Talk:Animal-assisted therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Music therapy

My cousin in Germany is doing music-therapy to get people quicker out of a coma... I'm wondering if animals can help to detect/identify/comfort/speedup the awakening process of coma patients. For reactions, leave a note at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SvenAERTS

i have some videos that suggest animal assisted therapy is very effective...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dhtgc&aq=f

can anyone attest to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autism therapy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Informative youtube video

Due to general lack of info in the article I'd like to share a link to youtube video about AAT and autism.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bosquecat&view=videos

It may give a better idea on what this is about and how it works. I understand that wikipedia is about written stuff about facts but this could do as a temporary source of additional info. -- 91.78.90.92 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

recent testimonials of dhtgc (dolphin human therapy grand cayman) parents...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dhtgc&aq=f

Autism therapy (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Term Papers are not encyclopedia articles

This article is someone's term paper. It represents a specific point of view which is not consistent with Wikipedia standards. I intend to delete it again if it is not corrected to be more objective. The Dogfather (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about whether there is an NPOV problem. The fact that it is a term paper, by itself, does not inherently violate wikipedia rules, as far as I can see, it's sourced properly and doesn't seem to be a soapbox. I am going to restore the sourced material (I agree that some of the commentary doesn' work here) and we can discuss what your particular problems are. If there is a serious problem with WP:FRINGE, then I will support deletion of improper material, but just because it's a term paper doesn't mean that it is wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The article implies that animal assisted therapy is related to and has grown out of pagan spiritual practices. This is highly opinionated, and not provable. Most people in the past, and many humans now, have absolutely NO spiritual connection to animals. Anyone involved in pet rescue can attest to the fact that for every person who has a healthy spiritual connection with animals, there are many more who just basically enjoy kicking puppies. I do not see how ancient animism is at all related to animal assisted therapy. The Dogfather (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You raise a valid point, I suppose the notion was to trace the history of humans viewing animals as beneficial, but the animism stuff DOES seem unconnected to the topic. The later things seem to fit, though may need some tweaking. I'll chop the antiquity spirituality stuff. I think the rest is OK, though. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest breaking that 'paper' up in to paragraphs that make it readable. It might be OK for a formal paper but for us mere mortals it's more reference than content and virtually unreadable. I thangewe.92.40.253.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Moved large criticism section to talk

This huge addition [1] to the article looks violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. There may be information and sources that could be salvaged for use in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Original content

