An exploration of the benefits of animal‐assisted activities in undergraduate students in Singapore

The rise in psychological problems, attrition, and suicide rates of university students has been linked to the stressful challenges faced during university life. To buffer this, animal assisted activities (AAA) may assist in improving psychological and physiological well‐being in students, however, to date, there is little empirical evidence for their effectiveness. Consequently, this study explored the psychological and physiological benefits of AAA in a sample of undergraduate students. Sixty‐two students from two local universities participated in an hour‐long AAA session delivered by Therapy Dogs Singapore. Measures of perceived stress, anxiety, state self‐esteem, and blood pressure (BP) were taken before and after the sessions. The results indicated that students experienced significant decreases in state anxiety, systolic, and diastolic BP post AAA, and when compared to a quiet reading comparison session. State self‐esteem increased post AAA and, further, was found to moderate the change in anxiety in addition to perceived stress, whereby perceived anxiety reduced more in those with low state self‐esteem and high perceived stress. These results suggest that AAA can be an effective intervention for stress among undergraduate students, which utilizes a novel, easy to implement and enjoyable approach for Singaporean students.     

Is it disgusting to be reminded that you are an animal?

Six studies (Ns?=?65, 96, 120, 129, 40, 200) tested the hypothesis that being reminded of our animal nature makes us feel disgust. Participants from three cultural groups indicated the intensity of their disgust reactions to pleasant and unpleasant animal reminder stories and pictures as well as to a statement directly reminding them of their animal nature. Findings did not support the hypothesis: Pleasant animal reminders reminded respondents of their animal nature (even more powerfully than did unpleasant ones), but were not disgusting. The direct reminder of our animal nature was not disgusting. There was no significant correlation between disgust and being reminded of animal nature for disgusting (unpleasant) animal reminders. Thus, some disgusting events remind us of our animal nature, but they are not disgusting because they remind us of our animal nature. Animal reminders per se are not disgusting.     

THE OTHER SIDE OF SILENCE: RACHEL CARSON'S VIEWS OF ANIMALS

Abstract The publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, a compelling blend of stories, natural history, human values, and biological facts, in 1962 was instrumental in launching the modern environmental movement. We consider Carson's attitude toward animals in Silent Spring and in her other writings. Carson favored responsible stewardship and was more of an animal welfarist and environmentalist/conservation biologist who privileged ecosystems and species than an animal activist who privileged individuals, and she did not advocate an animal‐rights agenda. There is clear tension in Carson's writings. Often she seems troubled by attempting to come across as a moderate and practical scientist, and some of her words, when considered out of context, could lead one to label her as an animal‐rightist. While some of Carson's writing favors human‐centered interests, she did not believe that only humans counted. Her warnings about silent springs must be taken seriously, perhaps even more seriously than when they were penned more than four decades ago. Carson was a passionate and extremely influential activist and if a world of persons like her were in charge of our global environmental policies, we and our fellow animals would be in much better shape than we currently are.     

Aristotle’s Immovable Movers: A Sketch

In keeping with a view that is explicitly formulated by Aristotle in his Motion of Animals, general kinetic principles must be specified according to the different types of movable entities existing in the universe. At issue, essentially, are the motions of the stars and the motions of animals. Whereas the cosmological immovable mover is the object of two complementary analyses (in Bk. VIII of Physics and in Chs. 6 and 7 of Bk. XII of Metaphysics), information on the immovability of the first mover responsible for animal motion is to be found in the psychological and psycho-physiological treatises (On the Soul, in Bk. I, Chs. 3 and 4, and in Bk. III, Ch. 10 and in Ch. 6 of the Motion of Animals). But it is also found in Ch. 7, Bk. XII of the Metaphysics, in the very context of the argument concerning the absolutely first immovable mover of the world. This suggests that the two types of motion, that of the stars and that of animals, however distinct the arguments about them are, rest on a single scheme, and maybe even on a common principle. This is liable to surprise us, as much as stars and animals appear to us to belong to heterogeneous orders of reality. But the situation is different for Aristotle, who, as attentive as he is to differences, tends nonetheless to conceive the stars as living things of a particular kind. This fact is the source of a series of difficulties that Aristotle generously left for his many commentators to solve. Aim of this text, which was initially directed to a larger audience, is to set some of these complex issues in both simple and up to date terms.     

Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States

In this study, 185 British and 143 American undergraduates completed a battery of tests that measured attitudes toward animal testing and various individual difference variables. Attitudes toward animal testing factored into two interpretable factors: general attitudes toward animal testing, and animal welfare and conditions of testing. Overall, there was support for animal testing under the right conditions, although there was also concern for the welfare of animals and the conditions under which testing takes place. There were small but significant national difference on both factors (with Americans more positive about testing and less positive about animal welfare), and a significant sex difference on the first factor (women were more negative about testing). Correlation and regression analyses showed that there were few significant individual difference predictors of both factors. These results are discussed in relation to past and future work on attitudes toward animal testing.     

NATURALISTIC METHODOLOGY IN AN EMERGING SCIENTIFIC PSYCHOLOGY: LOTZE AND FECHNER IN THE BALANCE

The development of a methodologically naturalistic approach to physiological and experimental psychology in the nineteenth century was not primarily driven by a naturalistic agenda. The work of R. Hermann Lotze and G. T. Fechner help to illustrate this claim. I examine a selected set of central commitments in each thinkers philosophical outlook, particularly regarding the human soul and the nature of God, that departed strongly from a reductionist materialism. Yet, each contributed significantly to the formation of experimental and physiological psychology. Their work was influenced substantively by their respective philosophical commitments. Nevertheless, the evaluation of the merits of their specific proposals, Fechner's psychophysics and Lotze's local sign hypothesis respectively, did not depend upon sharing their metaphysical views regarding the human soul or the nature of God. A moderate, but significant, distinction between the contexts of discovery and of justification aids in understanding this balancing act.     

UNIQUENESS IN CONTEXT

Wentzel van Huyssteen's Gifford Lectures, published as Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, accomplish critical and constructive thinking about interdisciplinary reflection on science and religion and about the meaning of human uniqueness. One approach to discussion of van Huyssteen's text entails consideration of three issues: the contextual character of research on humans and animals, the difficult problem of defining uniqueness, and the important consequences of exploring human uniqueness. Evolutionary biology and primatology contribute specific scientific insights.     

What 50 years of research tell us about pausing under ratio schedules of reinforcement

Textbooks in learning and behavior commonly describe performance on fixed-ratio schedules as “break and run,” indicating that after reinforcement subjects typically pause and then respond quickly to the next reinforcement. Performance on variable-ratio schedules, on the other hand, is described as steady and fast, with few long pauses. Beginning with Ferster and Skinner''s magnum opus, Schedules of Reinforcement (1957), the literature on pausing under ratio schedules has identified the influences on pausing of numerous important variables, in particular ratio size and reinforcement magnitude. As a result, some previously held assumptions have been called into question. For example, research has shown that the length of the pause is controlled not only by the preceding ratio, as Ferster and Skinner and others had assumed (and as implied by the phrase postreinforcement pause), but by the upcoming ratio as well. Similarly, despite the commonly held belief that ratio pausing is unique to the fixed-ratio schedule, there is evidence that pausing also occurs under variable-ratio schedules. If such widely held beliefs are incorrect, then what about other assumptions? This article selectively examines the literature on pausing under ratio schedules over the past 50 years and concludes that although there may indeed be some common patterns, there are also inconsistencies that await future resolution. Several accounts of pausing under ratio schedules are discussed along with the implications of the literature for human performances, most notably the behaviors termed procrastination.     

INCREASING OUR COMPASSION FOOTPRINT: THE ANIMALS' MANIFESTO

Our relationships with animals are wide‐ranging. When people tell me that they love animals and then harm or kill them I tell them I'm glad they don't love me. Many individuals, including scientists, ignore their responsibility when they interact with animals and fail to recognize that doing something in the name of science, which usually means in the name of humans, is not an adequate reason for intentionally causing suffering, pain, or death. “Good welfare” usually is not “good enough”. Existing regulations allow animals to be treated in regrettable ways that demean us as a species. Compassion is the key for bettering both animal and human lives. A good way to make the world a more compassionate place for animals is to increase our compassion footprint. We could begin by deciding that we will not intrude on animals' lives unless our actions are in the best interests of the animals irrespective of our desires. It is simple to make more compassionate choices about what we eat and wear and how we educate students, conduct research, and entertain ourselves at the expense of animals. The time to make these changes is long overdue.     

Stress and Adaptation

ABSTRACT— Animal models have contributed considerably to the current understanding of mechanisms underlying the role of stress in health and disease. Despite the progress made already, much more can be made by more carefully exploiting animals' and humans' shared biology, using ecologically relevant models. This allows a fundamental analysis of factors modulating individual adaptive capacity and hence individual vulnerability to disease. This article highlights an emerging scientific approach that uses a framework of interpretation that is more biologically oriented than previous approaches, to evaluate both the adaptive and maladaptive nature of the stress response in relation to existing environmental demands.