Investigating the Efficacy of Fish-Assisted Activity on College Students’ Mental Health

Abstract

Animal Assisted Activities (AAA) are well-known for their positive effects, but the potential of Fish Assisted Activities (FAA) remains largely unexplored. This study investigated the effectiveness of FAA in alleviating anxiety, inducing mindfulness, and enhancing positive affect among college students with moderate to severe anxiety. A total of 104 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: visual, tactile, or a combination of both. After the intervention, participants completed assessments using PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), STAI-Y (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and SMS (State Mindfulness Scale). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to examine the effects of the different treatment conditions on students' mental health. Result shows all groups exhibited reduced state anxiety, low negative emotions, and high positive emotions. The visual group demonstrated the most favorable outcomes in terms of state anxiety and negative affect. While no significant differences were found in state mindfulness and positive affect across groups. Heat emerged as a potential distraction during tactile activity, and the absence of a control group further limits the ability to isolate the effects of FAA from other potential contributing factors. Nevertheless, FAA could serve as a valuable supplement to conventional interventions and programs.

Keywords

fish-assisted activity state mindfulness state anxiety affect animal assisted activity

Introduction

Humans and animals have always had enduring and widespread relationships throughout history (Amiot et al., 2016; Le Roux & Wright 2020). In recent years, interest in human-animal interactions (HAI) has grown in response to rising mental health concerns among university students, whose psychological distress has been linked to diminished academic performance and well-being (Alemu & Feyssa, 2020). These interactions, often referred to as human-animal interactions or HAI, has provided significant evidence of its relaxation properties, its mitigating impact on anxiety, as well as its ability to provide companionship and opportunities for nurturance and social support across various groups (Ambrosi et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Howell et al., 2023; Matijczak et al., 2020; Meehan et al., 2017; Moretti et al., 2011; Pitheckoff et al., 2018; Pitheckoff et al., 2019) . These benefits have contributed to the rise of Animal-Assisted Interventions (AAIs)—a broad category that includes Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT), Animal-Assisted Education (AAE), and Animal-Assisted Activities (AAA) (Fine, 2022). Among these, AAA—structured but informal interactions with animals—has been implemented in university settings due to its accessibility and adaptability (Fine, 2022).

However, prior AAA research has predominantly focused on domestic animals, limiting exploration of the potential benefits of other animals. This presents an opportunity for academic institutions to leverage their resources to develop alternative proactive mental health support approaches to students. To date, most human-fish interaction studies have solely investigated visual exploration and have yet to differentiate the impact of hands-on or tactile interaction with the fishes. Within college campuses and student well-being contexts, the utilization of fish-assisted activities remains an underexplored and underutilized resource. The current study aims to extend this paradigm by experimentally comparing the psychological outcomes of visual, tactile, and combined fish-assisted activity modalities among university students. This study aims to explore the potential of fish interactions in increasing mindfulness, fostering positive affect, and reducing anxiety levels among college students.

Related Literature

Several theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind the benefits of human-animal interaction (HAI), integrating both biological and relational perspectives. From a biological standpoint, the oxytocin hypothesis suggests that the neuropeptide oxytocin (OT)—which plays a crucial role in social cognition and behavior—is released during affiliative interactions between humans and animals. Studies have shown elevated oxytocin levels in both people and dogs following positive social contact, supporting the idea that the rise of oxytocin biologically reinforces calmness and stress reduction in HAI (Handlin et al., 2011; Herbeck et al., 2022; Nagasawa et al., 2009; Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003). Complementing this physiological view, the biophilia hypothesis—introduced by Fromm (1973) and further developed by Wilson (1984)—posits that humans have an innate affinity for life and living systems, including animals. This biologically rooted attraction is reflected in human culture, behavior, and emotional responses, suggesting that the comfort people derive from animals stems from a natural evolutionary predisposition. According to Social Support Theory, which emphasizes the role of interpersonal resources in buffering stress and promoting well-being, animals can also function as important sources of support. Beyond offering affectionate companionship, animals help individuals cope with emotional distress by providing consistent comfort and serving as safe outlets for expressing emotions during challenging times (Allen et al., 2002; Fine & Eisen, 2008). Human-Animal Relational Theory (HART), a newly developed guide for animal-assisted therapy in counselling also emphasizes how human–animal interactions are perceived to impact both parties’ well-being and behavior passively and actively (Chandler, 2018). It provides a model for recognizing and responding to therapeutic opportunities presented by human-animal interactions consistent with scientific understanding of the nature of human-animal interaction (Chandler, 2018). Collectively, these theories reveal that the positive effects of HAI are rooted in both biological mechanisms and complex relational dynamics, offering a multi-dimensional understanding of why interactions with animals are so impactful to human well-being.

In many experimental research, animal-assisted activities (AAA), a less formal type of AAI, which typically involves broader goals have shown physiological evidence of its relaxation-inducing effects particularly in heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV) and blood pressure. AAA in equine programs (García-Gómez et al., 2020) and in clinical approach (Clark et al., 2020) have been found to increase HRV and decrease heart rate signifying a state of calm and a positive emotional-physiological state. AAA have been recognized and implemented across clinical, educational, and recreational settings, for their benefits in improving well-being and promoting positive outcomes (Jones et al., 2019). With increasing mental health challenges among college students negatively affecting their academic performance (Alemu & Feyssa, 2020), campus-based AAA programs have also emerged as innovative interventions.

Experimental studies have revealed that AAAs are beneficial to college students, particularly during exam periods. Therapy dogs have been shown to reduce anxiety even with a brief 10-to-20-minute interaction (Crossman et al., 2015; Grajfoner et al., 2017; Pendry & Vandagriff, 2019; Pendry et al., 2019; Walker, 2023). Sessions involving therapy dogs showed that the longer students spent interacting with these animals, the greater the perceived benefits (Quintana et al., 2019). These findings, similar to those seen in a virtual dog exposure group, suggest that even visual pet images hold the potential to provide comfort to students dealing with academic anxiety (Thelwell 2019; Torres et al., 2016).

