Canine-Assisted Interviews Bolster Informativeness for Negative Autobiographical Memories

Abstract

Humans and animals share a unique bond. Professionals are capitalizing on the human–animal bond by incorporating animals into therapy, forensic interviews, and the courtroom. However, the mnemonic consequence for including dogs in forensic interviews has not been empirically evaluated. In the current study, we examined whether the use of dogs increases the quantity of verbal reports for emotional events. Undergraduate participants were randomly assigned to dog or no dog conditions. Participants were interviewed about positive experienced events and negative experienced events. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for quantity of new information. Participants shared more new information in negative event reports with a dog present than with no dog present. There were no significant differences in the quantity of information disclosed for positive event memories between dog conditions. Canine-assisted interviews may provide comfort to people, resulting in more elaborative autobiographical reports about negative stressful events.

Keywords

Canine-assisted interventions forensic interviews autobiographical memory

Introduction

Canine-assisted interventions have become a popular method to enhance rapport across settings such as psychotherapy (Dietz, Davis, & Pennings, 2012; Prothmann et al., 2005; Prothmann, Biernert, & Ettrich, 2006), eyewitness interviews (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2009), and in the courtroom (e.g., People v. Tohom, 2013; Washington v. Dye, 2013). The theory behind canine-assisted forensic interviews is that dogs will provide comfort, helping the interviewer to “break the ice” and to reduce any resistance on the part of the interviewee. However, the mnemonic consequences of canine-assisted forensic interviews have not been empirically evaluated. In the current study, we examined whether having a dog present when discussing positively valenced and negatively valenced autobiographical events influences the richness of adults’ autobiographical reports. As an analog to forensic interviews, we explored the effects of canine-assisted interviews on adults’ reports provided during a single interview session.

Animal-assisted interventions first were formally implemented in health-care settings. Dogs have long been used in medical and mental health treatment. Florence Nightingale observed in Notes on Nursing that a small pet is often an excellent companion for the sick, especially for the chronic cases (Serpell, 2006, p. 13). Sigmund Freud expressed awareness of a unique bond shared between humans and dogs (O’Callaghan, 2008). Freud posited that this bond resembles that of a friendship and produces a calming effect. In the 1970s, hospitals in Michigan and Colorado began having therapy dogs visit patients. Relatively recently, some researchers have made a call for rigorous scientific scrutiny of animal-assisted interventions (e.g., Kazdin, 2010), and researchers have begun to collect data regarding the effectiveness of animal-assisted interventions.

Canine-assisted therapy is credited with providing myriad physical health benefits (see Hosey, Jaskulski, Wegener, Chlan, & Needham, 2018, for a review). Cole, Gawlinski, Steers, and Kotlerman (2007) found canine-assisted therapy improved cardiopulmonary pressures, neurohormone levels, and anxiety among patients hospitalized with heart failure. Luptak and Nuzzo (2004) reported that introducing small dogs to patients for 3 to 5 minutes led to an improvement in systolic blood pressure in elderly women. Dogs also may help reduce perceived pain. In hip replacement surgery recovery, patients with animal-assisted therapy (AAT) used 50% less pain medication than patients with no AAT (Loyola University Health System, 2009). Sobo, Eng, and Kassity-Krich (2006) found pediatric postoperative patients report less physical pain and better moods following a dog’s visit. The mechanism behind AAT benefits in the health-care setting is thought to be the companionship and social support the animals provide (Hosey et al., 2018).

Over the past decade, dogs have been introduced to a variety of settings outside of health care to offer people social support and comfort. For example, the Los Angeles International Airport has a “PUP” program: Pets Unstressing Passengers. For many people, petting a dog leads to an automatic relaxation response (Handlin et al., 2011; Odendaal, 2000; Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003). During interactions with dogs, humans release dopamine, prolactin, and oxytocin that all play a role in elevating moods (Handlin et al., 2011; Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003). Among other positive mental health benefits, dogs provide comfort and reduce loneliness (Morrison, 2007). In psychotherapy, the rapport building process is expedited when a dog is introduced to therapy (Kruger & Serpell, 2006) with clients perceiving the dog’s handler as friendly and happy. Laboratory studies have found results consistent with these findings. Participants perceive therapists as happier, friendlier, less threatening, and more relaxed in photos with a dog present than in with the same photo with no dog (Lockwood, 1983; Rossbach & Wilson, 1992; M. Wells & Perrine, 2001).

Communication is likely to be facilitated with the increased rapport in the presence of a dog, as the dog serves as a topic on which one can build a conversation (Fine, 2000; Levinson, 1969; Reichert, 1998). Clients have seen improvements in social interactions following AAT in a variety of populations, including children diagnosed with autism, sexual assault survivors, stroke patients, and adults with Alzheimers or dementia (B. W. Davis, Nattrass, O’Brien, Patronek, & MacCollin, 2004; Grandgeorge et al., 2012; Grigore & Rusu, 2014; Maculey, 2006; Prothmann et al., 2006; Richeson, 2003; Solomon, 2010). In a study examining individuals who were socially withdrawn, canine-assisted intervention was found to increase the amount of answers to questions asked by therapists, increase the number of words provided in clients’ answers, and decrease the response time needed to respond to questions (Corson, Corson, Gwynne, & Arnold, 1977). In short, scientific evidence is growing, suggesting canine-assisted therapies have much to offer by promoting communication with therapists and clients.

