. When referring to the respondents' animals, the term "companion animals" will be used. In addition, although animals may be legally owned by their caregivers, the authors prefer to use the term "guardians" rather than "owners" to the extent possible.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-2">REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0035048191-3">Families and Companion Animals</hd> <p>In 2001, 58.3% of all U.S. households owned at least one companion animal, and 68.9% of families with children had at least one companion animal (American Veterinary Medicine Association [AVMA], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]). In general, ownership of companion animals is related positively to both income (AVMA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]; Pew Research Center, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]) and family size (AVMA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many studies have demonstrated the positive effects of companion animals on human well-being. For example, interaction with companion animals has a positive effect on physical health (e.g., Friedmann & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>]; Friedmann, Locker, & Lockwood, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]), mental health (e.g., Barker & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]), social and emotional well-being (e.g., Albert & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]; Garrity & Stallones, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]; McNicholas & Collis, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]), and the social and emotional development of children (Ascione, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]; Melson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some research has focused on the importance of companion animals during particular life stages, such as childhood (e.g., Jalongo, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]; Melson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]) and late adulthood (e.g., Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]). Other studies have focused on the support provided by companion animals to special populations, such as female victims of domestic violence (e.g., Strand & Faver, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]) and families in military communities (Catanzaro, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]). The research to date, however, does not demonstrate conclusively that particular population groups are more likely than others to benefit from companion animals (see Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many people regard their companion animals as family members (AVMA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]; Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]; Pew Research Center, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]; Risley-Curtiss, Holley, & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]). A recent national survey (Pew Research Center, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>]) found that 85% of dog owners and 78% of cat owners regarded their companion animal as a member of the family. In addition, 94% of dog owners and 84% of cat owners described their relationship with their dog or cat as "close."</p> <p>Drawing from attachment theory, Sable ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref34">29</reflink>]) suggested that companion animals provide comfort, companionship, and a sense of closeness; foster a sense of well-being; and offer an opportunity to feel needed. In a sample comprised primarily of white, female, and affluent clients of a large veterinary clinic in New York City, Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]) explored what it means to regard companion animals as family members. She found that attachment to companion animals was not related to the respondents' ages, to whether they lived with an adult partner, or to whether they had a child, and she concluded that an attachment to a companion animal does not reflect a lack of close human relationships. Cohen noted further that companion animals "are firmly inside the family circle" (p. 632), that they "allow people to express their deepest feelings of intimate connection and nurturing" (p. 633), and that companion animals "seem to occupy an overlapping but different space from humans in a family" (p. 633). In short, people typically do not choose companion animals as substitutes for human relationships. Companion animals can, however, meet some of the same needs that human relationships meet; in addition, through their consistent, nonjudgmental presence, companion animals offer benefits that humans cannot provide.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-4">Latinos and Companion Animals</hd> <p>A national survey conducted in 2005 found that 39% of Hispanics, compared to 30% of Blacks and 64% of white non-Hispanics, owned companion animals (Pew Research Center, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]). In a study conducted in the Los Angeles area more than a decade ago, Siegel ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]) found that rates of ownership and degree of importance of companion animals were higher among white, non-Hispanic adolescents compared to Hispanic, African American, and Asian American adolescents. In a more recent study of 24 Latinos aged 50 and older who were clients of a veterinary practice, Johnson and Meadows ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]) found that 79% of the respondents agreed that their dog was a member of the family, and 67% regarded their dog as their best friend. In addition, 63% agreed, respectively, that their dog helps them feel better when they feel physically bad and when they feel sad.