Experimental findings also suggest that interactions with animals in therapeutic settings may facilitate the improvement of mindfulness (Berget et al., 2008; Marcus et al., 2015). AAA was also associated with immediate positive changes in mood, encompassing, improved affect (Peel et al., 2023), increased energy, happiness, and life satisfaction after a single session of AAI (Ward-Griffin et al., 2018). In studies involving children with autism spectrum disorder (O'Haire et al., 2015) and adults with mental health conditions (Wells, 2019), AAA induced positive emotions such as joy and relaxation. Campus-based studies also resulted in mood improvements, increased feelings of contentment, and reduced irritability after brief dog-patting sessions prior exams (Crossman et al., 2015; Pendry et al. 2018; Pendry & Vandagriff 2019). These campus-based experimental studies consisted mainly of brief interactions resulting in notable and immediate positive changes in mood, affect, and wellbeing. This highlights AAA’s ability to foster a profound sense of relaxation—an essential element in reducing anxiety, increasing mindfulness, and improving positive emotion.

Nonetheless, research on the health benefits of animal-assisted interventions has mostly focused on animals like dogs, cats, and horses that physically engage with humans (Bert et al., 2016; Ebener & Oh 2017). However, kind of interaction may not be suitable for everyone due to various reasons, such as limited accessibility and potential risks for both people and animals. Dog-assisted interventions often rely on volunteer services and may require close supervision, resulting in infrequent and inconsistent exposure (Edwards et al., 2014; Ebener & Oh 2017). Concerns may also arise regarding the potential for aggression from the animal, allergies, compromised immune systems, phobias, or accidental injuries during contact (Ebener & Oh, 2017). In pursuit of safer alternatives to achieve benefits while minimizing associated risks, research has shifted its focus toward human-fish interactions. This transition stems from the acknowledgment that fish-assisted activities and therapies can offer similar advantages to those obtained through interactions with cats and dogs.

With visual observation, an experimental study revealed that interacting with a single fish, even in a goldfish bowl, can reduce anxiety to a similar extent as interacting with a dog or even a plant (Sarman & Günay 2023). Previous research has demonstrating that individuals observing fish in aquariums perceived their experiences as relaxing and noted reductions in blood pressure, pulse rate and muscle tension and an increase in skin temperature (Arsovski, 2024; Ein et al., 2018; Rodrigo-Claverol et al., 2019)

Oxytocin (OT) release during interactions with animals could also offer valuable insights towards psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of HAI (Gnanadesikan et al., 2024). The research claimed that both Oxytocin and HAI have the potential to enhance social interaction, alleviate anxiety, and promote overall well-being. Therefore, in theory, oxytocin is released not only through eye contact but also through tactile interaction, playing a crucial role in the anxiety reduction effect of oxytocin (Eckstein et al., 2020). In a study that focused on the influence of touch-tank experience on public visitors (Sahrmann et al., 2016), it was observed that a 10-minute interaction with various animals including stingrays, sharks, and horseshoe crabs resulted to reduced tense arousal, elevated mood, increased relaxation and energy. This makes the oxytocin hypothesis especially relevant for exploring the potential of Fish-Assisted Activities (FAA), which offer both visual and tactile components. While other frameworks such as the Biophilia Hypothesis and Social Support Theory offer complementary perspectives on why human-animal interactions are beneficial—highlighting innate attraction to nature or the supportive function of animals—these were not central in informing the specific design or measures used in this study. Instead, the present research builds upon the Oxytocin Hypothesis to explore whether brief interactions with fish, especially through combined sensory modalities, can elicit similar psychophysiological outcomes documented in other animal-assisted interventions.

However, to date, there is a noticeable gap in experimental research concerning the psychological benefits of combined visual and tactile interaction with fish. Research that consisted multisensory interaction mainly involved participants who either own and take care of fish or participants that were provided and assigned to take care of them via feeding and tending to the aquarium/tank (Alfrey et al., 2022; Maranda et al., 2015;). In contrast to public aquarium visitors, home aquarium owners, have the technical capacity for more interactive engagement with their pet fish. Fish owners report significant advantages, such as feelings of relaxation, stress reduction, positive impacts on behavior and anxiety levels through engagement activities of caring for and closely observing fish (Clements et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2014; Gee et al., 2019). However, some studies reveal that these effects are possibly attributed to observing the fish’s movements and the soothing sound of running water (Gee et al., 2019; Langfield & James, 2009). Thus, the results lean more towards the visual effects rather than multisensory, including tactile interaction. Consequently, the impact of hands-on interaction with fish remains undistinguished.

In summary, these research findings collectively underscore the positive impact of Animal-Assisted Activities on individuals’ mental well-being. However, existing studies have predominantly focused on animals such as dogs, cats, horses, and other domesticated species, leaving a gap in employing potential psychological benefits of interacting with fish. Additionally, most human-fish interaction studies have solely investigated visual exploration. Within college campuses and student well-being contexts, there is a lack of experimental FAA research involving tactile and multisensory interaction among students. Thus, this also presents an opportunity for academic institutions to leverage their resources to develop alternative proactive mental health support approaches to students.

Further exploration and investigation are important to fully understand the beneficial potential of fish in enhancing students’ mental health and well-being. Therefore, the current study intends to investigate the effects of Fish Assisted Activity on anxiety, negative affect, mindfulness, and positive affect among college students in anticipation of their semester examinations. The study has three primary objectives: first, to quantitatively assess changes in students’ state anxiety levels; secondly, to measure the induced mindfulness, positive affect and quantify negative affect levels after the intervention, and lastly, to explore the efficacy of three distinct treatment conditions: (1) visual observation, (2) tactile interaction, and (3) a combination of both.