Many forensic professionals are using dogs in their practices, and dogs are used for a variety of reasons. In terms of using dogs for comfort and support, dogs are working in crisis response teams, police stations, child advocacy centers (CACs), prosecutors’ offices, and courtrooms in order to enhance comfort, rapport, and communication (Levar, 2015; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2009). Stemming from the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in 2001, dogs have been introduced to crisis response teams to help survivors and first responders relax and discuss their experiences (HOPE Animal Assisted Crisis Response, 2014). Canine-assisted crisis response teams provide support for individuals affected by various disasters such as school shootings. The dogs on the crisis response team help those affected feel comfortable to communicate information to first responders during the investigation.

Many courthouses now have full-time court dogs (see therapydogs.org). Dogs are also allowed to accompany witnesses during attorney interviews and while testifying in court (People v. Tohom, 2013; Washington v. Dye, 2013). The dog’s role in these settings is to provide comfort and emotional support to witnesses, while they provide their account of events. In the past, children have been allowed to bring a comfort item (e.g., teddy bear) to interviews or while testifying in court; a dog in this scenario would serve as a comfort item (People v. Tohom, 2013). In the case of People v. Tohom (2013), the dog accompanying the child during testimony was the therapy dog present in previous interviews and therapy sessions. The prosecutor and the child’s therapist expressed noticing the presence of the dog enabled the child to better verbalize accounts of the event. Adult witnesses have also been allowed to have a comfort dog accompany them on the witness stand (e.g., Washington v. Dye, 2013). Like child witnesses, the dog presumably provides comfort to the witness, bolstering the informativeness of their testimony.

Dogs have become a recommended tool in order to enhance rapport and consequently facilitate communication in the forensic settings (Levar, 2015; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2009). The presence of a dog is thought to help make police departments a less intimidating environment (Levar, 2015), and thus individuals are likely to feel more comfortable discussing their accounts of events. Similarly, in CACs, forensic interviews with children at times include a dog to help put the child at ease while discussing a traumatic event such as abuse (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2009).

Although the extant research suggests dogs offer many benefits in clinical settings, research has not directly tested whether dogs bolster autobiographical reports in one-time interviews, as is the case with many forensic interviews. However, the use of dogs during forensic practices is intuitively appealing: dogs provide comfort, friendship, and support. Canine-assisted therapies reduce anxiety and facilitate communication and rapport (see Morrison, 2007, for a review). Since rapport and cooperation are critical in the forensic setting, canine-assisted interviews may have much to offer. However, given the extent of canine-assisted interventions, a surprising dearth of well-controlled studies exists to evaluate the practice (see Kazdin, 2010). In forensic settings, interactions are generally limited to single session interviews and do not benefit from the opportunity to develop comfort over time. Forensic professionals are challenged to create “instant” rapport with their witness to ensure that their witness fully discloses forensically relevant details of interest.

Despite the frequency with which dogs are being used in forensic settings, presently there have been no empirical studies examining the effect of dogs on communication and talkativeness of participants during single interviews regarding emotional events. Recommendations for the use of dogs in forensic settings are primarily based on enhanced rapport seen in ongoing therapy sessions as well as case law and anecdotal observations (HOPE Animal Assisted Crisis Response, 2014; People v. Tohom, 2013; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2009; Washington v. Dye, 2013). Additionally, true and false memory in the presence of a dog has not been assessed. Memory is a crucial component to criminal investigations, and it is important that accounts from witnesses are accurate.

The present study

The goal of the present study was to investigate the effect of a dog’s presence on adults’ informativeness while discussing emotional autobiographical memories. We examined college students’ autobiographical reports about positively valenced and negatively valenced events. Participants were randomly assigned to a dog present or dog absent condition. During individual in person interviews, participants were asked to discuss the best and the worst events that have ever happened to them. To the extent that discussing the worst ever event in their life leads to stress or reluctance, the dog may offer social support and quick rapport and therefore relieve discomfort participants experience and offset reluctance to discuss negative events.

Although memory has not been assessed in the presence of a dog, memory has been shown to improve with enhanced rapport (Collins, Lincoln, & Frank, 2002; Vallano & Schreiber-Compo, 2011). Based on the likely reluctance to discuss a negative event (Berntsen, 1998; Walker, Skowronski, & Thompson, 2003), we hypothesized an interaction between event valence and dog interview condition. Compared to the traditional no dog interviews, we expected people interviewed in the dog condition would provide more information when questioned about negative events. We did not expect differences to emerge in reports of positive events as a function of dog condition.

To date, there have been no studies investigating a dog’s effect on participant memory accuracy. Much like field studies of eyewitness reports (e.g., Lamb & Garretson, 2003), our autobiographical memory paradigm did not allow an evaluation of participants’ memory accuracy. Therefore, we included a common false memory task, the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995) in order to test whether the dog interview condition might lead to any adverse unintended effects on memory. Studying false memory is of interest because enhanced forthcomingness in the presence of a dog may be at the expense of memory accuracy. As such, an additional purpose to this study is to assess the effect of a dog’s presence on participant memory accuracy for word lists and their susceptibility to spontaneously induced false memory. We did not anticipate differences to emerge based on dog condition given false memories in the DRM stem from cognitive mechanisms. However, because one critique of the use of dogs in forensic interviews is that it somehow may make people prone to suggestion, the DRM was included as a preliminary measure of false memory during canine-assisted interviews.