</p> <p>A telephone survey conducted in a southwestern county in the United States (Risley-Curtiss, Holley, & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>]) found that 56.9% of Hispanic respondents, compared to 65% of non-Hispanic whites and 73.5% of American Indians, owned companion animals. Dogs were the most commonly owned companion animal among Hispanics, and compared to five other ethnic groups, Hispanics were less likely to own cats, less likely to have a veterinarian for their companion animal, and more likely to indicate that they receive a sense of safety from their companion animal. Yet, there were no significant differences between Hispanics and other ethnic groups in the percentage reporting that they received emotional support, unconditional love, and companionship from their companion animals, nor were there significant differences in the percentage who agreed that their pet was a member of the family. In the same region, a qualitative study focusing on 15 women of color, including nine Latinas, found that 13 of the 15 participants regarded their companion animals as family members (Risley-Curtiss et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref40">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>To explore the community-identified problem of free-roaming dogs, Poss and Bader ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]) conducted a telephone survey of 206 residents of a <emph>colonia</emph> in El Paso County, Texas. A <emph>colonia</emph> is a rural community within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border that lacks basic necessities such as potable water or adequate sewer and drainage systems (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]). Over three fourths (77.3%) of the survey respondents were born in Mexico. Only 13% had attended at least one year of high school or more, and Spanish was the primary language for 92.1%. Sixty-two percent of the respondents owned dogs, 5.4% owned cats, and 4.9% owned both dogs and cats. More than three fifths (61.9%) of the dog guardians indicated that their dogs were chained outdoors, and 63.9% of those who chained their dogs outdoors reported that they never allowed their dogs to come inside the house. More highly educated respondents were less likely to chain their dogs outdoors, and over half (54.2%) of those who chained their dogs outdoors lacked adequate fencing. Although this study did not investigate attitudes toward companion animals, one could speculate that protection was the primary function of the dogs that were never allowed inside the house.</p> <p>To summarize, the research to date on Latinos and companion animals suggests that dogs are favored as companion animals, that many Latinos regard their companion animals as family members, and that a sense of safety is an important benefit for many guardians, in addition to companionship, emotional support, and unconditional love. It is likely that attitudes and practices regarding companion animals are affected by education and level of acculturation. The study described in this paper examined the relative importance of companionship, safety, and other benefits of companion animal ownership among relatively highly educated and acculturated Latino residents of the Texas-Mexico border region.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-5">The Study Context</hd> <p>This study was conducted in the south Texas county of Hidalgo, where almost 90% of the population is Hispanic. The county's southern boundary is the Rio Grande River, which forms the U.S.-Mexican border. The residents of Hidalgo County are younger and have lower levels of educational attainment than the general U.S. population, and the county's poverty rate is over three times the national average (see Table 1).</p> <p>TABLE 1. Selected Population Characteristics of Hidalgo County and the United States</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Characteristic</td><td>Hidalgo%</td><td>United States%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hispanic/Latino Population</td><td char="." charoff="50">89.6</td><td char="." charoff="50">14.5</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage over 17 years old</td><td char="." charoff="50">64.5</td><td char="." charoff="50">74.6</td></tr><tr><td>Families below poverty level</td><td char="." charoff="50">36.3</td><td char="." charoff="50">10.2</td></tr><tr><td>Individuals below poverty level</td><td char="." charoff="50">41.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">13.3</td></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI), the university in which this study was conducted reflects the ethnic composition of Hidalgo County and the U.S.-Mexican border region. In the fall of 2006, 86.6% of the 17,337 students enrolled in the university were Latino. Four fifths (80.9%) of the students were residents of Hidalgo County, and an additional 11.7% were residents of three other counties in the region. Fifty-nine percent of the students were female, and 87% were undergraduates (University of Texas-Pan American [UTPA], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>As university students, the participants in this study have higher levels of educational attainment and are more highly acculturated than many residents of the region. Many students in this university, however, are the first in their families to pursue higher education, and their financial resources are extremely limited. Within this context, how prevalent are companion animals in their households? Are companion animals regarded as family members, and what roles do they play in these Latino families? This study was devised to answer these questions. Because the participants in this study are part of a subgroup of highly educated, bicultural, and acculturated Latinos who will soon be numerically dominant among U.S. Latinos, an understanding of their perspectives regarding companion animals should be useful in many social work practice contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-6">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0035048191-7">Sample</hd> <p>The survey questionnaire was administered to university students enrolled in a HSI located in south Texas near the U.S.-Mexican border. During sessions of selected undergraduate and graduate classes in the social work and educational psychology departments, students were asked to participate voluntarily in the study. Participants signed an informed consent form and completed the study questionnaire during class. The study methods were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university.