Methodology

Participants

A total of 104 participants were involved in the study, divided into three groups: the visual group (n = 35), the tactile group (n = 34), and the combination group (n = 35). Of the total sample, 32 participants (30.8%) identified as male and 72 (69.2%) as female (M = 1.31, SD = 0.46). Participants were aged between 18 and 23 years (M = 19.7, SD = 1.41). The participants were undergraduate students drawn from various colleges within the university: College of Agriculture (18.3%), College of Arts and Social Sciences (39.4%), College of Education (1%), College of Engineering (26%), College of Home Science and Industry (10.6%), and College of Science (4.8%). All participants exhibited moderate to extremely severe symptoms of anxiety, as measured by the screening instrument.

Participants with the following criteria were excluded: living with pets they were emotionally attached to, (2) visited living animal museum or zoo within the past month, (3) individuals expressing a dislike for fish interaction (4) students from College of fisheries and Veterinary Science and Medicine (5) students currently receiving any form of psychological treatment. This careful screening aimed to reduce potential confounding factors. However, potential sampling biases may still be present. For instance, the voluntary nature of participation may have favored students with a particular interest in mental health or animal-assisted interventions, while classroom-based and professor-mediated recruitment may have disproportionately included students who are more academically engaged or compliant.

To identify suitable participants, the researchers employed a convenience sampling strategy for recruitment, initially, they disseminated a mass online invitation and later explored an in-person recruitment strategy. After screening, unqualified participants were promptly notified. Conversely, qualified participants were ranked by anxiety levels, and every block of three was randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions (Visual Observation, Tactile Interaction, or Combination Exposure) using a random number generator. This process aimed to achieve balanced representation across anxiety levels in each treatment group. While the study did not involve blinding or independent personnel during allocation, the randomization process was automated to minimize researcher bias and maintain objectivity.

Procedure

Participants were partially informed about the study’s aim to assess Fish-Assisted Activities (FAA) for student mental health improvement. The nature of the study, especially the step-by-step procedures, treatment conditions, and treatment variables under investigation was not provided. Recruitment employed social media and face-to-face, requiring a demographic survey and the DASS-21–anxiety subscale completion, alongside informed consent. Data from these instruments facilitated participant selection based on eligibility and availability, aligning with the experiment venues’ capacity. Treatment experiences were standardized using scripts to ensure consistent administration across groups, with strict instructions to avoid communication and external distractions during sessions. A manipulation check assessed the influence of social interactions within treatment outcomes.

The study comprised single exposure of three treatment conditions: Visual Exposure, involving a 10-minute aquarium observation followed by a 10-minute museum exploration; Tactile Interaction, featuring a 20-minute session of fish feeding and touching; and Combination Treatment, integrating both tactile and visual interactions in a 20-minute session. Prior to the experiment, participants were reminded that talking is not allowed, to focus solely on the designated activity, and avoid distractions from their surroundings. The Living Fish Museum features a collection of tilapia, catfish, and ornamental freshwater fish, housed in 20 aquarium tanks containing various species. The Visual Exposure condition began with a 2-minute introduction during which personnel from the College of Fisheries introduced students to the museum.

Following this, students were then lined up at the entrance of the museum, entering one at a time. Then they were directed to stand at markers in front of the aquariums and observe the fishes, moving to the next station every 30 s. This rotation continued through 20 stations or aquariums, totaling 10 min of observation time. This process ensured that all students have the same amount of exposure to the fishes in the aquariums. After this, they were given the freedom to explore the museum independently for 10 min, during which they could closely observe the various fish species on display. This open exploration period allowed students to deepen their understanding and curiosity.

For the Tactile Interaction condition, students were gathered outside the museum building. The outdoor area beside the museum housed large concrete circular tanks, each stocked with approximately 6,000 tilapia fingerlings. Students received a 2 min comprehensive briefing on the activities that they were about to engage in. After the initial briefing, participants were directed to the Broodtanks area where they received a designated amount of fish food. They were instructed to feed the fishes in the two fish tanks for a duration of 10 min. They were given 5 min for the first tank and another 5 min for the second tank. After this, they engaged in a hands-on experience where they were led to the fingerlings’ tanks and had the opportunity to touch the fishes and hold them for 10 min.

Moreover, the Combination Treatment included both Visual Exposure and Tactile Interaction. Participants began with Tactile Exposure, following the same process but with adjusted time allotment now amounting to 10 min: a comprehensive briefing, fish-feeding for the first 5 min, and touching the fingerlings for another 5 min. Afterwards, participants gathered in front of the museum building to simultaneously start the Visual Interaction for 10 min: they engaged in lined exploration for 5 min, then free exploration for the remaining 5 min.

Prior research had used similar durations for human-animal interventions, ranging from 10 min (Cracknell et al., 2017; Pendry & Vandagriff 2019) to 20 min (Grajfoner et al. 2017; Lundberg & Srinivasan 2021). The researchers aimed to strike a balance between providing sufficient exposure to the treatments while also making it practical for participants. The selected durations were considered appropriate based on existing literature.

After the treatment, participants completed a series of questionnaires—including the Manipulation Check, STAI-Y, PANAS, and SMS—in a designated room to assess the effects of Fish-Assisted Activity (FAA) on relaxation, mindfulness, affect, and anxiety. To minimize potential cross-group influence, participants were informed and required to sign an agreement prohibiting discussions or the sharing of information about their assigned treatment conditions until the conclusion of the study. While this precaution aims to preserve the integrity of the intervention, we acknowledge that the possibility of informal communication among participants cannot be entirely ruled out and recognize this as a limitation of the study. All participants received snacks and a study debrief following the session.