Methods

Participants

Sixty-four undergraduate students from a Midwestern university were randomly assigned to no dog- versus dog-assisted interview conditions. Participant’s age ranged from 17 to 31 years (M = 19.57, standard deviation (SD) = 2.06). Participants identified as White (69%), Black or African American (13%), Asian or Pacific Islander (5%), Latino or Hispanic (3%), other (5%), Arabic (3%), or as multiracial (3%). Approximately, three quarters (n = 48) of the participants were female. Thirty-eight (59%) participants indicated that they were dog owners. In order to determine the number of participants needed for this study, a power analysis was conducted using G*Power statistical software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). The analysis indicated that a sample of 64 participants would be needed for the study in order to achieve 80% power to detect significant omnibus F-statistics with medium effect sizes.

Procedure

This study involved a between subjects design with participants randomly assigned to dog present (n = 33) or dog absent (n = 31) interview conditions. All subjects were interviewed about their best and worst life event. All procedures were approved by the university institutional review board. Participants provided informed consent. Prior to beginning the interview portion of the study, demographic information was collected.

The dog used in this study was a male, hypoallergenic dog (Yorkshire terrier), weighing approximately 20 pounds. The dog has completed a series of obedience training courses and is very calm. For individuals randomly assigned to the dog-assisted interview condition, before coming into the lab, the interviewer (one of the five different highly trained female undergraduate research assistants who were unaware of the study’s hypotheses) told the participant that her dog was in the lab and asked if that was okay. Participants who did not want to be around a dog were excluded from the study (n = 3). The testing room had a chair for the interviewer and a couch where the participant and dog could sit. Participants sat next to the dog on the couch, petted the dog, and gave the dog a treat.

After providing consent, participants were told we were interested in learning about important events in college students’ lives. For the positive event, they were asked to think of “the best thing that has happened to them in the last five years.” Participants were asked broad questions (e.g., “tell me as much as you can remember,” “what other details you can remember”) and specific questions (e.g., “how long ago was this,” “what were some things people said,” “describe how you felt”). For the negative events, participants were asked to describe “the worst thing they have experienced in the last five years.” Positive event interviews and negative event interviews were presented in a counterbalanced order across participants. For each interview, participants were asked seven questions. The interviewer used conversation facilitators (e.g., nodding, “Mmmm”) for each response until exhaustion. The average length of autobiographical interviews was 6.3 minutes (SD = 2 minutes). Participants also were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale how comfortable they felt (1 = very uncomfortable, 7 = very comfortable) while talking about their positive and negative events and how much rapport they felt (1 = very low or none, 7 = very high) was shared with the researcher.

Next, using the DRM paradigm, we also tested participants’ susceptibility to spontaneously induced false memories via six semantically associatively related word lists (e.g., sleep). Examples of the semantic associates presented for the critical lure word “sleep” are bed, tired, dream, and yawn. Words were presented both visually and auditorily on a computer. Upon completion of each word list presentation, participants were given 60 seconds to write down as many words they could recall. When the six lists were completed, participants were given a recognition test containing 36 words: 18 correct words, 6 critical lure words, 6 related distractors, and 6 unrelated distractors (as done in Howe, 2007; Payne, Nadel, Allen, Thomas, & Jacobs, 2002). For each word, participants were asked to respond dichotomously (i.e., yes or no) to the question: “Did this word appear in the list?”

Coding

Autobiographical event interview phase

Audio-recorded interviews of the autobiographical event interview phase were transcribed verbatim. Filler words (e.g., like, umm, uh), repeated comments, and clarification questions were removed from transcripts. Positive and negative interviews were coded following protocols used in previous research (Kulkofsky & Klemfuss, 2008). The quantity of each interview was coded as volume (number of new propositions). A proposition was defined as an independent clause including a subject and a verb (e.g., “He went to the park.”). Two independent coders coded each interview, and the few discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the first author.

DRM scoring

For the DRM recall task, the total numbers of correctly and incorrectly recalled words were calculated. Words were considered correct if they were presented on the lists. Word variations like plurals (e.g., chairs instead of chair) or misspellings were counted as correct. The number of correctly recalled words for each list was summed to obtain a total number of correctly recalled words. Words were considered incorrectly recalled if they were not presented on the lists. Incorrectly recalled words were divided into two categories: critical lure words and other nonpresented words. The total numbers of incorrectly recalled words for each list were summed.

For the DRM recognition task, we calculated “hit rates” (correct responses divided by the total possible of 18 items) and false alarm rates (for lures, false lure responses divided by total number of false lures of six). Rates of false assents to related distractors (out of 6) and unrelated distractions (out of 6) were calculated separately.

Results

Autobiographical event interview

Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine whether responses differed according to participant gender or pet/dog ownership. Differences did not emerge, so results are collapsed across these variables.