</p> <p>A total of 232 students completed the survey questionnaire between January and July, 2007. From this group of respondents, only the Latino/a students (n = 208) were included in the sample for this study. Ethnic identity was determined from responses to the following questionnaire item: "How do you prefer to describe your ethnic identity?" Eleven response alternatives were provided, including an option to write in a preference not listed. The 208 students in the study sample selected ethnic identity preferences such as "Hispanic," "Mexican American," "Mexicano," or "Latino," all of which can be subsumed under the general category "Latino." Given the location of the study in the Texas-Mexico border region, most Latino respondents were of Mexican descent.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-8">Measures</hd> <p>Some of the questions on the self-administered survey were adapted with permission from the study conducted by Risley-Curtiss, Holley, and Wolf ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>]), which was discussed in the literature review. Companion animal ownership was determined by asking respondents whether they currently owned a pet (yes or no). The questionnaire included a list of species (e.g., dog, cat, rabbit, bird), and respondents were asked to indicate the number of each species they currently owned. In addition, guardians (owners) of dogs and cats were asked to specify which animal (dog or cat) they had owned the longest.</p> <p>Dog and cat guardians were asked a series of questions about the animal (dog or cat) they had owned the longest, including how long they had owned the animal (less than one year; 1–2 years; more than two years), whether they had a veterinarian for the animal (yes or no), and whether they considered their dog or cat to be a member of the family (yes or no). In addition, cat and dog guardians were provided a list of alternatives from which they indicated where or how they obtained their animal. To determine the perceived benefits of companion animals, dog and cat guardians were asked to indicate what their companion animal offered them by responding "yes" or "no" to each item in a list of potential benefits. Dog and cat guardians were also asked to indicate which item on the list was the <emph>most important</emph> benefit they derived from their companion animal.</p> <p>The questionnaire included items to determine the participants' ethnic identity, gender, age, and academic program of study. In addition, participants were asked to describe their level of acculturation by selecting one of the following three categories: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) "traditional Mexican (meaning that regardless of the cultural setting, you prefer to speak Spanish"; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) "bicultural (meaning that you feel comfortable speaking Spanish or English depending on the cultural setting"; or (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>) "assimilated to Anglo culture (meaning that regardless of the cultural setting, you prefer to speak English)."</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-9">Analysis</hd> <p>Data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows 15.0. Frequencies were computed for all variables and bivariate analyses and tests of statistical significance were conducted using cross-tabulations, chi-square, t-tests for independent samples, and one-way ANOVA.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-10">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0035048191-11">Description of Sample</hd> <p>Of the 208 Latino respondents, 184 (88.5%) were female. The age of the respondents (N = 202) ranged from 18 to 56, with a median age of 28 years and a mean of 29.81 (SD = 8.3). Approximately four fifths of the respondents selected "Hispanic" (41.3%) or "Mexican American" (40.4%) as the preferred term to describe their ethnic identity. Other preferences chosen by respondents included <emph>Mexicano(a)</emph> (6.7%), Latino(a) (5.3%), and White Hispanic (3.4%); several respondents listed additional terms including "Chicana" and "Mexican."</p> <p>Of those reporting academic status (N = 207), 42% were graduate students and 58% were undergraduates. Four fifths (80.8%) of the 208 respondents were social work students, and the others were educational psychology students. On the acculturation measure (N = 207), 8.2% described themselves as "traditional Mexican," 77.3% described themselves as "bicultural," and 14.5% described themselves as "assimilated to Anglo culture."</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-12">Companion Animal Ownership and Care</hd> <p>Of the 208 respondents, 144 (69.2%) currently owned companion animals. Of those who owned companion animals (N = 144), 65.3% had dogs only, 14.6% had cats only, 12.5% had both dogs and cats, and 7.6% owned animals other than dogs or cats. Table 2 shows the types of animals owned and the number of respondents who owned each type of animal.</p> <p>TABLE 2. Types of Companion Animals and Frequency of Ownership</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Owners with this Animal</td></tr><tr><td>Type of Animal</td><td>N</td><td>%<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2" /></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dog</td><td>115</td><td char="." charoff="50">79.9</td></tr><tr><td>Cat</td><td>39</td><td char="." charoff="50">27.1</td></tr><tr><td>Rabbit</td><td>4</td><td char="." charoff="50">2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Bird</td><td>13</td><td char="." charoff="50">9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Fish</td><td>25</td><td char="." charoff="50">17.4</td></tr><tr><td>Turtle</td><td>8</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Small animal<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn3" /></td><td>6</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.2</td></tr><tr><td>Horse</td><td>6</td><td char="." charoff="50">4.2</td></tr><tr><td>Snake</td><td>1</td><td char="." charoff="50">0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>5</td><td char="." charoff="50">3.5</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Almost half the companion animal owners (49.3%) had only one animal, and the median number of animals owned was two. Only six respondents owned eight or more animals; the respondent with the most animals (<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref48">38</reflink>) listed both domestic and farm animals on her questionnaire.