Measures

A. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale

The DASS-21 was used to screen volunteers, focusing solely on its anxiety component. This self-administered instrument consists of 21 statements, measuring autonomic arousal, muscular tension, situational anxiety, and subjective beliefs about anxious feelings (Lovibond and Lovibond in 1995). Raw scores were multiplied by 2. Scores range from 0 to 21, with categories ranging from 0 to 7 (normal), 8 to 9 (mild), 10 to 14 (moderate), 15 to 19 (severe), 21 and above (extremely severe) anxiety. The DASS-21 anxiety scale has shown high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of .89) and validity, correlating strongly with other anxiety measures like the State Trait Anxiety Inventory.

In this study, students who exhibit moderate to extremely severe anxiety levels were selected to participate. The prevalence of moderate anxiety within the general population (Komariah et al., 2022) underscores the necessity of a more novel approach beyond the one-size-fits-all strategy, which does not adequately address the diverse needs of individuals experiencing different degrees of anxiety (Lépine & Briley, 2011). Including participants with moderate anxiety levels, enhances the study’s relevance, generalizability, and validity. This comprehensive inclusion ensures that the research reflects a broader spectrum of experiences, making its findings more applicable and beneficial to a wider audience.

B. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory- Form Y- STAI-Y

Assesses anxiety in adults and includes two subscales: the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI) and the Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI), each comprising 20 items (Spielberger, 1989; Spielberger et al., 1983). The SAI measures current feelings in specific situations, while the TAI evaluates general emotional states. This study solely focused on the SAI. The STAI-Y employs a four-factor model, including items indicating the absence of anxiety, with 10 reversed items in the S-Anxiety scale. Total scores range from 20 to 80, with categories of “no or low anxiety” (20–37), “moderate anxiety” (38–44), and “high anxiety” (45–80).

C. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

The 20-item self-report measure widely used to assess the levels of positive and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988). The scale includes two subscales: positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). PA reflects pleasurable engagement, while NA encompasses various negative states. Scores for each subscale were separated, with higher scores indicating more positive or negative affect, respectively.

D. State Mindfulness Scale

The State Mindfulness Scale (SMS) was employed post-activity to measure participants’ state mindfulness (Tanay & Bernstein, 2013). This 21-item self-report scale assesses present-moment attention and awareness of bodily sensations and mental events during a specific period and context. The scale consists of two subscales: mind (15 items) and body (6 items). Responses were scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well), with higher scores indicating greater mindfulness.

E. Manipulation Check

Participants rated their current relaxation using a 1 to 100 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), a widely used and sensitive method for capturing subtle variations in subjective experiences. This continuous scale allows for greater precision and granularity compared to Likert-type or categorical scales, making it particularly useful in detecting nuanced shifts in internal states such as relaxation. The VAS has been validated in clinical and psychological research as an effective tool for measuring subjective states like pain, stress, and mood (Bijur et al., 2001; Gift, 1989).

However, as a single-item self-report, the VAS lacks the psychometric reliability of multi-item scales and may be susceptible to participant bias. Despite these limitations, it served as a practical tool to confirm whether the FAA interventions created a consistently relaxing environment across conditions.

F. Open-ended question

Questions were administered after the intervention along with other research instruments.

Data Analysis

To assess the comparative outcomes of visual, tactile and combination modes of fish-assisted activity on anxiety, mindfulness, positive and negative affect, a one-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used with post hoc Tukey tests conducted in case of a significant overall F-value. Effect size statistics (partial η²) were calculated to account for group size differences. A separate one-way between-subjects MANOVA was performed to analyze the manipulation check scores and evaluate the treatment’s effectiveness in inducing relaxation. A p value <.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS Statistics 25.0 was used for statistical analyses

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the (Ethical Clearance Reference Number: 2023-752 on December 11, 2023. Respondents gave written consent for review and signature before participating. They were given the option to refuse to participate by opting out anytime during the experiment.

Results

The participants’ scores of STAI, PANAS, and SMS after the treatments showed “no or low” state anxiety, “high” positive emotions and “very low” negative emotions as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Prior to conducting MANOVA, assumptions were tested to ensure validity of the analysis. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variances across groups was met for all dependent variables, with non-significant results: State Anxiety, F(2,101) = 0.194, p = .824; State Mindfulness, F(2,101) = 1.062, p = .350; Positive Affect, F(2,101) = 0.997, p = .373; and Negative Affect, F(2,101) = 2.336, p = .102. Furthermore, the Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices was also non-significant (M = 32.035, F(20, 36,560.423) = —, p = .067), indicating that the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was tenable.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of State Anxiety, State Mindfulness, Positive and Negative Affect.

	Visual(n = 35)		Tactile(n = 34)		Combination(n = 35)
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
(1) State anxiety	28.85	7.54	33.94	7.31	28.20	6.19
(2) State mindfulness	82.31	13.04	84.20	12.08	82.93	10.97
(3) Positive affect	38.14	6.48	36.73	7.93	37.65	6.00
(4) Negative affect	12.62	4.65	15.32	4.88	12.71	2.96

State Anxiety: 20 to 37 - no or low anxiety; 38 to 44 - moderate anxiety; 45 to 80 - high anxiety. Positive and Negative Affect: 10 to 18-Very Low; 18.1 to 26 - Low; 26.1 to 34 - Average; 34.1 to 42 - High; 42.1 to 50 - Very High. State Mindfulness: 77 to 89 Moderate; 89-above High.

Figure 1.

Graphical representation of means.

Given that assumptions were satisfied, a one-way MANOVA was performed to assess the effect of exposure type on the combined dependent variables. The analysis revealed a significant difference between the Fish Assisted Activity’s exposure types (λ = 0.829, p = .017, η² = 0.089), leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis of equal groups across dependent variables. Medium effect size was observed suggesting that approximately 8% of the variance in the dependent variable can be attributed to the independent variable. Specifically, a statistical significant difference was found in State Anxiety (F = 6.845, p = .002) and Negative Affect (F = 4.458, p = .014), both exhibiting moderate effect sizes (Table 2). These findings emphasize that the observed changes are meaningful enough to have practical implications in real-world settings.