The topics participants chose to discuss fit into several themes. For positive event interviews, participants talked about graduating or starting college (n = 34), some personal or professional growth (e.g., gaining independence or a promotion at work; n = 11), going on a vacation (n = 8), or meeting a significant other (n = 7). Two participants discussed positive events that did not fall into one of those themes. For example, one participant discussed getting a dog as their happiest memory. For negative event interviews, participants talked about a death of a loved one (n = 24), an illness or injury (n = 18), interpersonal issues with family or friends (e.g., divorce; n = 14), or stress from school or work (n = 6). Two participants discussed negative events that did not fall into any of these themes. One participant talked about the fear they felt while on a cruise ship during a hurricane, and another talked about witnessing violent crimes (e.g., murder and rape) in Egypt during the revolutions.

To assess whether the presence of a dog influenced participant informativeness about positive autobiographical events and negative autobiographical events, we analyzed the number of unique propositions given during the interview (see Figure 1). A 2 (Dog Condition) × 2 (Event Valence) mixed factor analysis of variance with repeated measures on the second factor revealed a significant interaction, F(1, 62) = 7.22, p = .009, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.06. As hypothesized, participants provided more information for negative events when there was a dog present (M = 30.36, SD = 15.27) versus no dog present (M = 22.42, SD = 12.36). Also as hypothesized, no significant differences emerged between dog (M = 26.91, SD = 12.77) and no dog (M = 27.80, SD = 17.17) conditions when recounting the positive events event.

Figure 1.

Mean number of propositions (with standard error bars) for positive and negative events based on dog condition.

Next, we examined whether participants’ subjective ratings of comfort and rapport (rated on a 7-point scale) varied as a function of dog condition (see Table 1). Our data were negatively skewed so the Mann–Whitney U nonparametric alternatives to independent samples t tests were conducted for each of the ratings. Although the mean rank for the dog condition (33.14) was higher than the no dog condition (32.86) on feelings of rapport, indicating participants in the dog condition felt greater rapport with the interviewer, this difference was not statistically significant (U = 523.5, p = .95). Additionally, there were no significant differences between participants’ reported level of comfort during the interview between dog (mean rank = 31.74) and no dog (mean rank = 34.30) conditions (U = 486.5, p = .55).

Table 1.

Mean (SD) reported comfort and rapport by interview condition.

	Dog (n = 33)	No dog (n = 31)
Comfort	6.00 (1.15)	6.00 (1.35)
Rapport	5.67 (0.92)	5.52 (1.23)

DRM performance

DRM recall memory

Means for correctly recalled presented words and incorrectly recalled critical lure words and other words can be seen in Table 2. The total number of words participants correctly recalled from the word lists assessed true recall memory. An independent samples t test was conducted to determine whether a dog’s presence impacted the number of words participants correctly recalled from presented word lists. Results indicated there was no significant differences between interview conditions for the total number of correctly recalled words, t(62) = −0.25, p = .80.

Table 2.

Mean (SD) recalled words by interview condition.

	Dog (n = 33)	No nog (n = 31)
True memory
Presented words (n = 84)	44.64 (6.80)	45.12 (8.75)
False memory
Critical lure words (n = 6)	1.76 (1.23)	1.94 (1.30)
Other words	0.64 (1.06)	0.39 (0.70)
Total incorrect	2.39 (1.85)	2.33 (1.43)

The primary measure of false memory was the number of critical lure words recalled. Independent samples t test results also revealed no significant differences in the number of incorrectly recalled critical lure words, t(62) = −0.59, p = .56, between interview conditions (see Table 2). In addition to critical lure words, we also measured other words that were not presented in the word lists as a measure of inaccurate memory. Again, no significant differences emerged between dog interview conditions for other nonpresented words, t(62) = 1.10, p = .28.

DRM recognition memory

In order to ensure the DRM procedure was effective, a paired samples t test was conducted to compare differences in recognition rates of critical lure words and unrelated distractor words. We found a significant DRM false memory effect (p < .001), where participants incorrectly recognized critical lure words more frequently than unrelated distractor words. The proportions of correctly recognized words (i.e., participants recognized words that were presented), and incorrectly recognized (i.e., participants recognized words that were not presented) critical lure words, related distractor words, and unrelated distractor words were analyzed for differences using a series of independent samples t tests (see Table 3). Unrelated distractor words were analyzed to assess whether any participants displayed a response bias (i.e., responding “yes” to everything). No individual cases were judged to be problematic.

Table 3.

Mean (SD) proportions of correctly and incorrectly recognized words by dog interview condition.

	Dog (n = 33)	No dog (n = 31)
True memory
Target words	0.78 (0.16)	0.80 (0.12)
False memory
Critical lure words	0.57 (0.24)	0.62 (0.25)
Related distractor words	0.12 (0.15)	0.10 (0.15)
Unrelated distractor words	0.02 (0.05)	0.02 (0.05)

To assess true recognition memory, the proportion of correctly recognized words was analyzed between interview conditions. Independent samples t test results indicated that there were no significant differences in proportions of correctly recognized presented words between interview conditions, t(62) = −0.50, p = .62.