</p> <p>Companion animal owners and non-owners did not differ significantly in gender or level of acculturation. Companion animal owners were, however, significantly older than non-owners (t = 2.26, df = 132.08, p < 0.05, N = 202). The mean age of companion animal owners (N = 141) was 30.6 (SD = 8.5), and the mean age of non-owners (N = 61) was 27.9 (SD = 7.3).</p> <p>Cat and dog guardians (N = 133) were asked a series of questions about the animal they owned the longest. Twenty-five cat guardians and 107 dog guardians responded to this question; one guardian did not specify which species (dog or cat) was owned the longest. Two-thirds (67%, 88/132) of the dog and cat guardians had owned their animal more than two years, and three fourths (75%, 99/132) reported that they had a veterinarian for their animal.</p> <p>Approximately half (49.6%) of all dog and cat guardians (N = 133) obtained their animal as a gift from a family member or friend. Over a fourth (26.4%) purchased their animal from a breeder (11.3%), a pet store (8.3%), or a friend (6.8%). Only 9% obtained their animal by rescuing a stray, and even fewer (5%) adopted their animals from an animal shelter.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-13">Attitudes Toward Companion Animals</hd> <p>Ninety-two percent of the dog and cat guardians (N = 132) reported that they consider their companion animal to be a member of the family. As Table 3 shows, more than four fifths of both dog and cat guardians indicated that their animal offers them companionship and unconditional love, more than three fifths receive emotional support from their animal, and over half reported that their animal offers companionship for their children. Only 44% of cat guardians, compared to 86% of dog guardians, indicated that their animal offered a sense of safety.</p> <p>TABLE 3. Benefits of Companion Animals (Percentage Distribution)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Dog Guardians (N = 107)</td><td>Cat Guardians (N = 25)</td></tr><tr><td>Type of Benefit</td><td>% Yes</td><td>% Yes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Companionship</td><td char="." charoff="50">87.8</td><td char="." charoff="50">88.0</td></tr><tr><td>Unconditional love</td><td char="." charoff="50">83.2</td><td char="." charoff="50">84.0</td></tr><tr><td>Sense of safety</td><td char="." charoff="50">86.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">44.0</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional support</td><td char="." charoff="50">64.5</td><td char="." charoff="50">68.0</td></tr><tr><td>Companionship for children</td><td char="." charoff="50">55.1</td><td char="." charoff="50">52.0</td></tr><tr><td>Teach children responsibility</td><td char="." charoff="50">42.1</td><td char="." charoff="50">44.0</td></tr><tr><td>Guide for family member</td><td char="." charoff="50">7.5</td><td char="." charoff="50">8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Other<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn4" /></td><td char="." charoff="50">8.4</td><td char="." charoff="50">16.0</td></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>From the list of potential benefits, respondents were asked to indicate the <emph>most important</emph> benefit their animal offered. As Table 4 shows, among dog guardians who responded to this question (N = 88), the benefits most frequently cited as most important were companionship (29.6%), a sense of safety (28.4%), and unconditional love (25%). Among cat guardians who responded to this question (N = 17), companionship was the benefit most often cited as most important (41.2%), followed distantly by unconditional love (17.6%); no cat guardian cited sense of safety as the most important benefit.</p> <p>TABLE 4. Most Important Benefit of Companion Animal Ownership (Percentage Distribution)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Dog Guardians (N = 88)</td><td>Cat Guardians (N = 17)</td></tr><tr><td>Type of Benefit</td><td>% Most Important</td><td>% Most Important</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Companionship</td><td char="." charoff="50">29.6</td><td char="." charoff="50">41.2</td></tr><tr><td>Unconditional love</td><td char="." charoff="50">25.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">17.6</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional support</td><td char="." charoff="50">0.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">11.8</td></tr><tr><td>Sense of safety</td><td char="." charoff="50">28.4</td><td char="." charoff="50">0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Companionship for children</td><td char="." charoff="50">13.6</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Teach children responsibility</td><td char="." charoff="50">3.4</td><td char="." charoff="50">5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Other<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn5" /></td><td char="." charoff="50">0.0</td><td char="." charoff="50">17.6</td></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The variable "most important benefit" was recoded into a dichotomous variable indicating whether the most important benefit selected by the respondent was "relational" or "functional." "Relational benefits" refer to benefits that are experienced through the respondent's direct involvement and interaction with the animal. Benefits coded as relational were companionship, unconditional love, and emotional support. "Functional benefits," in contrast, refer to functions fulfilled or services provided by the animal that do not require direct interaction between the respondent and the animal. Benefits coded as functional were a sense of safety, companionship for the respondent's children, and help in teaching children responsibility. The responses of the three cat guardians who specified a "most important" benefit that was not on the list provided in the questionnaire were omitted from the analysis of relational and functional benefits.