Table 2.

Test of Between-Subjects Effect.

Variable	Treatment	Mean	Sig.	F	Partial η²	Observed power
State anxiety	Visual	28.8571	.002*	6.845	.119	.914
	Tactile	33.9412
	Combination	28.2000
State mindfulness	Visual	82.314	.755	.281	.006	.093
	Tactile	84.206
	Combination	82.314
Negative affect	Visual	12.629	.014*	4.458	.081	.753
	Tactile	15.324
	Combination	12.7143
Positive affect	Visual	38.143	.688	.375	.007	.109
	Tactile	36.735
	Combination	37.657

p < .05.

There were no significant differences observed in State Mindfulness (F = 0.281, p > .05) and positive affect (F = 0.375, p < .05 ) among the three treatment conditions (Table 2). Nonetheless, despite the absence of significant differences, the scores for state mindfulness (M = 82.314, M = 84.206, M = 82.314) and positive affect (M = 38.143, M = 36.735, M = 37.657) remain consistently similar across the three groups, implying that, irrespective of the conditions, all groups exhibited similar levels of mindfulness and positive emotions during the exposure (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Table 3 shows the result of post-hoc analysis showed the tactile group exhibited significantly higher levels of state anxiety (M = 33.94) compared to both the visual group (M = 28.85) and combination group (M = 28.20), with mean differences of 5.08 and 5.74, respectively (p < .05) (Table 3). Similarly, significant differences in negative affect were observed between the tactile group (M = 15.32) and both the visual group (M = 12.62) and combination group (M = 12.71), with mean differences of 2.695 and 2.609. No significant differences were found between the visual and combination groups for either state anxiety or negative affect (p>0.05). These findings indicate that while all groups showed reduced levels of state anxiety and low scores of negative affect, the tactile group exhibited comparatively lesser reduction in these psychological states.

Table 3.

Post-Hoc Test via Tukey’s HSD.

Variable	Treatment	Mean difference	Sig
State anxiety	Tactile-visual	5.0840	.009*
	Tactile-combination	5.7412	.003*
	Visual-combination	.6571	.919
Negative affect	Tactile-visual	2.6950	.026*
	Tactile-combination	2.6092	.033*
	Visual-combination	.0857	.996

p < .05.

Discussion

The present study investigated the impact of Fish-Assisted Activity (FAA) on college students’ mental health, exploring the differences in the effects of visual observation, tactile interaction, and a combination of both. This study aimed to determine how these modalities influence state anxiety, mindfulness, positive affect, and negative affect among students anticipating their semester examinations.

Participants across all treatment groups showed high levels of positive affect, moderate state mindfulness, very low negative affect and anxiety. Additionally, it was implied through the manipulation check ratings that the participants perceived that they felt relaxed during their respective activities. Qualitative responses further supported these findings, highlighting feelings of relaxation, happiness, and calmness among participants. They also expressed that they felt present at the moment during their respective activities. Overall, these findings provide evidence for the relaxation properties of Fish-Assisted Activity (FAA) and align with previous studies that highlight the benefits of engaging in relaxation activities, such as FAA, to promote mindfulness (Berget et al., 2008), induce positive affect (Grajfoner et al., 2017; Pendry & Vandagriff, 2019), and mitigate anxiety (Pendry et al., 2018; Pendry & Vandagriff, 2019; Walker, 2023).

The nature of this study enables the researchers to assess the impact of Fish-Assisted Activities on students anticipating their first-term examinations. The findings indicate that these activities can effectively alleviate anxiety among college students, particularly when faced with high academic demands. Few participants experienced immediate relief from interacting with fishes during these activities, offering them temporary relief from academic pressures. Despite brief interactions, these results support integrating Fish-Assisted Activities as a campus-based intervention, consistent with existing research on other forms of Animal-Assisted Activities implemented in similar settings (Delgado et al., 2018; Pendry et al., 2018; Pendry & Vandagriff, 2019; Peel et al., 2023).

Interestingly, the findings revealed no statistically significant differences in state mindfulness and positive affect across the visual, tactile, and combination groups. All groups reported relatively high levels of mindfulness and positive affect, potentially leaving little room for measurable differences. Furthermore, the qualitative feedback indicated that participants across all groups felt present and emotionally uplifted, implying that even brief exposure to fish, regardless of modality, can elicit mindful awareness and positive mood states. These findings reinforce the notion that FAA's therapeutic impact may not necessarily depend on tactile engagement, and that the mere presence of fish be sufficient to generate emotional and cognitive benefits (Cracknell et al., 2017; Gee et al., 2019).

Exposure to visual stimuli emerged as superior among the three exposures, aligning with previous studies on the psychological benefits of observing fish in aquariums (Buttelmann & Römpke, 2014; Clements et al., 2019; Cracknell et al., 2017; Gee et al., 2019). Contrary to expectations, tactile interaction did not yield superior results in decreasing state anxiety and negative affect, potentially due to reported discomfort caused by extreme heat during the activity. This environmental factor may also explain why the combined condition did not outperform visual exposure alone, despite incorporating both sensory modalities. Nonetheless, the combination approach demonstrated benefits comparable to those of visual interaction, suggesting that with appropriate adjustments to address environmental challenges, it may hold greater potential for enhancing psychological outcomes.