The key measure of false memory was false assents to critical lure recognition items. Independent samples t test results revealed that there were no significant differences for incorrectly recognized critical lure words, t(62) = −0.84, p = .40, between interview conditions. False recognition for related distractor words was evaluated in addition to critical lure words as a measure of false memory. Independent samples t test results indicated that there were also no significant differences for false recognition of related distractor words, t(62) = 0.56, p = .58, between interview conditions.

Discussion

Dogs are being increasingly used during interviews of witnesses and suspected victims with the assumption dogs may provide comfort and support during potentially stressful situations. Two recently published studies suggest canine-assisted forensic interviews lower stress biomarkers (salivary alpha-amylase and heart rate) among 5- to 14-year-old children undergoing child sexual abuse assessment (Krause-Parello & Friedmann, 2014; Krause-Parello & Gulick, 2015). Outside of the forensic setting, Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, and Kelsey (1991) found autonomic responses were highest when female adults performed a mathematic problem in the presence of a female friend and lowest responses with a pet dog present. Females’ stress responses were lower with a pet dog present than when alone. While these studies likely explain why law enforcement personnel are incorporating dogs into forensic interviews, researchers have not explored any potential mnemonic consequences of dogs on adult witnesses’ reports. This study represents an important test of whether dogs indeed bolster adults’ reports made during one-time interviews analogous to the forensic interviews. The results of the present study support the notion that canine-assisted interviews lead to increased informativeness regarding negative autobiographical events during a single interview session. Although participants reported more information regarding negative events when a dog was present, their subjective ratings of comfort and rapport with the interviewer did not differ in dog and no dog conditions. Memory accuracy on a DRM task also did not differ as a function of the presence of a dog.

Mechanisms for canine-assisted interview effects

Different mechanisms may account for the bolstering effects of canine-assisted interviews. These two different mechanisms relate to remembering and reporting. First, the presences of dogs may lead some people to have a physiologically calm state of relaxation (Arkow, 2004). The reduction in anxiety is expected to lead to better witness recall. Anxiety hinders working memory (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Shackman et al., 2006). Eysenck and Calvo’s (1992) processing efficiency theory holds that anxiety depletes cognitive resources and therefore exerts deleterious effects on recall. Decreased working memory impairs witnesses’ ability to conduct a thorough and accurate search of their memory about a witnessed event. Another cognitive mechanism that has been put forward is that anxiety leads to a preoccupation with one’s worries tapping one’s working memory (Clark & Wells, 1995; Wells, 2005). A dog may help provide a distraction, lessoning anxiety, and lessoning a preoccupation with social evaluation and worry. In this scenario, dogs have an indirect effect on eyewitness memory by mediating reducing stress and thereby memory performance. Consistent with this hypothesis, several researchers have found rapport-building decreases witness anxiety which in turn leads to better memory retrieval (Carter, Bottoms, & Levine, 1996; Kieckhaefer, Vallano, & Schreiber Compo, 2014).

Another possibility is that dogs provide stress-buffering social support (Arkow, 2004). Dogs are seen as nonevaluative companions (Allen et al., 1991). Dogs may provide some people with social support that leads people to be more forthcoming in their reports. A dog may help buffer people against worry of social evaluation when disclosing negative information. In our study, participants in the study were asked to report about their most positive life events and negative life events. Participants in the canine-assisted interviews reported more information than the tradition no dog interviews but only for negative events. Such findings indicate a social mechanism may be at play where dogs increase comfort with the interviewer, thereby increasing their reports for negative autobiographical events. The one-session interview used in the study was intended to be an analog to the typically one-session interviews that typify forensic situations. People reported about highly negatively valenced events such as the death of a loved one or experiencing interpersonal conflicts such as divorce. For the positive event reports, where people reported things like starting college or a wedding, participant informativeness did not vary as a function of the presence of the dog.

In our other memory task, the DRM, canine-assisted interviews did not change levels of cognitively induced false memories nor memory accuracy. Again, assuming the canine-assisted interview effects are robust and generalizable in study replications, the mechanism that bolsters eyewitness informativeness may be primarily social.

Forensic implications

While past work has found canine-assisted therapy can foster rapport when used in on-going therapy sessions, our work suggests canine-assisted interviews may also have promise in one-time interview sessions. Given police investigators and forensic interviewers need to build rapport quickly, typically in a single interview session, dogs appear to provide a relatively simple and affordable modification to the forensic interview context.

Supportive environments are crucial in garnering witness cooperation in forensic interviews. Rapport building leads to increased informativeness (Hershkowitz, Lamb, & Katz, 2014) and decreased susceptibility to misinformation in child (S. L. Davis & Bottoms, 2002; Goodman, Bottoms, Schwartz-Kenney, & Rudy, 1991; Quas, Wallin, Papini, Lench, & Scullin, 2005) and adult eyewitnesses (Kieckhaefer et al., 2014). Field studies have found an interview protocol that emphasizes rapport throughout the interview facilitated communication and cooperation from children during maltreatment interviews (Ahern, Hershkowitz, Lamb, Blasbalg, & Winstanley, 2014; Hershkowitz, Lamb, Katz, & Malloy, 2015). Given the importance of dogs in the lives of many children (Kerns, van Dulmen, Parrigon, & Coifman, 2016), an important next step is to examine the effects of canine-assisted interviews on the accuracy and quantity of children’s reports.