</p> <p>For 58.8% of the cat and dog guardians (N = 102), the benefit identified as most important was relational; a functional benefit was most important for the remaining 41.2%. Cat guardians (N = 14) were significantly more likely than dog guardians (N = 88) to specify a relational benefit as the most important benefit (85.7% compared to 54.5%, χ<sups>2</sups> = 4.84, df = 1, p < 0.05). Dog guardians (N = 88) whose primary benefit was relational rather than functional were more likely to consider their dog a family member and to have a veterinarian for their dog (see Table 5).</p> <p>TABLE 5. Characteristics of Dog Guardians Whose Primary Benefit is Relational or Functional</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Dog Guardian's Most Important Benefit Is:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Relational</td><td>Functional</td><td>χ<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Characteristic</td><td>%</td><td>N</td><td>%</td><td>N</td><td /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Considers Pet a Family Member</td><td char="." charoff="50">100.0</td><td>48/48</td><td char="." charoff="50">82.1</td><td>32/39</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Has Veterinarian</td><td char="." charoff="50">91.7</td><td>44/48</td><td char="." charoff="50">60.0</td><td>24/40</td><td>12.458**</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0035048191-14">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0035048191-15">Limitations of the Study</hd> <p>Before discussing the findings, it is important to note the study's limitations. The study targeted university students in order to reach Latinos who are relatively acculturated. As a convenience sample, however, the respondents represented only two university departments (social work and educational psychology). In addition, compared to the student population of the university, the sample had a higher proportion of women and a higher proportion of graduate students.</p> <p>The study's measures were also limited. The questionnaire did not determine the number of people in the respondents' households. Thus, it was not possible to determine whether rates of companion animal ownership or attitudes toward companion animals were affected by the presence or absence of an adult partner or children in the household. Given the strong family orientation within the Latino culture and the high poverty rate in the region, however, it is likely that most participants in the study were living with at least one other family member.</p> <p>The survey questionnaire also did not determine whether the study participant was the primary caregiver of the cat or dog referred to in the participant's responses. Mitigating this limitation is the fact that women are primary caregivers for most companion animals (AVMA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]). Because the sample in this study was comprised primarily of women, it is likely that most respondents were primary caregivers for the dogs and cats referred to in their responses.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-16">Significance of Findings</hd> <p>The rate of companion animal ownership in this Latino sample (69.2%, 144/208) is comparable to the rate among all families with children in the United States (68.9%). Like Latino respondents in prior research, the participants in this study were most likely to have dogs as companion animals; however, the percentage of cat owners was higher in this study than in previous research on Latinos (Risley-Curtis, Holley, & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>]; Poss & Bader, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref51">25</reflink>]). This finding may reflect the impact of acculturation on choice of companion animals.</p> <p>Consistent with previous research, most participants in this study regard their companion animals as family members, and more than four fifths of both dog and cat guardians reported that they receive the relational benefits of companionship and unconditional love from their animals. While previous research found that Latinos frequently cite "sense of safety" as a benefit of having companion animals (Risley-Curtis et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref52">27</reflink>]), this study found that dog guardians were much more likely than cat guardians to report that their companion animals provide a sense of safety. Many participants in this study received other functional benefits from their companion animals as well. Over half of the dog and cat guardians identified "companionship for children" as a benefit, and over two fifths identified "help in teaching children responsibility" as a benefit of companion animal ownership.</p> <p>The gap between the percentage of respondents who regard their companion animal as a family member (92%) and the percentage of respondents who have a veterinarian for their animal (75%) is regrettable. This gap is somewhat understandable, however, in light of the high rate of poverty in the region and the extensive human needs in many families. It is noteworthy, nevertheless, that dogs valued primarily for the relationship they offer rather than for the services they provide are more likely to receive veterinary care.