Criticism of zootherapy or animal-assisted therapy Zootherapy supposedly contributes to better health, stimulates good conduct in children, redeems delinquents, helps autistic and disabled children improve, increases the survival rate of cancer patients, facilitates social interactions, relieves loneliness and helps animals improve their lot. But where is the proof to these claims? How science works In science, there are basically two approaches to conducting research: 1. Descriptive or hypothesis-generating studies (qualitative studies). These are presented in the form of anecdotal reports. This kind of study is extremely useful in identifying novel phenomena. They help form a hypothesis, which must then be validated by more controlled studies. They rarely demonstrate the value of a treatment or the existence of a causal relationship. Anecdotal reports and expert opinions are the weakest form of medical evidence. Unless they are documented by hard facts, they do not make a science. 2. Studies designed to test a hypothesis (quantitative studies). Newly discovered phenomena are tested with experimental studies that utilize carefully constructed control groups and allow for the possibility that the hypothesis being tested is false large-scale epidemiologic surveys. In other words, it is not enough to “know” something is true; one must prove it by following standard protocols. These are devised to eliminate any biases, which could influence the results and conclusions of a study and thus lead a scientist astray. The objective of good science is more about disproving a theory than proving it. Good science always leaves the door open to revision of accepted truths. Doubt is their product But one must be extra cautious here because a study of the second type mentioned above can be as flawed as one from the first category. The psychological hang-ups and mental mechanisms of its users being the principal Achilles’ heel of science, before yelling “Eureka!” one must consider the quality of the scientific methodology used, the source of financing, as well as the affiliations of the researchers. It is a well-known fact that mercenaries of science employed by firms that specialize in misinformation strive to influence public opinion by distorting the data of the studies that do not go their way or by publishing fake studies in journals belonging to the industries and even in well-respected independent journals. As the public and the media in general know virtually nothing of the scientific method, it is relatively easy to fool them with trustworthy words such as “study”, “science”, “research”, “doctor”, etc. or by manufacturing doubt by publishing inaccurate or misleading scientific data. This technique of creating doubt or confusion is called agnotology.It is detailed in several books such as Doubt is their product. How Industry’s assault on Science Threatens Your Health by British epidemiologist David Michaels. In short, the main objective is to take every means possible to protect the already established markets and develop new ones whatever the consequences in the medium and long term. Where does zootherapy stand? Almost all of the studies on the benefits of pets fit into the first category. The contributions of pioneers like New York psychiatrist Boris Levinson are merely simple anecdotal observations rather than scientific experiments. Yet these are the type of studies that are used by the pet industry to promote the benefits of zootherapy. In a beacon article published in 1984 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, American scientists Alan M. Beck and Aaron Honori Katcher warned of the poor quality of research being conducted in animal-assisted therapy. They debunked the claimed benefits of pets so thoroughly that it is a wonder that the pet industry bothers to continue “research” in this field with such unrelenting intensity. In 1997, epidemiologist Dr. T. Allen reported in the above publication, “Most reports describing the effects of human-canine interactions fall into categories at the bottom of the hierarchy ladder [of scientific validity].” Drs. K. A. Kruger and J. A. Serpell concluded: “While impressive in their variety and scope, not a single theory has been adequately tested empirically, and most studies have returned equivocal or conflicting results when the necessary testing has been attempted.” A finding corroborated in 2010 by scientists Anna Chur-Hansen, Cindy Stern and Helen Winefield. Funding Big Pharma and pet food corporations fund the bulk of research in the fields of pet therapy. The priority is given to studies on the benefits of animals on human health (on which the market depends) and on animal welfare (which has a positive impact in terms of image and revenue). The industry has its own promotional outfits, such as the Delta Society (see above), and scientific journals such as Anthrözoos, the journal of the International Society for Anthropology, an affiliate of Waltham-Mars, one of the largest manufacturers of pet food in the world. That being said, funding by the industry would not be such a problem if the flaws in the science were not so important and persistent in time. Alleged esoteric nature of pets Some proponents of this therapy claim that animals possess unique properties, of undetermined nature. Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell (2008). Book cited.</ref> However, this claim is farfetched. Animals have no magical power. There is unequivocal evidence that robots designed for this purpose do just as well without the problems associated with the use of animals (this technology is developing at lightning speed mainly in Japan). Alleged Educational Benefits Parents buy animals for their children not only for the company, but also because they believe that having a pet will teach their kids to become better human beings—more loving, responsible, and respectful, not only towards their own kind, but also in regards to nature and other species in general. It is commonly thought that children who are raised with a pet have a greater sense of empathy and compassion. None of these assertions is true. The Nazis for instance were quite fond of pets and animals in general but it certainly didn’t stop them from committing the worst atrocities ever recorded. If you think having a pet makes children more loving and respectful of other species and nature, think again. The problem is in the very concept of pet. An animal constrained to life in an environment that is not its own is subjected to an almost constant disequilibrium. Impoverished by captivity, bored by inactivity, it necessarily develops a host of neurotic behaviors due to the emotional ties of total dependence and to the lack of factors that it needs to incarnate its true nature. Says psychiatrist Hubert Montagner in a speech given in 1998 at the French Information Center on Pets: "Man does not hesitate to control every aspect of his animals’ existence. He tampers with his appearance. He confines it to spaces under his control, imposing exclusive or near-exclusive proximity. He limits his communication with others like it. He selects for behaviors that meet his expectations and conditions his animal to follow rituals. He imposes his whims and self-serving decisions. He encloses it within his own emotions and projections." Such systematic violation is the very negation of true love and empathy. And various shows of affection do not make things right. Professor Yi-Fu Tuan of Yale University shows in his book Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets how affection, a latent form of violence, is used as an instrument of power: “Love is not what makes the world go around. […] There remains affection. However, affection is not the opposite of dominance: rather it is dominance’s anodyne – it is dominance with a human face. Dominance may be cruel and exploitative, with no hint of affection in it. What it produces is the victim. On the other hand, dominance may be combined with affection, and what it produces is the pet. […] Affection mitigates domination, making it softer and more acceptable, but affection itself is possible only in relationships of inequality. It is the warm and superior feeling one has towards things that one can care for and patronize. The word care so exudes humaneness that we tend to forget its almost inevitable tainting by patronage and condescension.” Alleged General Health Benefits If you think walking the dog keeps you fit, think again. In a comparative study (a type 2 study), professor Mike Kelly of Greenwich University showed that walking without a dog is far healthier than walking with one. Because of the dog’s numerous “pit stops” along the way – which the researchers called “lamppost syndrome” – the owner’s heart is never sufficiently stimulated to benefit. After only 14 weeks, the weight, cholesterol levels, and blood pressures of the non-owners were much lower than of those of the group that owned dogs. Overall, the general health of the group without four-legged companions was much better than that of the group saddled with canine company. Friedman's study on the effects of pets on the heart has very little scientific validity. Yet this study is cited over and over by the pet industry (see above). A Finnish study published in 2006, which surveyed 21,000 Finnish adults aged 20 to 54, is one of the few independent studies that has looked at the effects of pets on the general population. In this type 2 study (one designed to test a hypothesis), scientists Leena K. Koivusilta and Ansa Ojanlatva showed that pet owners are sick more often and do a below-average amount of exercise: 26% of the pet owners in the study were overweight, compared with 21% for those who did not have pets; 16% of the pet owners exercised less than once a month in comparison to 2% for those without pets. The risk of having health problems is from 10% to 20% higher in pet owners than in non-pet owners, even when factors such as age and socio-economic level are considered. This is comparable to the risk in bachelors, widowers, and divorcees. Overall, this study associated pet ownership with poor, rather than good, health. Alleged Benefits for Disabled and Autistic children In 2007, in a paper entitled “Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions,” Emory University psychologists Lori Marino and Scott Lilienfeld concluded: “Nearly a decade following our initial review, there remains no compelling evidence that Dolphin-Assisted therapy (DAT) is a legitimate therapy, or that it affords any more than a fleeting improvement in mood. [...] The claims for efficacy of DAT remain invalid. [...] The studies [reviewed] were either too small, prone to some obvious bias, or offered no long-term perspective. [...] The evidence that it [DAT] produces enduring improvement in the core symptoms of any psychological disorder is nil. […]” What Marino and Lilienfeld have found about dolphin-assisted therapy is true for any type of animal-assisted therapy. After more than 60 years of intense “research” and countless articles published there is no evidence to this day that animal therapy works to combat any form of disability, disease, or condition, psychological or otherwise. Alleged Redeeming Benefits for Prisoners Some of the most influential studies on the redeeming qualities of pets, like the prison study of David Lee, were never published in scientific journals. These “studies”, were never pier reviewed, according to scientists Beck and Katcher, “they were taken from published proceedings, documentary films, personal communications, or internal documents. There were also frequent citations from articles in the popular press and newsletters.” Alleged Social Benefits Despite the commonplace belief that pets offer their owners an opportunity for increased contact with other people, French sociologist Jean Yonnet explains that the opposite is more likely true: “The twice-daily obligation of taking one’s dog for a walk appears to be insufficient to promote the social interactions attributed to zootherapy, and all the more so for cats, which are more popular than dogs and hardly ever leave their apartments. In addition, the presence of an animal on the street can be just as easily an obstacle to haphazard social interaction as a facilitator of it. In reality, the dog walker often has to keep far away from others because of the fear he arouses (in children, in the presence of other, incompatible dogs, out of fear of allergies or of dogs in general).” People whose lives are socially unsatisfactory often try to spice things up by acquiring an animal, but there is no evidence to this day that having a pet truly relieves loneliness. Sharing thoughts and feelings with a person, animal, or object that cannot challenge you may lead to emotional hyper-dependence. Children, as well as immature adults, are particularly vulnerable to the trap. This phenomenon of psychological transference is well known to psychologists. In other words, the contemplation of self through the distorting prism of an object or an animal that will not or cannot set you straight is both a shelter and a danger. The systematic escape from existential problems short-circuits one of nature’s most potent agents of change: sorrow. Only sorrow can make us appreciate the urgent need of change. Those who avoid it at all costs suffer countless negative effects on their relationships and on life in general. Escapism has become a way of life in our consumer society. Alleged Effects on Cancer Patients Some children undergoing chemotherapy are said to be calmer and to have a better attitude in the presence of an animal, as shown by a lower-than-normal cortisol level in their blood. This is an empirical measure of their psychological state, but the observation says little about the effectiveness of the treatment. Also in question is the link of the animal itself to the observed decrease in anxiety. It could have more to do with the novelty of the situation, the demonstration of interest in the child, or the presence of a reassuring person close by. A game, a clown, a parent, or a friend might be just as effective if not more so, as many children are uncomfortable with animals. One-dimensional thought It is seldom said, but the claimed benefits of pets and animals in general are a result of one-dimensional thought, an approach to thinking that dates back at least to the Ancient Greeks. Most monotheistic religions, notably Christianity, were constructed around this mental template. In this logic, skepticism and doubt are eliminated from our reasoning skills; what lies underneath, in the shadows, is an invitation to chaos, disease, and ill fate, to be avoided at all costs; only positive thoughts, words, and deeds that generate gratifying actions and feelings that booster self-esteem are encouraged. Although short-lived, self-esteem is a well-documented tranquilizer. More recently, in the 19th century, American pragmatist Charles Pierce played a vital role in promoting this one-sided approach to reality. The purpose was to eliminate any thought or action that could hinder progress and the flow of business. Thanks to compulsory schooling, a Prussian invention of that epoch, obedience and respect for experts and arbitrary authority became second nature. The hold of this mindset took another turn in the fifties during the witch-hunting era of McCarthyism. Because of the threat of communism, the teaching of efficient critical thought was eliminated from most university curricula in the West with the intent of curbing dissension. One-dimensional thought is a bogus quick-fix, an unfruitful attempt to flee from the harsh realities of the human condition. Pseudoscience When brief psychotherapies were introduced in the 1960s, positive thinking was popularized almost to the point of becoming a religion. These therapeutic methods were not conceived to cure, but rather to soothe patients just enough so they could go back to work and lead a so-called normal life. Zootherapy, or animal-assisted therapy, which became trendy at that time, is an offshoot of this line of thinking, as the following quote from Dr. Levinson clearly establishes: “The magnitude of the problem [troubled children] is so great that, within the foreseeable future, it will be impossible to meet these mental hygiene needs through conventional psychiatric channels. Some other resource must be found to alleviate distress, even if only temporarily. Such results can be achieved through the use of pets—as therapeutic agents.” The word “therapeutic” used by Dr. Levinson is misleading, though. While a session with a pet can elicit positive feelings and enthusiasm, so can travel, movies, friends, children, clowns, and ice cream. The effect is anything but therapeutic in the true medical sense of the word, meaning “curative.” The words “placebo”, “quick-fix” or “recreational” are more appropriate. This distinction is vital because most people active in the field of pet-assisted therapy, or psychotherapy for that matter, use the word “therapy” to rationalize the edification of this aspirin into science, and by the same token, increase its perceived value and consumption. Scientific language alone does not make a science. In fact, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the use of such language—along with sensationalism—to cover its failures. The therapeutic value of zootherapy is of the same nature as that of gambling, binge eating, and drinking: it provides a transient, feel-good experience, but at a high cost not only to people but to animals. In the end, do you really think children will learn how to love and be better human beings by doing the strange things advocated with such enthusiasm by Dr. Boris Levinson the founder of zootherapy? "Let us very briefly consider the psychological characteristics of pets, which permit them to become objects and collaborators in our sexual activity. Our handling and conditioning of our pets make it easy for them both to submit to our sexual drives and to enjoy participating in them. Take the dog, for example. When a puppy is taken away from the bitch at the relatively early age of 4 or 5 weeks, made to live exclusively with people and denied the companionship of other dogs, it may become imprinted on human beings and regard its master as a preferred sex mate. Furthermore, dogs mature sexually at 6 to 9 months of age and begin to exhibit sexual behavior, which may be exciting to some pet owners. Some children are led into sexual activity in this manner. Dogs which have been adopted at an early age are easily trainable and may be conditioned for whatever purpose their master has in mind. Lap dogs, for example, are easily taught to engage in cunnilingus. Furthermore, some dogs are easily excited from contact with menstruating women. […] For a child masturbation with an animal is to be preferred to solitary masturbation." These bizarre ideas follow quite naturally from the concept of zootherapy. The immorality of making a pet out of an animal opens the door to every conceivable type of exploitation. Further reading Fox, Michael W. (1990). Inhumane Society: The American Way of Exploiting Animals. St. Martin’s Press. Gatto John Taylor. Dumbing Us Down: The hidden curricula of compulsory schooling. New Society Publishers; 2002 Havel, Vaclav (1997). Living in Truth. Faber and Faber. Kassirer, JP (2005) On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger your Health. New York: Oxford University Press. Marcuse, Herbert (1964). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Beacon Press. Michaels, David (2008). Doubt is Their Product. How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens your Health. Oxford University Press. Park, Robert (2000). Voodoo science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press. Rampton S. and J. Stauber (2001). Trust us, We’re experts! How Industry Manipulates Science, and Gambles with your future. New York: Center for media and democracy. Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things. Préface de Stephen Jay Gould. W.H. Freeman; (2001). The Borderlands of Science: Where Science Meets Nonsense. Oxford University Press. Szasz, Kathleen (1968). Petichism: Pet Cults in the Western World. Hutchison. Tuan, Yi-Fu (1998). Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. Yale University Press; (1998). Escapism. The Johns Hopkins University Press. West, Patrick (2004). Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Is Really Cruel to Be Kind. Civitas.

External links and Further reading sections

Re [2]: The external links don't belong per WP:ELNO #1, 4, 5, 13, 14. Barker (1998) is already being used as a reference. The two Howie entries are how-to's.

Granted, more such cleanup is needed for the entire article per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTHOWTO. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My read of the EL policy is that, essentially, they can be allowed. I haven't had time to do a thorough review of all of the links, but I know with certainty that EAGALA is a major, mainstream certification association (and no, I'm not a member -- smile) and links to the major groups for each type of animal seem quite suitable, just like a link to an animal breed registry or competition-sanctioning organization for a sport. (I admit the elephant one may need checking, that one looks sketchy) I agree on the books, I moved up Barker to a sources cited section (useful if anyone wants to use Harvard refs later) and supported your tossing of the further reading section. Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

They can be allowed if there is consensus to do so per WP:ELBURDEN --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL! My take is ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Links to the main trade or professional organizations work for me. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We disagree. No consensus. They stay out til consensus changes.