Future directions

Our study represents a first effort in identifying the potential for canine-assisted interviews to bolster eyewitness reports. While our results yielded promising findings, the results are preliminary and require replication and extension. While our study indicated canine-assisted interviews led to more informative responses from adults when recounting negative autobiographical events, many unanswered questions remain. First, we did not measure the amount of interaction the interviewee had with the dog. Future work should examine whether the effects of canine-assisted interviews are moderated by amount of interaction. Along the vein of type of interaction, studies need to elucidate the optimal timing of the introduction of the dog. Currently, forensic professionals do not adhere to any evidence-based guidelines in how to introduce the dog. Some centers introduce the dog during rapport building only, but the dog leaves the room for the actual interview. In some jurisdictions, dogs can stay in the room during the interview and even accompany the witness onto the stand during later trial testimony. Differences in the type of interaction between the interviewee and the dog likely moderate the effects of canine-assisted interviews, both in terms of how the forensic interviewer introduces the dog and the interviewees natural level of liking and interaction with the dog. Such variables need further study in order to offer best practice guidelines for forensic interviews.

Our study was also limited to a young adult population. To the extent that dogs buffer stress, witnesses of any age are likely to benefit from canine-assisted interviews. However, certain aged populations may benefit more than others. For example, adolescents are known to be particularly prone to worry about social evaluation (Somerville, 2013). Certain populations, then, may differentially benefit from the canine-assisted interview.

Much research is still needed to explore the mechanisms and parameters of effects of canine-assisted interviews. Future studies should include various stress biomarkers such as cortisol, heart rate, and blood pressure, to be used in conjunction with subjective ratings of perceived stress. To hold constant any potential effects of type of dog, we used only one dog in the study. People may respond differently to different types of dogs, so future research still needs to outline any effects driven by type of dog (younger or older, larger or smaller). The effects of canine-assisted interviews may also differ as a function of type of event. We found no impact based on dog condition for positive events but increased forthcomingness when adults were asked to recount their most negative autobiographical event. For some types of forensic interviews, people may have different reasons for being reticent in their reports. The present findings may be due in part to biases introduced from participants’ self-selection of events to discuss. Additional studies should include event discussions provided by other people (e.g., friends, family), laboratory events, or through experience sampling methods. Future studies should also investigate whether canine-assisted interviews lead to differences in informativeness between experienced and witnessed events. Future work may also investigate whether others perceive differences in informativeness in the interview transcripts. Future research needs to explore whether the canine-assisted interviews produce robust effects on informativeness; if so, how do canine-assisted interviews affect eyewitness accuracy?

The answer to this question likely depends upon the mechanisms underlying the effect of the canine-assisted interviews. If dogs act to reduce stress, differences in memory accuracy and quantity could emerge as a function of brain-based processes that are mediated by stress reactions in the brain (see Sandi & Pinelo-Nava, 2007, for a review). On the other hand, if dogs act to reduce anxiety and worry about social evaluation, dogs may benefit forensic reports by making people feel more comfortable to report on negative events.

Rapport and social support are difficult constructs to measure. Bernieri and coworkers have measured rapport as a construct characterized by mutual attentiveness, positive feelings, and coordinating between interacting partners (Vicaria, Bernieri, & Isaacowitz, 2015). Bernieri (2005) argues rapport emerges as a function of the interaction. Bernieri and coworkers have successfully encoded a variety of behavioral manifestations of rapport during social interactions (e.g., Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000; Bernieri, 2005). Future work is needed to delineate how canine-assisted interviews function. Dyadic analyses can be used to explore whether the dog affects interviewer behavior and interviewee behavior alike. Most importantly, work is needed to explore whether dogs function as social support or whether dogs actually mediate the behavioral stream of interactions between the interviewer and interviewee. Do dogs change mutual attentiveness and interest in forensic interviews as presented through body posture that represent openness to communication? Do dogs modify expressions of positive affect such as smiling and nodding? Do dogs affect coordination of social interactions, as indicated by harmony and interactional synchrony? An application of existing measures of social interactions can be applied in the forensic interview setting to better elucidate the causal mechanisms behind animal-assisted interventions.

Footnotes

Article Notes

References

Ahern

E. C.

Hershkowitz

Lamb

M. E.

Blasbalg

Winstanley

(2014). Support and reluctance in the pre-substantive phase of alleged child abuse victim investigative interviews: Revised versus standard NICHD protocols. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 32, 762–774. doi:10.1002/bsl.2149

Allen

K. M.

Blascovich

Tomaka

Kelsey

R. M.

(1991). Presence of human friends and pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to stress in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 582–589. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.582

Ambady

Bernieri

Richeson

J. A.

(2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 201–271.

Arkow

(2004). Animal-assisted therapy and activities: A study, resource guide and bibliography for the use of companion animals in selected therapies (9th ed.). Stratford, NJ: Phil Arkow.

Ashcraft

M. H.

Kirk

E. P.

(2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 224–237. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.224

Bernieri

F. J.

(2005). The expression of rapport. In Manusov

(Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 347–361). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Berntsen

(1998). Voluntary and involuntary access to autobiographical memory. Memory, 6, 113–141. doi:10.1080/741942071

Carter

C. A.

Bottoms

B. L.

Levine

(1996). Linguistic and socioemotional influences on the accuracy of children’s reports. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 335–358. doi:10.1007/BF01499027

Clark

D. M.

Wells

(1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In Heimberg

R. G.

Liebowitz

M. R.

Hope

D. A.

Schneier

F. R.

(Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

10.