</p> <hd id="AN0035048191-17">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>Studies of the link between animal abuse and family violence point to the importance of including information about companion animals in assessments of children and families in numerous practice settings (Faver & Strand, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref53">12</reflink>]; Faver & Strand, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]; Strand & Faver, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref55">31</reflink>]). Several assessment tools are available to assist practitioners in interviewing children and adults about their experiences with companion animals (Boat, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]; Randour, Krinsk, & Wolf, n.d.; Zimmerman & Lewchanin, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]). These assessment tools enable a practitioner to determine whether animals in the family have been abused and whether children have perpetrated or witnessed the abuse. If animal abuse has occurred, it should be addressed explicitly. Treatment models for adult and juvenile animal abusers are available (Jory & Randour, n.d.; Randour et al., n.d.), and there are a growing number of animal-assisted treatment programs for at risk youth and families (Loar & Colman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref58">21</reflink>]; Duel, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]; Jalongo, Robbins, & Stanek, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]). While treating or making referrals to help the human family members, the practitioner should, of course, also ensure the protection of companion animals currently at risk through contacts with appropriate animal welfare professionals.</p> <p>Even if violence or risk of violence does not exist in a particular family, however, questions about experiences with companion animals may contribute vital information to a comprehensive assessment and can be useful in treatment planning. Family bonds are highly valued within the Latino culture (Falicov, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]), and many Latinos regard their companion animals as family members. Thus, family practitioners should inquire about companion animals regardless of the presenting problem.</p> <p>Companion animals play various roles in families; they are valued both as companions and as "helpers" by providing families a sense of safety and by facilitating children's social and emotional development. In the study described in this paper, less than 30% of the dog guardians, and none of the cat guardians, cited "sense of safety" as the most important benefit provided by their companion animal. Indeed, most respondents specified as "most important" either relational benefits (such as companionship and unconditional love) or benefits that reflected the animal's role in their children's lives. Thus, it is likely that in most bicultural or acculturated Latino families, one or more family members will have a significant attachment to the family's companion animal.</p> <p>By engaging a family in a discussion about their companion animal, a practitioner can gain insight into family roles, responsibilities, and responsiveness to the needs of individual members. The behavior and general well-being of companion animals may also reflect family stress and reveal the emotional tone of the household. Some useful questions to explore include, for example: How did the companion animal join the family? Was the companion animal's arrival a result of family decision-making, a response to a child's request, an unexpected gift, or the "rescue" of a stray? Does the companion animal "belong" to the family as a whole or to one individual? How does each family member perceive the animal's role in the family? Who is the primary caregiver? Has the care or behavior of the companion animal ever been a source of conflict? Who plays with the animal? How do parents teach children appropriate ways to interact with the companion animal? Has the family had other companion animals? What happened to them? How was the loss of a companion animal addressed in the family?</p> <p>Exploration of the companion animal's role in the family will guide the practitioner in deciding whether and in what ways to include the companion animal in the intervention process. In some cases, the practitioner may rely on the companion animal primarily in a supportive capacity. For example, the presence of the family's companion animal may be soothing to family members who are apprehensive about a family session with a therapist.</p> <p>In other cases, the companion animal may contribute a more vital component to the therapy process. For example, young children and adolescents who feel emotionally isolated may be greatly comforted by stroking or hugging a companion animal whom they may perceive as the only one who loves them. These expressions of unconditional acceptance between a family member and a companion animal can be utilized by the practitioner to teach parents and siblings how to give and receive affection and to explain the importance of feeling loved. In other instances, children who feel vulnerable and are unassertive in family therapy may interact with a companion animal as a means of disengaging from an encounter without having to leave the session. Physical touch with a companion animal may generate a feeling of connectedness and acceptance when love and support seem unavailable from the family.</p> <p>Companion animals may also be part of interventions outside the therapy sessions to reach various treatment goals. For example, "homework assignments" involving the care and training of companion animals can be used to strengthen parenting skills, to teach behavior modification techniques, and to facilitate the development of communication skills, empathy, responsibility, and self-discipline. Family members can also learn to observe their companion animal's responses to stress and change within the household as they monitor their own progress in reaching treatment goals. If needed, practitioners can consult with animal welfare specialists regarding "best practices" in the care and training of particular companion animals. Always, of course, the well-being of the companion animal must be protected when animals are serving as "teachers" within the family. In short, because companion animals are a vital part of many Latino families, the animals' roles and well-being must be seriously considered in assessment and intervention.