If you want to continue this dispute, I suggest WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are one person and I am one person -- to argue over EL policy is a silly attitude because you are just going in and deleting things without doing any attempt to integrate some of their more useful content into the text. I haven't the time to deal with this particular article right now, (other crises other places) but I strongly recommend that you prove yourself as a useful contributor to wikipedia and actually go in there and add some solid content to the article instead of just sitting around deleting things and being critical, which is damn easy. Montanabw^(talk) 01:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one going in and deleting all the potential research references in the article and then not adding new content. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who can only criticize and can't be bothered to do any work themselves. See The Little Red Hen. Montanabw^(talk) 02:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential references

A few from the criticism section moved to the discussion above:

• David T. Allen (1997). « Effects of Dogs on Human Health.» Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 210, no 7.In 2006
• Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell (2008). « 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, 2nd Edition. New York: Academic Press; p. 21-38.
• Anna Chur-Hansen, Cindy Stern et Helen Winefield (2010) « Gaps in the evidence about companion animals and human health: some suggestions for progress. » International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare; vol. 8, no 3, p. 140–146.

--Ronz (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you find URLs for these? If an abstract, I have access to a subscription database via a college where I work, can probably find full text if not free. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to it eventually if someone doesn't beat me to it. First I'd like to go through the entire criticism information to see if there's more that could be useful. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Researchers at Emory attack methodology of research and are anti dolphin in captivity - which is unrelated to the efficacy of the program

Criticism

Researchers at Emory University have concluded that Dolphin Assisted Therapy is "...a dangerous fad." and lacks any real efficacy. Furthermore, the practice of capturing dolphins can leave more injured or even dead.[3]

please see the criticism and response to criticism below:

194 ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 Marino & Lilienfeld wo reports on the short-term and long-term effectiveness of dolphinassisted therapy (DAT) for children with severe disabilities have recently appeared in this journal (Nathanson et al. 1997; Nathanson 1998). The authors of these reports concluded that the administration of DAT to severely disabled children: (1) “significantly increases motivation, attention span, gross and fine motor skills, and speech and language” (Nathanson et al. 1997, p. 97), (2) achieves positive results more quickly and more cost effectively than conventional long-term therapy (Nathanson et al. 1997), and (3) produces increases in functioning that are maintained or improved upon for at least one year (Nathanson 1998). Nevertheless, a methodological analysis of these studies demonstrates that these conclusions do not withstand careful scrutiny. Before discussing methodological issues, it is important to point out that the authors’ theoretical rationale for DAT is dubious at best. Specifically, Nathanson and colleagues’ contention that an attention deficit “explains why disabled populations have such difficulty with learning and motivation” (Nathanson et al. 1997, p. 91; Nathanson 1998, p. 23) is inconsistent with our current understanding of almost all of the disorders (e.g., infantile autism, Cri-duchat syndrome, cerebral palsy, Tuberous sclerosis) afflicting the subjects in their studies. Would Nathanson and his colleagues have us believe that children with Cri-du-chat syndrome, for example, would have essentially normal IQs if only they could learn to focus their attention? Moreover, if the attention deficit hypothesis were correct, it would follow logically that individuals with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), for whom attentional problems are a core deficit (Douglas and Peters 1979), should be severely intellectually disabled. To the contrary, the overall IQ scores of children with ADHD are either not significantly different from normal samples (Carter et al. 1990; Anastopoulos et al. 1994) or are only slightly below normal (Farone et al. 1993). Furthermore, despite their claim that attention deficits underlie both their subjects’ disabilities and the effectiveness of DAT, Nathanson et al. (1997) never assessed attention in their subjects either before or after DAT. Nor did they examine whether improvements in attention were correlated with improvements on their dependent measures. Therefore, there is no way to assess the validity of their theoretical rationale, because it was never put to a test. In addition to being based on an implausible hypothesis, the studies by Nathanson et al. (1997) and Nathanson (1998) are seriously flawed on methodological grounds. Table 1 displays the principal threats to the validity of psychological studies (see Cook and Campbell, 1979; Kendall and Norton-Ford, 1982; Shaughnessy and Zechmeister 1994) that undermine the credibility of Nathanson et al. (1997) and Nathanson (1998). As Cook and Campbell (1979) noted, the presence of even one major threat to validity renders a study’s findings questionable or even uninterpretable. As Table 1 shows, Nathanson et al. (1997) and Nathanson (1998) violated several important criteria for validity. Most of these threats relate to internal validity, i.e., the methodological soundness of the study, but some are also relevant to external validity, i.e., generalizability of the findings. Because of space constraints, we limit ourselves only to the most serious threats to validity present in both studies. Before discussing these methodological flaws, a brief overview of Nathanson and colleagues’ first study is necessary. Nathanson et al. (1997) compared the effectiveness of a 2-week DAT program with a DOLPHIN-ASSISTED THERAPY: FLAWED DATA, FLAWED CONCLUSIONS Lori Marino and Scott O. Lilienfeld Department of Psychology, Emory University, USA COMMENTARY Address correspondence to: Dr L. Marino, Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology Program, Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA. T Marino & Lilienfeld ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 195 Table 1. Principal Threats to Validity in Nathanson et al. (1997) and Nathanson (1998) Validity Threat Definition Nathanson Nathanson et al. (1997) (1998) Placebo/nonspecific Improvement resulting from the expectation of X X improvement (placebo effect) or from effects (e.g., increased attention from therapists, increased interpersonal contact) that are common to many or most psychological treatments History The occurrence of potentially therapeutic events other than X X the intended treatment during the course of the study Testing Improvements in participants’ test performance resulting X from the effects of testing itself (e.g., practice effects) Experimenter The tendency for researchers to unintentionally bias the X Expectancy Effects results of the study in accord with their hypotheses Regression The tendency of participants with extreme scores at one X X time point to obtain less extreme scores upon retesting Instrumentation Changes in the assessment of the dependent measure at X X different points in the study (e.g., pre-test vs. post-test) Multiple Intervention The administration of treatments other than the intended X Interference treatment during the course of the study Maturation Changes in participants over time due to X naturally-occurring developmental effects Demand The tendency of participants to alter their responses in X Characteristics accord with their suspicions concerning the researchers’ hypotheses Subject Mortality Unrepresentative loss or drop-out of participants X from the original sample Informant Bias The tendency of informants to selectively recall the amount X of improvement in accord with their hopes and expectations (retrospective bias), or to unintentionally distort their estimates of improvement as a consequence of effort justification or other factors Note: List of threats to validity partly adapted from Cook and Campbell (1979), Kendall and Norton- Ford (1982), and Shaughnessy and Zechmeister (1994) 6-month conventional physical and speech therapy regime in children with multiple disabilities of varying etiologies. Each participant had received at least 6 months of conventional therapy immediately prior to DAT and was assigned (nonrandomly) to either a physical treatment-goal group or a speech treatment-goal group, depending upon their disability and availability. This study utilized an approximation of a pre-post design, and the participation of all children was contingent upon their inability to respond independently on either a physical or verbal task prior to DAT. During 2 weeks (17 sessions) of DAT, all children were assessed for their ability to respond independently on the same task. This assessment constituted the “post-test” score and all improvements were attributed to the effects of DAT. The results indicated that 57% - 71% of the children (depending on the group) were able to make the independent response during DAT compared with 0% prior to DAT. The authors used this finding to argue that DAT is an effective treatment for severe disabilities and is markedly more beneficial and efficient than conventional therapy. These conclusions are unwarranted for the following reasons. 196 ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 Marino & Lilienfeld Although Nathanson et al. (1997) discussed in detail the advantages of single-subject designs in therapy outcome research (pp. 92-94) and asserted that “a series of single subject, multiple baseline across settings experimental design was used” (p. 93), these comments are misleading. In fact, Nathanson et al. (1997) never presented single-subject data or discussed findings at a single-subject level. All data were presented and analyzed in aggregate form and therefore do not permit examination of change within individuals. This omission is highly problematic, because improvement at an overall level may mask substantial heterogeneity in subject outcomes. Indeed, it is conceivable that a subset of children in Nathanson et al. (1997) became worse following DAT, but that their deterioration was offset by those children who improved. Regrettably, Nathanson et al.’s analyses do not permit the reader to evaluate this possibility. The source of most of the major flaws in Nathanson et al. (1997) is the absence of experimental control, making it impossible to determine whether their results were due to the specific effects of DAT or to a host of potentially confounding factors, such as the experience of being in water. Nathanson et al. (1997) did not utilize a no-treatment control group or a control group of individuals exposed to an alternative intervention. Nor did they employ a dismantling strategy (Kazdin and Wilson 1978) to systematically expose subjects to different treatment components (e.g., interaction with dolphins, interaction with trainers, immersion in water). Neither did they use pre-test/post-test counterbalancing techniques (Shaughnessy and Zechmeister 1994) to examine the potential influence of order effects. Nathanson et al. (1997) dismissed such problems by appealing to the study by Nathanson and de Faria (1993), who compared the effects of in-water learning with dolphins and without dolphins (with children’s’ favorite toys used in lieu of dolphins) in order to assess the relative effects of in-water therapy alone. Nathanson and de Faria (1993) reported greater effectiveness of in-water therapy with dolphins compared with in-water therapy without dolphins. Nevertheless, their study is seriously flawed. When comparing subjects’ responses with dolphins versus favorite toys, the two conditions took place at entirely different facilities, viz., The Dolphin Research Center versus a local motel, resulting in a complete confounding of treatment condition with setting. Therefore, despite Nathanson et al.’s (1997) claims that the results of Nathanson and de Faria (1993) negate the need for control groups in subsequent studies of DAT, this conclusion is unjustified. Without a control group in Nathanson et al. (1997), there is no way to determine whether subjects’ post-DAT responses were due to the specific effects of DAT, to a placebo effect (see Table 1), or to such nonspecific factors as increased interpersonal contact, increased interpersonal attention, or a number of other plausible variables. One particularly troublesome confound in Nathanson et al. (1997) is novelty. The authors claimed to control for novelty by discounting any of the subjects’ responses as independent, i.e., meeting the treatment criterion, until after the fourth session. Rather than controlling for novelty, this procedure renders claims concerning the effectiveness of DAT all the more difficult to evaluate. Specifically, it is not possible to determine whether any subjects responded independently very early in the treatment phase – a result that would suggest the possibility of a novelty effect. A further threat to validity resulting from the absence of a control group is history (Cook and Campbell 1979), i.e., the occurrence of events outside of therapy that can have an effect on the dependent measures. For example, Nathanson et al. (p. 91) noted that many of the children treated with DAT came from different states and even different countries. Most or all of these children surely encountered a plethora of new experiences during the course of DAT: travel to a novel and exciting environment, an extended stay at a hotel or unfamiliar lodging, meeting new people, interacting with other children, and so on. Although some of these experiences may have remained relatively constant over the course of treatment, others almost certainly did not. Without a randomized control group, it is impossible to ascertain whether any of these extra-therapy events might have contributed to improvement on dependent measures. Moreover, Nathanson et al.’s (1997) design, which provided children with repeated practice on both verbal and motor stimulus materials and then tested them on the same stimuli on which they had practiced, is subject to the validity threat of testing (Cook and Campbell 1979). Because Nathanson et al. did not examine whether subjects’ knowledge and skills generalized to words or motor tasks on which they had not been explicitly tested, practice effects cannot be ruled out as an explanation for their primary findings. Although we do not wish to imply that improvements on these tasks are of minimal clinical significance, it is crucial to note that Nathanson et al.’s claims Marino & Lilienfeld ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 197 concerning the effectiveness of DAT are not limited to the specific stimuli used in their study, but instead extend to language and motor skills in general (e.g., see p. 97). Another major set of flaws inherent to Nathanson et al. (1997) concerns how the subjects’ responses were measured and elicited. Both of these flaws introduce the possibility of experimenter expectancy effects. Because the interns who scored the subjects’ behavior were aware of the desired outcome, the objectivity of the scoring procedure is suspect. Nathanson et al. might argue that the criterion responses, e.g., placing a ring on a peg, were so clear-cut that no bias in scoring was possible. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the criterion response involved a categorical distinction between assisted and independent responses. Because there were apparently no rigorous criteria for distinguishing assisted from independent responses, subtle interpretative bias may have occurred. In addition, the possibility of subtle and unintentional cueing of subjects by the therapists is difficult to exclude. A large body of research shows that experimenter expectancies can influence not only how subjects’ responses are coded and interpreted, but even the responses themselves (Rosenthal 1994). These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that Nathanson et al. (1997) are unclear in reporting if and how they measured inter-rater reliability. On the basis of high inter-rater reliabilities from a previous study (Nathanson and de Faria 1993), they stated that “For purposes of data analysis in the current investigation, interrater reliability was 1.00 on measured independent responses” (p. 95). It is not clear from this statement whether Nathanson et al. (a) based this inter-rater reliability measure on all trials in the present study, (b) chose to assume a reliability of 1.0 based on the previous study, or (c) only included trials on which there was perfect interrater agreement. Without such information, it is impossible to gauge the reliability, and therefore validity, of Nathanson et al.’s dependent measures. Moreover, even if high inter-rater reliabilities were obtained by Nathanson et al. (1997), their raters could not have been blind to condition because there was no control group. As a consequence, these raters’ errors may have been systematic rather than unsystematic. The absence of a control group also renders regression (Cook and Campbell 1979) an especially serious threat to validity. Regression, which refers to the tendency of extreme scores to become less extreme upon retesting, is of particular concern in pre-post designs (Kendall and Norton-Ford 1982). In addition, the problem of regression is typically compounded in treatment outcome studies, because individuals often bring themselves (or are brought) to treatment when their condition is at its worst. The failure to take regression into account may lead the investigator to fall prey to the regression fallacy, which is the error of attributing improvement to the intervention, rather than to statistical regression (Gilovich 1991). The interpretation of Nathanson et. al.’s (1997) findings is further complicated by the confound of instrumentation (Cook and Campbell 1979), i.e., a change in the assessment of the dependent variable at different points in the study. Although Nathanson et al. gave all subjects a pretest score of 1.0 (capable of a response only with assistance) on the basis of written reports, parent interviews, and direct observations, they assessed the “post-test” score in an entirely different way. Specifically, subjects’ responses were counted as successful if they achieved the criterion physical and verbal behaviors at any point between sessions 5 and 17. For example, if a child achieved criterion in session 5 but failed to meet this criterion in all subsequent sessions, the outcome would still be counted as successful. Because Nathanson et al. did not provide information regarding the number of children who failed to maintain the criterion level of responding following an initial success, their primary dependent measure is extremely difficult to interpret and does not provide a stringent test of DAT’s effectiveness. It is clear that Nathanson et al.’s (1997) study is seriously deficient from a methodological standpoint. Regrettably, the follow-up to this study, Nathanson (1998), is plagued by a number of the same validity threats (i.e., history, placebo/nonspecific effects, instrumentation, and regression) found in Nathanson et al. (1997) and suffers from many additional validity threats as well. Nathanson (1998) attempted to assess the long-term effectiveness of DAT by sending a survey to parents of children who had participated in either a one or two week DAT program at least one year earlier. On the basis of parents’ responses, Nathanson (1998) concluded that: (1) “children maintained or improved skills acquired in therapy about 50% of the time even after 12 months away from therapy” (p. 22), (2) 2 weeks of DAT produced significantly better long-term results than 1 week of DAT, and (3) there were no differences in the long-term effects of DAT as a function of the etiologies of the participants’ disorders (genetic, brain damage, unknown 198 ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 Marino & Lilienfeld cause). These conclusions, like those of Nathanson et al. (1997), are unwarranted. Because Nathanson’s (1998) study lacked a control group, the possibility of history and multiple intervention interference cannot be excluded. These validity threats are especially problematic in studies, like Nathanson (1998), that are long in duration. Nathanson (1998) acknowledged that most of his subjects received conventional therapies following DAT and prior to the parental reports on which his post-test measurements were based. Yet he neglected the fact that it is inappropriate to attribute improvement solely to DAT when subjects received months of conventional therapy between the pre- and post-test measurements. Nathanson (1998) claimed that his questionnaire was valid because it asked parents to assess the “specific behavioral improvement and maintenance of the behavior as a direct result of dolphin-assisted therapy…” (p. 24). It is not reasonable to assume, however, that parents were able to distinguish between those aspects of their child’s behavior that were affected by DAT and those that were influenced by other factors, not the least of which were other treatments. Nathanson also included items on the parents’ survey concerning the children’s’ responses to various forms of conventional therapy (e.g., speech therapy, special education classes). He interpreted improvements in these areas as indicating that DAT “has been able to increase, by more than 50%, the amount of time that children participate in and benefit from conventional therapies” (p.28). Yet he interpreted reports of no improvement on 15% of the behaviors as due to “little or no follow-up in conventional therapy…” (p. 28), among other factors. It appears that when conventional therapy was associated with improvement in functioning, Nathanson attributed this finding to the potentiating effect of DAT on conventional treatments. But