Cole

K. M.

Gawlinski

Steers

Kotlerman

(2007). Animal-assisted therapy in patients hospitalized with heart failure. American Journal of Critical Care, 16, 575–588.

11.

Collins

Lincoln

Frank

M. G.

(2002). The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 9, 69–78.

12.

Corson

S. A.

Corson

E. O.

Gwynne

P. H.

Arnold

L. E.

(1977). Pet dogs as nonverbal communication links in hospital psychiatry. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 18, 61–72.

13.

Davis

B. W.

Nattrass

O’Brien

Patronek

MacCollin

(2004). Assistance dog placement in the pediatric population: Benefits, risks, and recommendations for future application. Antrhozoos, 17, 130–145.

14.

Davis

S. L.

Bottoms

B. L.

(2002). Effects of social support on children’s eyewitness reports: A test of the underlying mechanism. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 185–215. Doi.org/10.1023/A:1014692009941.

15.

Deese

(1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22.

16.

Dietz

T. J.

Davis

Pennings

(2012). Evaluating animal-assisted therapy in group treatment for child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21, 665–683. doi:10.1080/10538712.2012.726700

17.

Eysenck

M. W.

Calvo

M. G.

(1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409–434. doi:10.1080/02699939208409696

18.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146

19.

Fine

A. H.

(2000). Animals and therapists: Incorporating animals in outpatient psychotherapy. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 179–211). New York, NY: Academic Press.

20.

Goodman

G. S.

Bottoms

B. L.

Schwartz-Kenney

B. M.

Rudy

(1991). Children’s testimony about a stressful event: Improving children’s reports. Journal of Narrative & Life History, 1, 69–99. doi:10.1075/jnlh.1.1.05chi

21.

Grandgeorge

Tordjman

Lazartigues

Lemonnier

Deleau

Hausberger

(2012). Does pet arrival trigger prosocial behaviors in individuals with autism? PLoS One, 7(8), 1–8.

22.

Grigore

A. A.

Rusu

A. S.

(2014). Interaction with a therapy dog enhances the effects of social story method in autistic children. Society and Animals, 1, 241–261.

23.

Handlin

Hydbring-Sandberg

Nilson

Ejdeback

Jansson

Uynas-Moberg

(2011). Short-term interaction between dogs and their owners—Effects on oxytocin, cortisol insulin and heart rate—An exploratory study. Antrhozoos, 24, 301–316. doi:10.2752/175303711X13045914865385

24.

Hershkowitz

Lamb

M. E.

Katz

(2014). Allegation rates in forensic child abuse investigations: Comparing the revised and standard NICHD protocols. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 336.

25.

Hershkowitz

Lamb

M. E.

Katz

Malloy

L. C.

(2015). Does enhanced rapport-building alter the dynamics of investigative interviews with suspected victims of intra-familial abuse? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30, 6–14. doi:10.1007/s11896-013-9136-8

26.

HOPE Animal Assisted Crisis Response. (2014). Retrieved from http://hopeaacr.org/about-hope/

27.

Hosey

M. M.

Jaskulski

Wegener

S. T.

Chlan

L. L.

Needham

D. M.

(2018). Animal-assisted intervention in the ICU: A tool for humanization. Critical Care, 22(22), 1–4.

28.

Howe

M. L.

(2007). Children’s emotional false memories. Psychological Science, 18, 856–860. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01991

29.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2010). Methodological standards and strategies for establishing the evidence of animal-assisted therapies. In Fine

A. H.

(Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (3rd ed., pp. 519–546). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381453-1.10025-X

30.

Kerns

van Dulmen

Parrigon

K. S.

Coifman

(2016). Preadolescents’ relationships with pet dogs: Relationship continuity and associations with adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 21, 67–80. doi:10.1080/10888691.2016.1160781

31.

Kieckhaefer

J. M.

Vallano

J. P.

Schreiber Compo

(2014). Examining the positive effects of rapport building: When and why does rapport building benefit adult eyewitness memory? Memory, 22, 1010–1023. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.8643113

32.

Krause-Parello

Friedmann

(2014). The effects of an animal-assisted intervention on salivary alpha-amylase, salivary immunoglobulin a, and heart rate during forensic interviews in child sexual abuse cases. Anthrozoos, 27, 581–590. doi:10.2752/089279314X14072268688005

33.

Krause-Parello

Gulick

E. E.

(2015). Forensic interviews for child sexual abuse allegations: An investigation into the effects of animal-assisted intervention on stress biomarkers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24, 873–886. doi:10.1080/10538712.2015.1088916

34.

Kruger

K. A.

Serpell

J. A.

(2006). Animal-assisted interventions in mental health: Definitions and theoretical foundations. In Fine

A. H.

(Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (pp. 21–38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

35.

Kulkofsky

Klemfuss

J. Z.

(2008). What the stories children tell can tell about their memory: Narrative skill and young children’s suggestibility. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1442–1456. doi:10.1037/a0012849

36.