</p> <ref id="AN0035048191-18"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Albert, A., & Anderson, M. (1997). Dogs, cats, and morale maintenance: Some preliminary data. Anthrozoos, 10(2–3), 121–124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). (2002). U.S. pet ownership & demographics sourcebook. SchaumburgIL: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ascione, F. R. (2005). Children and animals: Exploring the roots of kindness and cruelty. West LafayetteIN: Purdue University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barker, S. B., & Dawson, K. S. (1998). The effects of animal-assisted therapy on anxiety ratings of hospitalized psychiatric patients. Psychiatric Services, 49, 797–801.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref56" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boat, B. W. (1999). Abuse of children and animals: Using the link to inform child assessment and protection. In F. R.Ascione & P.Arkow (Eds.), Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse (pp. 83–100). West LafayetteIN: Purdue University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Catanzaro, T. E. (1984). The human-animal bond in military communities. In R. K.Anderson, B. L.Hart, & L. A.Hart (Eds.), The pet connection (pp. 341–347). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, S. P. (2002). Can pets function as family members?Western Journal of Nursing, 24(6), 621–638.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref59" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Duel, D. K. (2004). Violence prevention and intervention: A directory of animal-related programs. WashingtonDC: Humane Society of the United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref61" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Falicov, C. (1998). Latino families in therapy. New York: Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faver, C. A., & Strand, E. B. (2008). Unleashing compassion: Social work and animal abuse. In F. R.Ascione (Ed.), The international handbook of animal abuse and cruelty: Theory, research, and application (pp. 175–199). West LafayetteIN: Purdue University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faver, C. A., & Strand, E. B. (2003). To leave or to stay? Battered women's concern for vulnerable pets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1367–1377.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faver, C. A., & Strand, E. B. (2007). Fear, guilt, and grief: Harm to pets and the emotional abuse of women. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7(1), 51–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedmann, E., Locker, B. Z., & Lockwood, R. (1993). Perception of animals and cardiovascular responses during verbalization with an animal present. Anthrozoos, 6(2), 115–134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S. A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support, and one-year survival after acute myocardial infarction in the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial (CAST)The American Journal of Cardiology, 76, 1213–1217.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1998). Effects of pet contact on human well-being. In C. C.Wilson & D. C.Turner (Eds.), Companion animals in human health (pp. 3–22). Thousand OaksCA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, R. G. (1991). Companion animals: A therapeutic measure for elderly patients. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 18(1–2), 195–205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jalongo, M. R. (with Chenfield, M. B. & Robbins, M. R.). (2004). Bonding with and caring for pets: Companion animals and child development. In M. R.Jalongo (Ed.), The world's children and their companion animals (pp. 79–94). OlneyMD: Association for Childhood Education International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jalongo, M. R., Robbins, M. R., & Stanek, M. L. (with Monroe, D. M. & Patterson-Uhron, N.). (2004). Animals that heal: Animal-assisted therapy with children. In M. R.Jalongo (Ed.), The world's children and their companion animals (pp. 79–94). OlneyMD: Association for Childhood Education International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, R. A., & Meadows, R. L. (2002). Older Latinos, pets and health. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 24, 609–620.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jory, B., & Randour, M. L. (n.d.). The AniCare model of treatment for animal abuse. Washington GroveMD: Society & Animals Forum and the Doris Day Animal Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loar, L., & Colman, L. (2004). Teaching empathy: Animal-assisted therapy programs for children and families exposed to violence. AlamedaCA: Latham Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2000). Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: Robustness of the effect. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 61–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melson, G. F. (2001). Why the wild things are: Animals in the lives of children. CambridgeMA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pew Research Center. (2006). Gauging family intimacy: Dogs edge cats (dads trail both). WashingtonDC: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poss, J. E., & Bader, J. O. (2007). Attitudes toward companion animals among Hispanic residents of a Texas border community. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 10(3), 243–253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randour, M. L., Krinsk, S., & Wolf, J. L. (n.d.). AniCare Child: An assessment and treatment approach for childhood animal abuse. Washington GroveMD: Society & Animals Forum and the Doris Day Animal Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risley-Curtiss, C., Holley, L. C., Cruickshank, T., Porcelli, J., Rhoads, C., & Bacchus, D. N. A. (2006). "She was family:" Women of color and their animal-human connections. Affilia, 21, 433–447.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risley-Curtiss, C., Holley, L. C., & Wolf, S. (2006). The animal-human bond and ethnic diversity. Social Work, 51, 257–268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sable, P. (1995). Pets, attachment, and well-being across the life-cycle. Social Work, 40, 334–341.