when there was no improvement following DAT, he attributed these results to a lack of conventional follow-up therapy. It would be equally plausible to argue that the 85% of behaviors that were maintained or improved following DAT were in fact due to the effects of conventional therapies and other interfering factors. One of the most problematic threats to validity in uncontrolled long-term outcome studies is subject maturation. Nathanson (1998) claimed that the problems of history and maturation were mitigated by the use of “a large, randomized, heterogeneous (i.e. etiologies) subject pool, and a valid and closed form ratio response scale, with clearly defined behaviors…” (p.29). This argument is a non sequitur. In fact, a more reliable and valid response scale would only increase the probability of detecting history and maturation, which are genuine, albeit unwanted, effects. In addition to a lack of control over the validity threats (e.g., maturation and history) intrinsic to an uncontrolled long-term outcome study, Nathanson’s (1998) method of assessing DAT’s effectiveness renders his results virtually uninterpretable. One of the most dangerous threats to validity is the presence of demand characteristics, i.e., the tendency of participants to alter their responses in accord with what they believe to be the researchers’ hypotheses. Not only did Nathanson fail to guard against this problem, but he exacerbated it in two ways. First, each behavioral item on the parental survey was preceded by the statement “As a result of Dolphin Human Therapy, my child has maintained or improved in his/her ability to…” (p.24). Parents were asked to circle one of six responses ranging from “never” to “always” or “does not apply”. In an additional open-ended section, parents were invited to list additional behaviors that were maintained or improved as a result of DAT. Therefore, the hypothesis of the researcher, namely that DAT is effective, was made virtually explicit to respondents. Second, despite Nathanson’s acknowledgment that a valid survey uses items that “account for all possible responses” (p.24), the questions in his survey were limited to inquiries about positive effects of DAT, namely behaviors that were maintained or improved. Remarkably, behaviors that might have worsened were never systematically assessed or analyzed. Moreover, even though “parents were invited to write in general comments about the long-term effects of the program” (p. 25), these comments were not coded or used in the analyses. As a consequence, Nathanson did not follow his own acknowledged prescription for questionnaire validity. Nathanson’s (1998) study is also plagued by the validity threat that Cook and Campbell (1979) referred to as subject mortality. Of 137 questionnaires sent out to parents, only 52% were returned. This relatively low rate of return raises the possibility that parents who responded were unrepresentative of the entire sample of parents whose children were given DAT. Because Nathanson made no attempt to determine if responders differed from non-responders on potentially important variables (e.g., demography, etiology of disability) and, more to the point, short-term DAT outcome, this possibility cannot be evaluated. Marino & Lilienfeld ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 199 Additionally, because all of the outcome data in this study derived from parents, who cannot be assumed to be objective reporters, the results and conclusions of this study are further undermined by potential informant bias. It is well documented that memory is far more reconstructive than has traditionally been thought (Loftus, 1993), and that retrospective reports are often of suspect validity. For example, parents may selectively recall their memories of their children’s’ improvement in accord with their hopes and expectations. In an elegant series of studies, Ross (1989) showed that individuals in treatment studies often unintentionally distort their memories of improvement on the basis of their expectations concerning change. For example, if individuals expect to improve as a result of treatment but experience no objective improvement, they will often recall their pre-treatment status to be worse than it actually was (Conway and Ross, 1984). The same phenomenon might account for Nathanson’s (1998) results: parents who expect improvement following DAT might remember their children’s pre-DAT behaviors as worse than they were objectively. In addition, there are a variety of reasons why the parents in Nathanson’s (1998) study might have unintentionally distorted their estimates of their childrens’ current functioning. Among these reasons is effort justification, which is the tendency of individuals who expend a great deal of energy, time, and money in a treatment to justify this effort by convincing themselves that this treatment must have been effective (Cooper 1980). Finally, for reasons that are unclear, Nathanson (1998) analyzed the data in his Table 1 (p. 26) and his Table 2 (p. 27) in two different ways, despite the fact that the dependent measures in both tables were identical. For Table 1, which presents the mean levels of 15 behaviors rated by parents as maintained or improved, he aggregated these behaviors into a single scale and reported the mean overall level of maintenance/ improvement. Yet for Table 2, which presents the mean levels of the same 15 behaviors as a function of etiology, he did not aggregate these behaviors into a single scale. Instead, he examined the item (item 10) that exhibited the largest difference across groups, conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on this item, and concluded that there were no differences in outcome across the three groups because the ANOVA was not statistically significant. This method of analysis is inappropriate, because it is well known that individual items are extremely unreliable. Nathanson should have either pooled the items into a single scale, as he did for the items in Table 1, or conducted a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) across all 15 items. As a consequence, Nathanson’s conclusion that DAT is equally effective across etiologies is unjustified. In fact, inspection of Table 2 reveals that the children in Group 1 (genetic abnormalities) showed lower levels of maintenance or improvement than the other two groups on 12 out of 15 items. In summary, a plethora of serious threats to validity and flawed data analytic procedures render the findings of Nathanson and colleagues uninterpretable and their conclusions unwarranted and premature. Given that Nathanson and de Faria (1993), Nathanson et al. (1997), and Nathanson (1998) are the only peer-reviewed published studies on the effects of DAT, the current evidence for the efficacy of DAT can at best be described as thoroughly unconvincing. Both practitioners of DAT and parents who are considering DAT for their children should be made aware that this treatment has yet to be subjected to an adequate empirical test, and that Nathanson and colleagues’ attention deficit hypothesis remains an explanation in search of a phenomenon. REFERENCES Anastopoulos, A.D., Spisto, M.A. and Maher, M.C. 1994. The WISC-III Freedom from Distractibility Factor: Its utility in identifying children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychological Assessment 6(4): 368-371. Carter, B.D., Zelko, F.A.J., Oas, P.T. and Waltonen, S. 1990. A comparison of ADD/H children and clinical controls on the Kaufman assessment battery for children (KABC). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 8: 155-164. Conway, M. and Ross, M. 1984. Getting what you want by revising what you had. Journal of Per - sonality and Social Psychology 47: 738-748. Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. 1979. Quasiexperimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin. Cooper, J. 1980. Reducing fears and increasing assertiveness: The role of dissonance reduction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16: 199-213. 200 ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 Marino & Lilienfield Douglas, V.I. and Peters, K.G. 1979. Toward a clearer definition of the attentional deficit of hyperactive children. In Development of Cognitive Skills, 173-247, eds. G.A. Hale and M.. Lewis, New York: Plenum Press. Faraone, S.V., Biederman, J., Krifcher Lehman, B., Spencer, T., Norman, D., Seidman, L.J., Kraus, I., Perrin, J., Chen, W.J. and Tsuang, M.T. 1993. Intellectual performance and school failure in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and in their siblings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(4): 616-623. Gilovich, T. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: The Free Press. Kazdin, A.E. and Wilson, G.T. 1978. Evaluation of Behavior Therapy: Issues, Evidence, and Research Strategies. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. Kendall, P.C. and Norton-Ford, J.D. 1982. Therapy outcome research methods. In Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology, 429-460, eds. P.C. Kendall and J.N. Butcher. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Loftus, E.F. 1993. The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist 49: 518-537. Nathanson, D.E. 1998. Long-term effectiveness of dolphin-assisted therapy for children with severe disabilities. Anthrozoös 11(1): 22-32. Nathanson, D.E., de Castro, D., Friend, H. and McMahon, M. 1997. Effectiveness of short-term dolphin-assisted therapy for children with severe disabilities. Anthrozoös 10(2/3): 90-100. Nathanson, D.E. and de Faria, S. 1993. Cognitive improvement of children in water with and without dolphins. Anthrozoös 6(1): 17-29. Rosenthal, R. 1994. Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Direc - tions in Psychological Science 3: 176-179. Ross, M. 1989. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review 96: 341-357. Shaughnessy, J.J. and Zechmeister, E.B. 1994. Research Methods in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nathanson ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 201 n Marino and Liliendfeld’s commentary, the authors take three positions which make their observations appear somewhat disingenuous. First, they clearly misinterpret the attention deficit hypothesis. Second, their analysis of validity problems is acknowledged and emphasized by me (Nathanson 1998). Third, their ignorance of, or apparent disregard for, the purpose of single subject research is puzzling, to say the least. These points will be discussed in turn. First, the theoretical construct for our clinical work is the attention deficit hypothesis which is both an important construct in discrimination learning for retarded populations (for example, Sokolov 1963; Zeaman and House 1963) and cited by me in both the 1997 and 1998 reports as applied only to children with mental retardation or who are developmentally disabled. Further, I state many times in both reports that we work with children with severe disabilities, and thus improvement in attention often results in language acquisition and motor skill increases that are measured in small increments, such as saying a word or independently putting a ring on a peg. Why, then, would Marino and Lilienfeld ask if I and my colleagues would “...have us believe that children with Cri-du-chat syndrome, for example, would have essentially normal IQ’s if only they could learn to focus their attention?” I, and my colleagues, don’t want Marino and Lilienfeld or anyone else to believe such nonsense, nor does the attention deficit hypothesis remotely suggest such remarkable gains as possible from any treatment. Nowhere do we imply or state such huge potential gains as a result of our work. Quite the contrary. The children we treat usually improve in a short period of time. But if they come to us, severely disabled, with for example, Cri-du-chat syndrome, they leave as children, severely disabled, with Cri-du-chat syndrome. We help, not cure, as I clearly and unambiguously point out in both the 1997 and 1998 published reports. Marino and Lilienfeld then argue that if the attention deficit hypothesis is correct, it would logically follow that individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) should be severely intellectually disabled, and yet children with ADHD are of essentially normal intelligence. ADHD, as a specific and primary diagnosis, is in fact distinguished from similar behavioral characteristics in children with mental retardation (American Psychiatric Association 1994). In other words, children with mental retardation with attentional deficits and/or hyperactivity are not diagnosed primarily as children with ADHD. Dolphin Human Therapy does not treat children with a primary diagnosis of ADHD. Children with ADHD, as opposed to disabled children with attentional deficits, do not fit in well with both theory and practice of the Dolphin Human Therapy program. Second, the majority of the Marino and Lilienfeld commentary is devoted to pointing out the “...plethora of serious threats to validity and flawed data analytic procedures...” which “...render the findings of Nathanson and colleagues uninterpretable and their conclusions unwarranted and premature.” In my 1998 study, a major theme of the report that I discuss directly is the threats to validity mentioned by Marino and Lilienfeld. In short, I agree with Marino and Lilienfeld about serious methodological problems, but I do not agree that such threats render the conclusions unwarranted or premature. In real treatment settings, that help real children from all over the world, there will likely always be major internal and external validity issues such as maturation, compliance with follow up, accurate feedback and others cited by both Marino and Lilienfeld, and myself. Research conducted outside the laboratory presents serious methodological challenges. How clinical research can best adapt or use scientific methodology is an ongoing and major issue within psychology (Kazdin 1992). Third, design shortcomings inherent in single subject research do not necessarily negate the clinical value of a treatment procedure. REPLY TO MARINO AND LILIENFELD David Nathanson Dolphin Human Therapy, Miami, USA Address correspondence to: Dr. D. Nathanson, Dolphin Human Therapy, 13615 South Dixie Highway #523, Miami, Florida 33176-7252, USA. Fax: (305) 233 6383. I 202 ANTHROZOÖS, 11(4), 1998 Nathanson Group comparison designs, for disabled populations, are frequently opposed on ethical grounds because, by definition, such designs require a control group that does not receive treatment. If a treatment is even potentially effective, and withheld, such withholding of treatment may be unethical (American Psychological Association 1992). Further, there are often an insufficient number of equivalent subjects to form a control group (Gay 1996). Providing a source of useful scientific information, as well as clear, effective treatment, sometimes means adopting procedures when true experimental design is not a viable option (Kazdin 1981). As stated in both Dolphin Human Therapy literature and research reports, Dolphin Human Therapy never uses hyperbole and is committed to realistic and appropriate goals for children, and emphasizes appropriate expectations for parents. Our program includes the full gamut of education levels among parents, including PhD professionals, veterinarians, university professors, practicing psychologists, physicians, lawyers, and skeptical scientists. Marino and Lilienfeld need not be overly concerned about the ability of parents to judge effectiveness of treatment. Why did Marino and Lilienfeld misinterpret such obvious and appropriate theoretical rationale for our work? Why did they imply that we suggest enormous gains in functioning when we clearly do not make such claims? While the problems in methodology and data analysis cited by Marino and Lilienfeld are generally accurate, most of those problems are cited with even more specificity by me in the published research reports. Why such angst when preaching to the choir? I am appreciative of the very detailed analysis and suggestions of Marino and Lilienfeld. Treatment efficacy is the name of the game for Dolphin Human Therapy and most clinicians, but optimal statistical and methodological procedures (in single subject research) for verifying treatment significance remains to be determined (Jacobson and Truax 1991). REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association 1992. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist 47: 1597-1611. Gay, L. R. 1996. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application. 5th ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Jacobson, N. S. and Truax, P. 1991. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy - chology 59: 12-19. Kazdin, A.E. 1981. Drawing valid inferences from case studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 49: 183-192. Kazdin, A.E. ed. 1992. Methodological Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Nathanson, D.E. 1998. Long-term effectiveness of dolphin-assisted therapy for children with severe disabilities. Anthrozoös 11(1): 22-32. Nathanson, D.E., deCastro, D., Friend, H. and McMahon, M. 1997. Effectiveness of short-term dolphin-assisted therapy for children with severe disabilities. Anthrozoös 10(2/3): 90-100. Sokolov, Y. 1963. Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. New York: Macmillan. Zeaman, D. and House, B. 1963. The role of attention in retardate discrimination learning. In Handbook of Mental Deficiency, 159- 224, ed. N. Ellis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thousands of moms and dads feel the program DHTGC.com is very effective and this article needs to be edited... Autism therapy (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All these claims have been debunked by the world's best dolphin specialist Marino and lilienfield, see critic of zootherapy. Scientific language does not make a science. M. Nathanson has an obvious conflict of interest as owner of the dolphin therapy outfit. --Charles danten (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that thousands think that animal assisted therapy works is a false argument. Perceptions are not always reality. That's why science was invented. To shed some light into perceptions. This is the typical type of argument used by pseudoscientists. In general, pseudoscience does not follow the rules of science because it cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. Instead, it hides in complicated scientific language that gives it credibility. Or it uses false arguments or [hominem] attacks to discredit those that put their allegations in question. Since most people don't have a clue of the scientific method, they are easily fooled by this type of mambo jumbo which thrives on ignorance. This a well known machination and it's called agnotology ("the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology. --Charles danten (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, even though Marino and Lilienfield are anti dolphin captivity, it doesn't mean at all that their arguments are incorrect. This is shooting the messenger or an ad hominem attack. They are anti dolphin because as the world's most competent dolphin specialists, they know darn well what the end result is for dolphins, and children as well, for that matter. Parents who are trying to do their best to help their children, understandingly so, are misled. As a result they abandon safer and more effective methods that are offered by social services and various other outfits. In their 1984 beacon article, scientists Beck and Katcher have specified this. --Charles danten (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact is: Nathason's studies and work in general are deeply flawed. Thats the only thing that matters.--Charles danten (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin Human Therapy