Lamb

M. E.

Garretson

M. E.

(2003). The effects of interviewer gender and child gender on the informativeness of alleged child sexual abuse victims in forensic interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 157–171.

37.

Levar

K. L. F.

(2015). Animal assisted crisis response and creating connections: A practical guide for implementing therapy dogs into a victim services policing environment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://arcabc.ca/islandora/object/unbc:6274

38.

Levinson

B. M.

(1969). Pet-oriented child psychotherapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

39.

Lockwood

(1983). The influence of animals on social perception. In Katcher

A. H.

Beck

A. M.

(Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with companion animals (pp. 64–71). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

40.

Loyola University Health System. (2009). Pet therapy: Recovering with four-legged friends requires less pain medication. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116131824.htm

41.

Luptak

J. E.

Nuzzo

N. A.

(2004). The effects of small dogs on vital signs in elderly women: A pilot study. Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal, 15, 9–12.

42.

Maculey

B. L.

(2006). Animal-assisted therapy for persons with aphasia: A pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 43, 357–366.

43.

Morrison

M. L.

(2007). Health benefits of animal-assisted interventions. Journal of Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine, 12(1), 51–62. doi:10.1177/1533210107302397

44.

O’Callaghan

(2008). Exploratory study of animal assisted therapy interventions used by mental health professionals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc6068/m1/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf

45.

Odendaal

J. S.

(2000). Animal-assisted therapy—Magic or medicine? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49, 275–280.

46.

Odendaal

J. S.

Meintjes

R. A.

(2003). Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behavior between humans and dogs. The Veterinary Journal, 165, 296–301.

47.

Payne

J. D.

Nadel

Allen

J. J. B.

Thomas

K. G. F.

Jacobs

W. J.

(2002). The effects of experimentally induced stress on false recognition. Memory, 10(1), 1–6. doi:10.1080/09658210143000119

48.

People v. Tohom, No. 149/10 (New York Appellate Court, July 10, 2013).

49.

Phillips

McQuarrie

(2009). Therapy animals supporting kids (TASK) program manual. American Humane, in cooperation with Delta Society. Retrieved from http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/children/therapy-animals-supporting-kids.pdf

50.

Prothmann

Albrecht

Dietrich

Hornfeck

Stieber

Ettrich

(2005). Analysis of child-dog play behavior in child psychiatry. Anthrozoos, 18, 43–58. doi:10.2752/089279305785594261

51.

Prothmann

Bienert

Ettrich

(2006). Dogs in child psychotherapy: Effects on state of mind. Anthozoos, 19, 265–277. doi:10.2752/089279306785415583

52.

Quas

J. A.

Wallin

A. R.

Papini

Lench

H. C.

Scullin

M. H.

(2005). Suggestibility, social support, and memory for a novel experience in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 315–341.

53.

Reichert

(1998). Individual counseling for sexually abused children: A role for animals and storytelling. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15, 177–185.

54.

Richeson

N. E.

(2003). Effects of animal-assisted therapy on agitated behaviors and social interactions of older adults with dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 18, 353–358.

55.

Roediger

H. L.

McDermott

K. B.

(1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803–814. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803

56.

Rossbach

K. A.

Wilson

J. P.

(1992). Does a dog’s presence make a person appear more likable? Two studies. Antrhozoos, 5, 40–51.

57.

Sandi

Pinelo-Nava

M. T.

(2007). Stress and memory: Behavioral effects and neurobiological mechanisms. Neural Plasticity, 2007, 78970. doi:10.1155/2007/78970

58.

Serpell

J. A.

(2006). Animal-assisted interventions in historical perspective. In Fine

A. H.

(Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

59.

Shackman

A. J.

Sarinopolulos

Maxwell

J. S.

Pizzagalli

Lavric

Davidson

R. J.

(2006). Anxiety selectivity disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion, 6, 40–62. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.40

60.

Sobo

E. J.

Eng

Kassity-Krich

(2006). Canine visitation (pet) therapy: Pilot data on decreases in child pain perception. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 24, 51–57.

61.

Solomon

(2010). What a dog can do: Children with autism and therapy dogs in social interaction. Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology, 38, 143–166. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1352.2010.01085.x

62.

Somerville

L. H.

(2013). The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 121–127. doi:10.1177/0963721413476512

63.

Vallano

J. P.

Schreiber-Compo

(2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness: Rapport-building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 960–970.

64.

Vicaria

I. M.

Bernieri

F. J.

Isaacowitz

D. M.

(2015). Perceptions of rapport across the life span: Gaze patterns and judgment accuracy. Psychology and Aging, 30, 396–406.

65.

Walker

W. R.

Skowronski

J. J.

Thompson

C. P.

(2003). Life is pleasant—And memory helps keep it that way! Review of General Psychology, 7, 203–210.

66.

Washington v. Dye, No. 87929-0 (Washington Supreme Court, Sept. 26, 2013).

67.

Wells

D. L.

(2005). The effect of videotapes of animals on cardiovascular responses to stress. Stress and Health, 21, 209–213. doi:10.1002/smi.1057

68.

Wells

Perrine

(2001). Pets go to college: The influence of pets on students’ perceptions of faculty and their offices. Antrhozoos, 14, 161–167.