However, while these positive outcomes are promising, they should be interpreted with caution due to the absence of a control group. Without a comparison group unexposed to FAA, it is difficult to determine whether the observed benefits were directly attributable to the intervention itself or influenced by other confounding factors. One such factor is demand characteristics, as participants were made aware through recruitment materials that the study aimed to investigate FAA's impact on mental health. This prior knowledge may have shaped their expectations and, consequently, their self-reported outcomes. Moreover, non-specific influences such as the novelty of the tactile activity and the quiet, air-conditioned environment experienced during visual exposure may have independently contributed to stress reduction and mood enhancement. These contextual elements, rather than the FAA intervention itself, could have played a significant role in the participants’ perceived improvements.

Despite these limitations, the findings suggest that FAA—particularly in the form of passive visual observation—may serve as a low-risk, low-maintenance campus-based intervention, offering psychological relief during periods of academic stress. Compared to traditional Animal-Assisted Activities, fish-based interventions carry fewer logistical and safety concerns, making them feasible for broader implementation (Ebener & Oh, 2017; Edwards et al., 2014). To strengthen the evidence base, future studies should incorporate randomized control groups, extend the duration of exposure, and withhold explicit disclosure of the study’s intent during recruitment to minimize bias.

Conclusion

This study highlights the relatively unexplored use of fish-assisted activity as an alternative approach to providing tailored psychological benefits for college students. The current paper filled the gap in the literature by pioneering Fish-Assisted Activity as a campus-based intervention. Results showed that across all three fish-assisted activities, participants reported a high level of positive emotions along with very low negative emotions and decreased anxiety. Participants exposed to tactile activity did not show a more significant reduction in state anxiety and negative affect compared to visual activity possibly due to differing temperature conditions. Participants' perceptions of their exposure also support the effectiveness of the activities. Nonetheless, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the absence of a control group limits causal conclusions and the influence of confounding environmental and psychological factors cannot be ruled out.

Limitation

The limited duration of the intervention, restricted to a single session, presents a constraint in assessing the sustained impact of Fish-Assisted Activity on students' mental health. This was primarily due to scheduling conflicts, as the simultaneous administration of activities had to align with participants’ availability. As a result, the long-term benefits of repeated or prolonged engagement with the FAA could not be fully explored.

Variations in environmental conditions across treatment groups may have influenced participants’ experiences and responses. Differences in room temperature, noise levels, or lighting could have introduced uncontrolled variables that affected the consistency and comparability of the intervention. Moreover, the manipulation check—intended to verify whether the activities were relaxing—relied on subjective self-reports, which are inherently susceptible to social desirability bias and perceived expectations about the study's purpose.

Crucially, the absence of a non-treatment or waitlist control group limits the ability to draw causal conclusions. Without a comparison group unexposed to FAA, it is difficult to determine whether the observed improvements were attributable to the intervention itself or to extraneous factors such as the novelty of the activity, the relaxing environmental context, or expectancy effects. Although differences were noted across the three modalities, these should not be directly interpreted as evidence that FAA alone produced the observed effects.

Additionally, although participants were instructed and signed an agreement to refrain from discussing their assigned treatments, the possibility of informal communication could not be eliminated. This potential for cross-group information sharing is recognized also as a limitation of the study.

Recommendations

Future studies are recommended to include repeated sessions and follow-up assessments beyond the immediate post-intervention period sessions to assess the long-term impact and sustainability of the observed effects. This will provide insights into the long-term impact and sustainability of FAA interventions. Standardizing the setting for fish interactions, such as using the same enclosure or aquarium for all activities, can reduce variation in the level of interaction. Manipulating environmental factors, such as temperature, lighting, and noise levels, can create a consistent and comfortable environment for participants, minimizing potential variations caused by external factors. Including a non-treatment or waitlist control group is also essential to isolate the true impact of FAA from other contributing factors.

Additionally, future studies should consider more objective or physiological measures to supplement self-report instruments and reduce the influence of participant bias. To further improve internal validity, researchers should also take steps to minimize the risk of treatment contamination, such as ensuring participants do not communicate about their assigned activities during the study period. These recommendations aim to enhance the validity, reliability, and comprehensive understanding of the impacts of FAA interventions.

For practical implications, incorporating FAA into educational settings as an intervention to alleviate anxiety and promote mental well-being among students is beneficial, as it has been shown to alleviate anxiety and foster emotional well-being. Additionally, it can be used as an alternative or supplementary activity alongside traditional interventions like counseling. Visual and combination approaches are recommended to enhance engagement; while considering environmental factors such as temperature is important to optimize the effectiveness of tactile activities. Prior research has established the efficacy of Animal-Assisted Activity (AAA) in various therapeutic contexts, including psychiatric, geriatric, and residential care settings, demonstrating consistent reductions in anxiety and depression alongside improvements in mood and affect (i.e.,Ambrosi et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Scott & Kirnan, 2023). Aligned with this literature, the present findings highlight the potential of Fish-Assisted Activity (FAA) as a viable therapeutic modality, warranting further investigation and broader application beyond academic contexts.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Sweetzle Jay Marie Salvador

Ethical Considerations

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Review Committee at Central Luzon State University ((Ethical Clearance Reference Number: 2023-752) on December 11, 2023. The students/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. The animal study was reviewed and approved by Central Luzon State University’s College of Fisheries – Freshwater Aquaculture Center.

Consent to Participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee at Central Luzon State University (Ethical Clearance Reference Number: 2023-752) on December 11, 2023. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Figshare repository, []

References

Alemu

B. M.

Feyssa

(2020). The relationship between test anxiety and academic achievement of grade ten students of Shirka Woreda, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. African Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.83.20.097

Alfrey

K. B.

Gatlin III

D. M.

Barrows

F. T.

McLean

(2022). Assessment of open-source fish-free feeds (F3) for pompano, Trachinotus carolinus (Perciformes, Carangidae), under hyposaline conditions. Aquaculture Research, 53(18), 6651–6663.

Allen

Blascovich

Mendes

W. B.

(2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 727–739.