Dolphin Human Therapy (DHT), Inc., is a private company providing individualized rehabilitation programs for special needs children and adults. Since 1989, DHT has conducted over 50,000 therapy sessions representing families from 39 states and 60 countries.DHT's effectiveness is due to a simple principle-participants interact with the dolphins as a reward only after they have correctly completed their work.

DHT helps participants improve rapidly. DHT does not cure or prevent injury, illness, or disability. Common participant diagnoses are cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and autism, although DHT treats all disabilities.

DHT helps improve skills in speech/language, motor areas, behavior, etc. The DHT program is also family interactive. The staff encourages input and participation from parents, teachers, therapists, and physicians.DHT believes that family involvement, support, and follow-up is essential to the future success of special needs children and adults.

What DHT parents say... "During therapy Angelina was treated in a very professional way- but our therapist made learning fun! The therapist and the dolphin were amazing. Although we have had the best therapy at home- my sweetheart became more awake and active through Dolphin Human Therapy. I myself am totally amazed at the results and am motivated to follow up at home with what I learned so I can help my daughter further. Everyone at DHT is overwhelmingly wonderful and I hope more children will be able to benefit from your help."

WHY IS DHT EFFECTIVE? The skill of the professional staff, involved parents, and the power of interaction with dolphins to motivate the children are the critical elements in the DHT program. When these three elements work together effectively, wonderful things happen!

The theory and research behind Dolphin Human Therapy is that children and adults will increase attention if they can earn a meaningful reward. A behavior modification procedure is used to reward (interaction with the dolphins) the person for correct cognitive, physical or affective response. Ideally the program “jump starts” the child or adult. DHT complements and reinforces therapies or other procedures used in more traditional helping approaches. Improving motivation and confidence are critical for success in almost anything. DHT gives parents, other care givers and professionals a solid base of knowledge and skills to continue applying program techniques when the family returns home.

Dorothy, 2004

What DHT parents say... "We are very enthusiastic about DHT, because now back home at school, Pierre is more self confident; his self-esteem has improved in all aspects of his life and he is no longer a fragile boy. I thank the whole team under the "FLORIDA SUNSHINE."

Claudia, 2003

WHO WILL BE CONSULTING WITH YOU?

David E. Nathanson, Ph.D. is the founder and President of Dolphin Human Therapy (DHT). "Dr. Dave" has over 30 years experience working with special needs children and dolphins. He is a retired professor from Florida International University, and the author of dozens of professional scientific papers. He is a psychologist with post doctoral training in neuropsychology, medical disabilities and behavioral medicine. His Ph.D. is from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Nathanson has assembled a team of highly credentialed and experienced therapists from fields such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech language pathology and special education.

Dolphin Human Therapy has been featured world wide in more than 1000 newspapers, magazines, and television productions. DHT has appeared on most major networks in the world on shows like Today, Good Morning America, 20/20, 48 Hours, Sesame Street and many others. DHT has been featured on CNN, Animal Planet, The Discovery Channel, The Disney Channel, BBC, German, Japanese, Korean, Mexican. French, and other international networks. Our story has appeared on seven magazine covers and in People, The Sunday Times, Marie Claire, Cromos, You, VSD, Parenting, Weekly Reader, and dozens more.

Nathanson, D.E. 1998. Long term effectiveness of dolphin assisted therapy for children with severe disabilities. Anthrozoos 11(1):22-32.

Where research was conducted: Dolphins Plus, Key Largo, Florida, and Miami Seaquarium, Miami, Florida.

When research was conducted: 1995-1997.

Research subjects: Seventy-one sets of parents from 8 countries. Diagnoses of children included Angelman syndrome, Asperger syndrome, attention deficit disorder, autism, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, Down syndrome, hydrocephaly, microcephaly, pervasive developmental disorder, Rett syndrome, traumatic brain injury, tuberous sclerosis.

Question Investigated: Are the gains made in two weeks of Dolphin Human Therapy maintained or improved after at least one year away from Dolphin Human Therapy?

Results: Children maintained or improved skills about 50% of the time on 15 measures of behavior.

ABSTRACT: Long-term effectiveness of dolphin assisted therapy, as practiced by Dolphin Human Therapy, was analyzed via a 15 item closed form, ratio scale parent questionnaire (n = 71). Children with severe disabilities of many etiologies, from 8 countries, received either one or two weeks of therapy in the multidisciplinary, behavior modification program. Results on three clinical issues were analyzed. First, children maintained or improved skills acquired in therapy about 50% of the time even after 12 months away from therapy. Second, no difference in long-term effects occurred as a function of differences in the three categories (genetic, brain damage, unknown causes) of etiology (ANOVA, F (2,39) = 2.79, p > .05). Third, two weeks of therapy produced significantly better long-term results than did one week of therapy (t = 3.105, df = 28. p < .01).

Nathanson, D.E., de Castro, D., Friend, H., & McMahon. M. 1997. Effectiveness of short-term dolphin assisted therapy for children with severe disabilities. Anthrozoos. 10(2/3):90-100.

Where research was conducted: Dolphins Plus, Key Largo, Florida.

When research was conducted: 1995-1996.

Research subjects: Forty-seven children, 2-3 years of age (19 with cerebral palsy, 11 with brain damage, 5 with Down syndrome, 4 with Autism, 2 with Rett syndrome, 2 with tuberculosis, 1 with Cri-du-chat, and 1 with head injury).

Question Investigated: Can two weeks of the Dolphin Human Therapy program achieve the same or better results than six months of conventional physical or speech therapy?

Results: Significantly greater improvement and more cost effective treatment results from intensive therapy with Dolphin Human Therapy.

ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of two week dolphin-assisted therapy was compared to the effectiveness of six month conventional physical and speech-language therapy. Data were analyzed using a multiple baseline single subject across settings design, for 47 children with severe disabilities (20 females, 27 males), of multiple etiologies. Children were placed in a physical therapy group (n = 17, mean age = 6 years, 8 months) and a speech-language group (n = 30, mean age = 6 years, 5 months). Standardized charting procedures were used to measure acquisition of independent motor and speech-language skills. Use of t tests for non-independent samples indicates that relative to conventional long-term therapy, dolphin-assisted therapy, as practiced by Dolphin Human Therapy, achieves positive results more quickly and is also more cost effective.

Nathanson, D.E. & de Faria, S. 1993. Cognitive improvement of children in water with and without dolphins. Anthrozoos 6(1):17-29.

