Better together: An attachment perspective on mutual well-being in animal-assisted interventions (AAIs)

Abstract Background : Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are increasingly utilized to support the physical and social-emotional well-being of children with developmental disabilities (DD). Few studies have considered the impact of these interventions on the well-being of the animal partners. Ensuring the welfare of both species engaged in AAIs is important in terms of safety, sustainability, and protection of the human-animal bond, and it has ethical implications. This study evaluated an AAI based on the "Do As I Do" (DAID) dog training paradigm designed with both human and dog well-being in mind. Effects of participation on child responsibility and bonding were compared pre- and post-intervention, and to active and passive controls. We also evaluated potential changes in dog attachment style across the study period as an indicator of canine well-being. Methods: Forty-three child–dog dyads were recruited. Using block random assignment, participants were assigned to one of three groups: DAID (experimental), Dog Walking (DW; active control), or Waitlist Control (WC; passive control). Child outcomes were assessed via the Dog Care Responsibility Inventory (DCRI), Pet Attachment Scale (PAS), and Pet Friendship Scale (PFS). Dog attachment toward the child was assessed using the Secure Base Test (SBT) at baseline and post-intervention. To adjust for multiple testing, we applied the Benjamini–Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure and determined statistical significance based on FDR-adjusted p -values ( q -values) with the significance criterion set to q ≤ 0.10. Results: Child participants in the DAID group were reported to have significantly stronger attachment to their dogs compared to WC (adjusted p = 0.032) and DW (adjusted p = 0.032) groups. DAID participants showed greater increases in teaching and training behaviors compared to both controls (adjusted p ’s < 0.05). The DAID group also showed significantly greater increases in dog care responsibility (adjusted p = 0.012) and walking frequency (adjusted p = 0.005) relative to the WC group. For dog welfare probes, McNemar’s tests indicated shifts toward secure attachment from baseline to follow-up for the DAID and DW groups (adjusted p = 0.092 and 0.022, respectively). Fisher’s exact omnibus test suggested that attachment security rates differed across groups at follow-up, with DAID and DW showing higher rates than the WC group (adjusted p = 0.068). Conclusions: Results indicated that relationship-focused AAIs can simultaneously promote children’s engagement in healthy physical activities while supporting secure and reciprocated bonds in their dog partners. This dual-benefit model supports the viability of AAIs that prioritize the welfare of both members of the human–animal dyad.