Amiot

Bastian

Martens

(2016). People and companion animals: It takes two to tango. BioScience, 66, 552–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw051

Ambrosi

Zaiontz

Peragine

Sarchi

Bona

(2019). Randomized controlled study on the effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy on depression, anxiety, and illness perception in institutionalized elderly. Psychogeriatrics, 19(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12367

Arsovski

(2024). The role of animal-assisted therapy in the rehabilitation of mental health disorders: A systematic literature review. Perspectives on Integrative Medicine, 3(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.56986/pim.2024.10.003

Berget

Ekeberg

Ø.

Braastad

B. O.

(2008). Animal-assisted therapy with farm animals for persons with psychiatric disorders: effects on self-efficacy, coping ability and quality of life, a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 4(1), 9.

Bert

Gualano

Camussi

Pieve

Voglino

Siliquini

(2016). Animal-assisted intervention: A systematic review of benefits and risks. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 8, 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2016.05.005

Bijur

P. E.

Silver

Gallagher

E. J.

(2001). Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Academic Emergency Medicine, 8(12), 1153–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x

10.

Brown

Snelders

Godbold

Moran-Peters

Driscoll

Donoghue

. . . Eckardt

(2020). Effects of animal-assisted activity on mood states and feelings in a psychiatric setting. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 26(6), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390319853617

11.

Buttelmann

Römpke

A.-K.

(2014). Anxiety-reducing effect: Dog, fish, and plant in direct comparison. Anthrozoös, 27(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714X13903827487647

12.

Chandler

C. K.

(2018). Human-animal relational theory: A guide for animal-assisted counseling. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 13(4), 429–444.

13.

Clark

Martin

McGowan

R. T. S.

Smidt

J. M.

Anderson

Wang

Turpin

Langenfeld-McCoy

Bauer

B. A.

Mohabbat

A. B.

(2020). The impact of a 20-minute animal-assisted activity session on the physiological and emotional states in patients with fibromyalgia. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 95(11), 2442–2461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.04.037

14.

Clements

Valentin

Jenkins

Rankin

Baker

J. S.

Gee

Snellgrove

Sloman

(2019). The effects of interacting with fish in aquariums on human health and well-being: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 14(7), e0220524. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220524

15.

Cracknell

White

M. P.

Pahl

Depledge

M. H.

(2017). A preliminary investigation into the restorative potential of public aquaria exhibits: A UK student-based study. Landscape Research, 42(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1243236

16.

Crossman

M. K.

Kazdin

A. E.

Knudson

(2015). Brief unstructured interaction with a dog reduces distress. Anthrozoös, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1070008

17.

Delgado

Toukonen

Wheeler

(2018). Effect of canine play interventions as a stress reduction strategy in college students. Nurse Educator, 43(3), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000451

18.

Ebener

(2017). A review of animal-assisted interventions in long-term care facilities. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 41(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924788.2017.1306380

19.

Eckstein

Mamaev

Ditzen

Sailer

(2020). Calming effects of touch in human, animal, and robotic interaction—scientific state-of-the-art and technical advances. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 555058. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.555058

20.

Edwards

N. E.

Beck

A. M.

Lim

(2014). Influence of aquariums on resident behavior and staff satisfaction in dementia units. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 36(10), 1309–1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945914526647

21.

Ein

Vickers

(2018). The effect of pet therapy on the physiological and subjective stress response: A meta-analysis. Stress and Health, 34(4), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2812

22.

Fine

A. H.

Eisen

C. J.

(2008). Afternoons with puppy Inspirations from a therapist and his animals. Purdue University Press.

23.

Fine

A. H.

Griffin

T. C.

(2022). Protecting animal welfare in animal-assisted intervention: Our ethical obligation. Seminars in Speech and Language, 43(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742099

24.

Fromm

(1973). The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Fawcett Crest.

25.

García-Gómez

Guerrero-Barona

García-Peña

Rodríguez-Jiménez

Moreno-Manso

J. M.

(2020). Equine-assisted therapeutic activities and their influence on the heart rate variability: A systematic review. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 39, 101167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101167

26.

Gee

N. R.

Reed

Whiting

Friedmann

Snellgrove

Sloman

K. A.

(2019). Observing live fish improves perceptions of mood, relaxation and anxiety, but does not consistently alter heart rate or heart rate variability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(17), 3113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173113

27.

Gift

A. G.

(1989). Visual analogue scales: Measurement of subjective phenomena. Nursing Research, 38(5), 286–288. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198909000-00008

28.

Gnanadesikan

G. E.

King

K. M.

Carranza

Flyer

A. C.

Ossello

Smith

P. G.

Steklis

N. G.

Steklis

H. D.

Carter

C. S.

Connelly

J. J.

Barnett

Gee

Tecot

S. R.

MacLean

E. L.

(2024). Effects of human-animal interaction on salivary and urinary oxytocin in children and dogs. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 169, 107147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2024.107147

29.

Grajfoner

Harte

Potter

L. M.

McGuigan

(2017). The effect of dog-assisted intervention on student well-being, mood, and anxiety. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5), 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050483

30.

Handlin

Hydbring-Sandberg

Nilsson

Ejdebäck

Jansson

Uvnäs-Moberg

(2011). Short-term interaction between dogs and their owners: Effects on oxytocin, cortisol, insulin and heart rate—an exploratory study. Anthrozoös, 24(3), 301–315.

31.

Herbeck

Y. E.

Eliava

Grinevich

MacLean

E. L.

(2022). Fear, love, and the origins of canid domestication: An oxytocin hypothesis. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology, 9, 100100.

32.

Howell

T. J.

Hardie

Loc

(2023). Social support and wellbeing in cat and dog owners, and the moderating influence of Pet–Owner relationship quality. Anthrozoos, 36(5), 891–907.

33.