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegel, J. M. (1995). Pet ownership and the importance of pets among adolescents. Anthrozoos, 8(4), 217–223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strand, E. B., & Faver, C. A. (2005). Battered women's concern for their pets: A closer look. Journal of Family Social Work, 9(4), 39–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suro, R., & Passel, J. S. (2003). The rise of the second generation: Changing patterns in Hispanic population growth. WashingtonDC: Pew Hispanic Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Texas-Pan American (UTPA), Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness. (2006). Stats at a glance: Fall 2006. Edinburg: UTPA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2006). Facts about farm workers and colonias. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from <ulink href="http://www.hud.gov/groups/farmwkercolonia.cfm">http://www.hud.gov/groups/farmwkercolonia.cfm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, E., & Lewchanin, S. (2000). Clinical assessment of juvenile animal cruelty. BrunswickME: Biddle Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0035048191-19"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> <emph>Note</emph>. Data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <sups> <emph>a</emph> </sups>The base of each percentage is the total number of companion animal owners (N = 144). The sum of the percentages is greater than 100% because many owners have more than one animal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <sups> <emph>b</emph> </sups>The category "small animal" includes mice, rats, guinea pigs, gerbils, ferrets, and hamsters. The category "other" includes iguanas, cows, goats, and pigs.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <sups> <emph>a</emph> </sups>Items listed as "other" by dog guardians included "stress reliever," "friendship to my younger sister," and "hunting." Items listed as "other" by cat guardians include "stress relief," "the feeling I'm doing something good for a pet," and "killing rats."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> <sups> <emph>a</emph> </sups>"Other" includes three benefits listed as "most important" by cat guardians: "stress relief," "the feeling I'm doing something good for a pet," and "killing rats."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *p < 0.05 Fisher's exact test.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> **p < 0.05 one-tailed.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By CatherineA. Faver and AlonzoM. Cavazos</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref60"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ837859
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Love, Safety, and Companionship: The Human-Animal Bond and Latino Families
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Faver%2C+Catherine+A%2E%22">Faver, Catherine A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cavazos%2C+Alonzo+M%2E%22">Cavazos, Alonzo M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Family+Social+Work%22"><i>Journal of Family Social Work</i></searchLink>. Aug 2008 11(3):254-271.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Animals%22">Animals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Safety%22">Safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intimacy%22">Intimacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hispanic+Americans%22">Hispanic Americans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Therapy%22">Therapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Services%22">Social Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mexican+Americans%22">Mexican Americans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitude+Measures%22">Attitude Measures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Environment%22">Family Environment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10522150802292350
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1052-2158
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A survey found that 69.2% of a sample of 208 Latino university students in south Texas owned companion animals. Dogs were the most commonly owned companion animals, and 92% of dog and cat guardians regarded their companion animals as family members. Over 80% of the dog and cat guardians specified companionship and unconditional love as benefits offered by their animals. Eighty-six percent of dog guardians, compared to 44% of cat guardians, received a sense of safety from their animals. Assessment of the role of a companion animal in a family should guide a practitioner's decision about whether and how to include the animal in therapeutic interventions. (Contains 5 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 35
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ837859
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ837859
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10522150802292350
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 254
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Animals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Safety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intimacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hispanic Americans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Therapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mexican Americans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitude Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Love, Safety, and Companionship: The Human-Animal Bond and Latino Families
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Faver, Catherine A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cavazos, Alonzo M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2008
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1052-2158
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 11
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Family Social Work
              Type: main
ResultId 1