Jones

M. G.

Rice

S. M.

Cotton

S. M.

(2019). Incorporating animal-assisted therapy in mental health treatments for adolescents: A systematic review of canine-assisted psychotherapy. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210761. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210761

34.

Komariah

Ibrahim

Pahria

Rahayuwati

Somantri

(2022). Effect of mindfulness breathing meditation on depression, anxiety, and stress: A randomized controlled trial among university students. Healthcare, 11(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11010026

35.

Langfield

James

(2009). Fishy tales: Experiences of the occupation of keeping fish as pets. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(8), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226090720085

36.

Lépine

Briley

(2011). The increasing burden of depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment.

37.

Le Roux

Wright

. (2020). The relationship between pet attachment, life satisfaction, and perceived stress: Results from a South African online survey. Anthrozoös, 33, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1746525

38.

Lundberg

Srinivasan

(2021). Effect of the presence of an aquarium in the waiting area on the stress, anxiety and mood of adult dental patients: A controlled clinical trial. PLoS ONE, 16(10), e0258118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258118

39.

Maranda

Lau

Stewart

S. M.

Gupta

O. T.

(2015). A novel behavioral intervention in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus improves glycemic control: Preliminary results from a pilot randomized control trial. Diabetes Educator, 41(2), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714567235

40.

Marcus

M. T.

(2015). Mindfulness as behavioural approach in addiction treatment. In Textbook of addiction treatment: International perspectives (pp. 821–839). Springer, Mil.

41.

Matijczak

McDonald

S. E.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Murphy

J. L.

O’Connor

(2020). The moderating effect of comfort from companion animals and social support on the relationship between microaggressions and mental health in LGBTQ+ emerging adults. Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11010001

42.

Meehan

Massavelli

Pachana

(2017). Using attachment theory and social support theory to examine and measure pets as sources of social support and attachment figures. Anthrozoös, 30(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1311050

43.

Moretti

De Ronchi

Bernabei

Marchetti

Ferrari

Forlani

Negretti

Sacchetti

Atti

A. R.

(2011). Pet therapy in elderly patients with mental illness. Psychogeriatrics, 11(2), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8301.2010.00329

44.

Nagasawa

Kikusui

Onaka

Ohta

(2009). Dog's gaze at its owner increases owner's urinary oxytocin during social interaction. Hormones and Behavior, 55(3), 434–441.

45.

Odendaal

J. S.

Meintjes

R. A.

(2003). Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. The Veterinary Journal, 165(3), 296–301.

46.

O'haire

M. E.

Guérin

N. A.

Kirkham

A. C.

(2015). Animal-assisted intervention for trauma: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1121.

47.

Peel

Nguyen

Tannous

(2023). The impact of campus-based therapy dogs on the mood and affect of university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 4759. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064759

48.

Pendry

Carr

A. M.

Roeter

S. M.

Vandagriff

J. L.

(2018). Experimental trial demonstrates effects of animal-assisted stress prevention program on college students’ positive and negative emotion. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin, 6(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1079/hai.2018.0004

49.

Pendry

Vandagriff

J. L.

(2019). Animal visitation program (AVP) reduces cortisol levels of university students: A randomized controlled trial. AERA Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419852592

50.

Pitheckoff

McLaughlin

S. J.

de Medeiros

(2018). “Calm… satisfied… comforting”: The experience and meaning of rabbit-assisted activities for older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 37(12), 1564–1575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464816680322

51.

Quintana

Borckardt

Aditya

(2019). Dog days of final exams: Using canine-assisted therapy to reduce stress and improve mood among community college students. Quest, 3(3). https://digitalcommons.collin.edu/quest/vol3/iss1/3

52.

Rodrigo-Claverol

Casanova-Gonzalvo

Malla-Clua

Rodrigo-Claverol

Jové-Naval

Ortega-Bravo

(2019). Animal-assisted intervention improves pain perception in polymedicated geriatric patients with chronic joint pain: A clinical trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(16), 2843. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162843

53.

Sahrmann

J. M.

Niedbalski

Bradshaw

Johnson

Deem

S. L.

(2016). Changes in human health parameters associated with a touch tank experience at a zoological institution. Zoo Biology, 35(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21257

54.

Sarman

Günay

(2023). The effects of goldfish on anxiety, fear, psychological and emotional well-being of hospitalized children: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 68, e69–e78.

55.

Scott

T. M.

Kirnan

(2023). When are the dogs coming back? Animal-assisted activities with men in residential substance abuse treatment. The Humanistic Psychologist, 51(2), 173.

56.

Spielberger

C. D.

(1989). State-trait anxiety inventory: Bibliography (2nd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.

57.

Spielberger

C. D.

Gorsuch

R. L.

Lushene

Vagg

P. R.

Jacobs

G. A.

(1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.

58.

Tanay

Bernstein

(2013). State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): Development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1286–1299.

59.

Thelwell

E. L. R.

(2019). Paws for thought: A controlled study investigating the benefits of interacting with a house-trained dog on university students’ mood and anxiety. Animals, 9(10), 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100846

60.

Torres

Arnold

K. L.

Shutt

E. M.

(2016). The effects of visual pet stimuli on stress and math performance. College Student Journal, 50, 112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192719852205

61.

Walker

(2023). The impact of therapy dogs on prelicensure baccalaureate nursing student test anxiety. Nursing Education Perspectives, 44(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001042

62.

Ward-Griffin

Klaiber

Collins

H. K.

Owens

R. L.

Coren

Chen

F. S.

(2018). Petting away pre-exam stress: The effect of therapy dog sessions on student well-being. Stress and Health, 34(3), 468–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2804

63.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070

64.

Wells

D. L.

(2019). The state of research on human–animal relations: Implications for human health. Anthrozoös, 32(2), 169–181.

65.

Wilson

E. O.

(1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.