Where research was conducted: Dolphin Research Center, Grassy Key, Florida

When research was conducted: 1992.

Research subjects: Eight children, 3-8 years of age (4 with Down syndrome, 3 with cerebral palsy, 1 with brain damage).

Results: Children did well in water using their favorite toy for reinforcement, but achieved significantly better results in water with dolphin interaction as reinforcement.

ABSTRACT: Orienting nonverbal responses and verbal responses of eight children with mental disabilities interacting in water with dolphins and in water with favorite toys away from dolphins were recorded and analyzed on videotape. Significant improvements in hierarchical cognitive responses occurred when interaction with dolphins was used as reinforcement compared with improvements made when the reinforcement used was a favorite toy. Water work with dolphins evoked a greater number of and higher level responses than without dolphins.

Nathanson, D.E. 1989. Using Atlantic bottlenose dolphins to increase cognition of mentally retarded children. In Clinical and Abnormal Psychology, 233-242, ed. P. Lovibond and P. Wilson. North Holland: Elsevier.

Where research was conducted: Dolphin Research Center, Grassy Key, Florida.

When research was conducted: 1988.

Research Subjects: Six children, 2-6 years of age (3 with Down syndrome, 1 with hydrocephaly, 1 with brain damage, 1 multiply handicapped.)

Question Investigated: Can pilot study results from 1978-1979 study be replicated using larger sample size, over a more concentrated period of time, using in water interaction to increase attention span and language skills?

Results: Children learned two to ten times faster and with greater retention (compared to classroom setting) when working with dolphins.

ABSTRACT: Atlantic bottlenose dolphins were used to help increase cognition for mentally retarded boys (three with Down syndrome; one with hydrocephaly, one with brain damage due to meningitis: one with a rare genetic anomaly) were taught new vocabulary words through interaction with dolphins. Novelty, prior learning, order and position effects were all controlled. Multiple baseline across subjects single single subject research design was used to assess the effect of interaction with dolphins on speech and memory. Line drawings were presented on boards in treatment in the water by humans and dolphins and in baseline in a classroom away from the dolphins. All research was videotaped. Results indicated children learned two to ten times faster and with greater retention when working with dolphins. Benefits include new evidence of the efficacy of using nonhuman species to help humans improve cognition. Nathanson, D.E. 1980. Dolphins and Kids: A communication experiment. Congress proceedings of the XVI World Assembly of the World Organization for Preschool Education, pp. 447-51. Where research was conducted: Ocean World, Fort Lauderdale, Florida When research was conducted: 1978-1979. Research subjects: Two children with Down syndrome. Question investigated: Can interaction (from poolside) with dolphins increase attention span and language skills for disabled children more than conventional methods? Results: The non-verbal boy was four times as likely to properly respond to the dolphin as he was to respond to his mother, while the verbal girl remembered 13% more vocabulary words when she worked with the dolphin. Dolphins, as intelligent, social, marine mammals are able to increase attention to a task for retarded children. The potential for future dolphin research includes more complex learning tasks with other types of handicapped children, including placing children in the water with the dolphins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autism therapy (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Autism therapy (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All these claims have been debunked by the world's best dolphin specialist Marino and lilienfield, see critic of zootherapy.--Charles danten (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Scientific language does not make a science. M. Nathanson has an obvious conflict of interest as owner of the dolphin therapy outfit.

Accidentally left over copy of information from criticism section above

In a beacon article published in 1984 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, American scientists Alan M. Beck and Aaron Honori Katcher warned of the poor quality of research being conducted in animal-assisted therapy. They debunked the claimed benefits of pets so thoroughly that it is a wonder that the pet industry bothers to continue “research” in this field with such unrelenting intensity.

1984 was a long time ago! I haven't the time at the moment (Xmas and all the RL stuff out there) to put a lot of time, energy or focus into this article, but there unquestionably have been subsequent studies from the mainstream scientific community that hold the opposite view. My thinking is that we just need to look it over and improve it as time permits. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. It was left over from my looking for potential sources. Any problems if I remove it and these responses? --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we not demolish the house while it's still being built by random deletions of things that can form the core of an improved article. Let it sit with an appropriate tag if you think it's unreliable or whatever. I find that stripping an article down to nothing tends to just condemn it to stubhood, tagging certain problematic areas is a better solution. Montanabw^(talk) 01:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats the main problem, there are no important quantitative studies to this day to substantiate any of the claims made by the proponents of this therapy. It does have a placebo effect in about 30 % of people like most placebos but its short lived. This explains partially why humane societies and pounds are overwhelmed.--Charles danten (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Old external links

These might be worth reviewing to see if any contain material that could be used within the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oakley, Dawn., and Bardin, Gail., The Potential Benefits of Animal Assisted Therapy for Children With Special Needs. Retrieved April 9, 2006.
• Assistance Dogs International
• Equine Guided Education Association
• Delta Society - The Human-Animal Health Connection
• HOPE Animal-Assisted Crisis Response - "Comfort in times of crises"
• Reading Education Assistance Dogs (R.E.A.D.)
• Elephant Therapy
• Equine Assisted Psychotherapy - "Equine Assisted Growth and Learning Association"
• Canine Assisted Therapy, Inc.

Thanks for putting these here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

None of these links are neutral. They are all links to outfits that offer that type of service. What you need here are scientific from respected scientific journal not marketing pamphlets. --Charles danten (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of large section

As proposed by Charles danten 6 March 2012:

6 March 2012 Proposal

Criticism of zootherapy or animal-assisted therapy Zootherapy is thought to contribute to better health, stimulate good conduct in children, redeem delinquents, help autistic and disabled children improve, increase the survival rate of cancer patients, facilitate social interactions, relieve loneliness and help animals improve their lot. However, this claim is unsustantiated by science. How science works In science, there are basically two approaches to conducting research: 1. Descriptive or hypothesis-generating studies (qualitative studies). These are presented in the form of anecdotal reports. This kind of study is extremely useful in identifying novel phenomena. They help form a hypothesis, which must then be validated by more controlled studies. They rarely demonstrate the value of a treatment or the existence of a causal relationship. Anecdotal reports and expert opinions are the weakest form of medical evidence. Unless they are documented by hard facts, they do not make a science. 2. Studies designed to test a hypothesis (quantitative studies). Newly discovered phenomena are tested with experimental studies that utilize carefully constructed control groups and allow for the possibility that the hypothesis being tested is false large-scale epidemiologic surveys. In other words, it is not enough to “know” something is true; one must prove it by following standard protocols. These are devised to eliminate any biases, which could influence the results and conclusions of a study and thus lead a scientist astray. The objective of good science is more about disproving a theory than proving it. Good science always leaves the door open to revision of accepted truths. But one must be extra cautious here because a study of the second type mentioned above can be as flawed as one from the first category. The psychological hang-ups and mental mechanisms of its users being the principal Achilles’ heel of science, before yelling “Eureka!” one must consider the quality of the scientific methodology used, the source of financing, as well as the affiliations of the researchers. Where does zootherapy stand? Almost all of the studies on the benefits of pets fit into the first category. The contributions of pioneers like New York psychiatrist Boris Levinson are merely simple anecdotal observations rather than scientific experiments. Yet these are the type of studies that are used by the pet industry to promote the benefits of zootherapy. In a critical article published in 1984 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, American scientists Alan M. Beck and Aaron Honori Katcher warned of the poor quality of research being conducted in animal-assisted therapy. They debunked the claimed benefits of pets so thoroughly that it is a wonder that the pet industry bothers to continue “research” in this field with such unrelenting intensity. In 1997, epidemiologist Dr. T. Allen reported in the above publication, “Most reports describing the effects of human-canine interactions fall into categories at the bottom of the hierarchy ladder [of scientific validity].” Drs. K. A. Kruger and J. A. Serpell concluded: “While impressive in their variety and scope, not a single theory has been adequately tested empirically, and most studies have returned equivocal or conflicting results when the necessary testing has been attempted.” A finding corroborated in 2010 by scientists Anna Chur-Hansen, Cindy Stern and Helen Winefield. Alleged esoteric nature of pets Some proponents of this therapy claim that animals possess unique properties, of undetermined nature. Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell (2008). Book cited.</ref> However, this claim is farfetched. Animals have no magical power. There is unequivocal evidence that robots designed for this purpose do just as well without the problems associated with the use of animals (this technology is developing at lightning speed mainly in Japan). Alleged Educational Benefits Parents buy animals for their children not only for the company, but also because they believe that having a pet will teach their kids to become better human beings—more loving, responsible, and respectful, not only towards their own kind, but also in regards to nature and other species in general. It is commonly thought that children who are raised with a pet have a greater sense of empathy and compassion. None of these assertions is true. If you think having a pet makes children more loving and respectful of other species and nature, think again. The problem is in the very concept of pet. Sometimes, it is cruel to be kind. An animal constrained to life in an environment that is not its own is subjected to an almost constant disequilibrium. Impoverished by captivity, bored by inactivity, it necessarily develops a host of neurotic behaviors due to the emotional ties of total dependence and to the lack of factors that it needs to incarnate its true nature. Says psychiatrist Hubert Montagner in a speech given in 1998 at the French Information Center on Pets: "Man does not hesitate to control every aspect of his animals’ existence. He tampers with his appearance. He confines it to spaces under his control, imposing exclusive or near-exclusive proximity. He limits his communication with others like it. He selects for behaviors that meet his expectations and conditions his animal to follow rituals. He imposes his whims and self-serving decisions. He encloses it within his own emotions and projections." Such systematic violation is the very negation of true love and empathy. And various shows of affection do not make things right. Professor Yi-Fu Tuan of Yale University shows in his book Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets how affection, a latent form of violence, is used as an instrument of power: “Love is not what makes the world go around. […] There remains affection. However, affection is not the opposite of dominance: rather it is dominance’s anodyne – it is dominance with a human face. Dominance may be cruel and exploitative, with no hint of affection in it. What it produces is the victim. On the other hand, dominance may be combined with affection, and what it produces is the pet. […] Affection mitigates domination, making it softer and more acceptable, but affection itself is possible only in relationships of inequality. It is the warm and superior feeling one has towards things that one can care for and patronize. The word care so exudes humaneness that we tend to forget its almost inevitable tainting by patronage and condescension.” Alleged General Health Benefits If you think walking the dog keeps you fit, think again. In a comparative study (a type 2 study), professor Mike Kelly of Greenwich University showed that walking without a dog is far healthier than walking with one. Because of the dog’s numerous “pit stops” along the way – which the researchers called “lamppost syndrome” – the owner’s heart is never sufficiently stimulated to benefit. After only 14 weeks, the weight, cholesterol levels, and blood pressures of the non-owners were much lower than of those of the group that owned dogs. Overall, the general health of the group without four-legged companions was much better than that of the group saddled with canine company. Friedman's study on the effects of pets on the heart has very little scientific validity. Yet this study is cited over and over by the pet industry (see above). A Finnish study published in 2006, which surveyed 21,000 Finnish adults aged 20 to 54, is one of the few independent studies that has looked at the effects of pets on the general population. In this type 2 study (one designed to test a hypothesis), scientists Leena K. Koivusilta and Ansa Ojanlatva showed that pet owners are sick more often and do a below-average amount of exercise: 26% of the pet owners in the study were overweight, compared with 21% for those who did not have pets; 16% of the pet owners exercised less than once a month in comparison to 2% for those without pets. The risk of having health problems is from 10% to 20% higher in pet owners than in non-pet owners, even when factors such as age and socio-economic level are considered. This is comparable to the risk in bachelors, widowers, and divorcees. Overall, this study associated pet ownership with poor, rather than good, health. Alleged Benefits for Disabled and Autistic children In 2007, in a paper entitled “Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions,” Emory University psychologists Lori Marino and Scott Lilienfeld concluded: “Nearly a decade following our initial review, there remains no compelling evidence that Dolphin-Assisted therapy (DAT) is a legitimate therapy, or that it affords any more than a fleeting improvement in mood. [...] The claims for efficacy of DAT remain invalid. [...] The studies [reviewed] were either too small, prone to some obvious bias, or offered no long-term perspective. [...] The evidence that it [DAT] produces enduring improvement in the core symptoms of any psychological disorder is nil. […]” What Marino and Lilienfeld have found about dolphin-assisted therapy is true for any type of animal-assisted therapy. After more than 60 years of intense “research” and countless articles published there is no evidence to this day that animal therapy works to combat any form of disability, disease, or condition, psychological or otherwise. Alleged Redeeming Benefits for Prisoners Some of the most influential studies on the redeeming qualities of pets, like the prison study of David Lee, were never published in scientific journals. These “studies”, were never pier reviewed, according to scientists Beck and Katcher, “they were taken from published proceedings, documentary films, personal communications, or internal documents. There were also frequent citations from articles in the popular press and newsletters.” Alleged Social Benefits Despite the commonplace belief that pets offer their owners an opportunity for increased contact with other people, French sociologist Jean Yonnet explains that the opposite is more likely true: “The twice-daily obligation of taking one’s dog for a walk appears to be insufficient to promote the social interactions attributed to zootherapy, and all the more so for cats, which are more popular than dogs and hardly ever leave their apartments. In addition, the presence of an animal on the street can be just as easily an obstacle to haphazard social interaction as a facilitator of it. In reality, the dog walker often has to keep far away from others because of the fear he arouses (in children, in the presence of other, incompatible dogs, out of fear of allergies or of dogs in general).” People whose lives are socially unsatisfactory often try to spice things up by acquiring an animal, but there is no evidence to this day that having a pet truly relieves loneliness. Sharing thoughts and feelings with a person, animal, or object that cannot challenge you may lead to emotional hyper-dependence. Children, as well as immature adults, are particularly vulnerable to the trap. This phenomenon of psychological transference is well known to psychologists. In other words, the contemplation of self through the distorting prism of an object or an animal that will not or cannot set you straight is both a shelter and a danger. The systematic escape from existential problems short-circuits one of nature’s most potent agents of change: sorrow. Only sorrow can make us appreciate the urgent need of change. Those who avoid it at all costs suffer countless negative effects on their relationships and on life in general. Escapism has become a way of life in our consumer society. Alleged Effects on Cancer Patients Some children undergoing chemotherapy are said to be calmer and to have a better attitude in the presence of an animal, as shown by a lower-than-normal cortisol level in their blood. This is an empirical measure of their psychological state, but the observation says little about the effectiveness of the treatment. Also in question is the link of the animal itself to the observed decrease in anxiety. It could have more to do with the novelty of the situation, the demonstration of interest in the child, or the presence of a reassuring person close by. A game, a clown, a parent, or a friend might be just as effective if not more so, as many children are uncomfortable with animals. Pseudoscience When brief psychotherapies were introduced in the 1960s, positive thinking was popularized almost to the point of becoming a religion. These therapeutic methods were not conceived to cure, but rather to soothe patients just enough so they could go back to work and lead a so-called normal life. Zootherapy, or animal-assisted therapy, which became trendy at that time, is an offshoot of this line of thinking, as the following quote from Dr. Levinson clearly establishes: “The magnitude of the problem [troubled children] is so great that, within the foreseeable future, it will be impossible to meet these mental hygiene needs through conventional psychiatric channels. Some other resource must be found to alleviate distress, even if only temporarily. Such results can be achieved through the use of pets—as therapeutic agents.” The word “therapeutic” used by Dr. Levinson is misleading, though. While a session with a pet can elicit positive feelings and enthusiasm, so can travel, movies, friends, children, clowns, and ice cream. The effect is anything but therapeutic in the true medical sense of the word, meaning “curative.” The words “placebo”, “quick-fix” or “recreational” are more appropriate. This distinction is vital because most people active in the field of pet-assisted therapy, or psychotherapy for that matter, use the word “therapy” to rationalize the edification of this aspirin into science, and by the same token, increase its perceived value and consumption. Scientific language alone does not make a science. In fact, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the use of such language—along with sensationalism—to cover its failures. The therapeutic value of zootherapy is of the same nature as that of gambling, binge eating, and drinking: it provides a transient, feel-good experience, but at a high cost not only to people but to animals.

Fourth proposed rewrite of large section

As proposed by Charles Danten 10 March 2012:

Criticism of zootherapy or animal-assisted therapy

Almost all of the studies on the benefits of pets are descriptive or hypothesis generating studies. Studies of this kind have very little scientific weight. The contributions of pioneers like New York psychiatrist Boris Levinson are merely simple anecdotal observations rather than scientific experiments. Yet these are the type of studies that are used to promote the benefits of zootherapy. In a seminal article published in 1984 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, American scientists Alan M. Beck and Aaron Honori Katcher warned of the poor quality of research being conducted in animal-assisted therapy. In 1997, epidemiologist Dr. T. Allen after reviewing more than a 1000 studies reported in the above publication, “most reports describing the effects of human-canine interactions fall into categories at the bottom of the hierarchy ladder [of scientific validity].” Dr Allen did not find one single study that wasn't a descriptive study or hypothesis generating study of the kind just described.. In 2008, Drs. K. A. Kruger and J. A. Serpell concluded: “While impressive in their variety and scope, not a single theory has been adequately tested empirically, and most studies have returned equivocal or conflicting results when the necessary testing has been attempted.” A finding corroborated in 2010 by scientists Anna Chur-Hansen, Cindy Stern and Helen Winefield.--Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Esoteric nature of pets

Theories on the mechanisms responsible for the alleged therapeutic benefits of pets tend to center on the notion that animals possess unique attributes that can facilitate and contribute to therapy. However, this claim is unfounded. Animals have no "magical" power of their own. There is unequivocal evidence that robots designed for this purpose do just as well without the problems associated with the use of animals (this technology is developing at lightning speed mainly in Japan).--Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Educational Benefits

Parents buy animals for their children not only for the company, but also because they believe that having a pet will teach their kids to become better human beings—more loving, responsible, and respectful, not only towards their own kind, but also in regards to nature and other species in general. It is commonly thought that children who are raised with a pet have a greater sense of empathy and compassion.

These assertions are unfounded. Pets do not make children more loving and respectful of other species and nature. The problem is in the very concept of pet. An animal constrained to life in an environment that is not its own is subjected to an almost constant disequilibrium. Impoverished by captivity, bored by inactivity, it necessarily develops a host of neurotic behaviors due to the emotional ties of total dependence and to the lack of factors that it needs to incarnate its true nature. Says psychiatrist Hubert Montagner in a speech given in 1998 at the French Information Center on Pets: "Man does not hesitate to control every aspect of his animals’ existence. He tampers with his appearance. He confines it to spaces under his control, imposing exclusive or near-exclusive proximity. He limits his communication with others like it. He selects for behaviors that meet his expectations and conditions his animal to follow rituals. He imposes his whims and self-serving decisions. He encloses it within his own emotions and projections."

Such systematic violation is the very negation of true love and empathy. As Professor Yi-Fu Tuan of Yale University shows in his book Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets, various shows of affection such as having your pet vaccinated do not make things right. As stated by Prof. Tuan, affection, a latent form of violence, is often used as an instrument of power: “Love is not what makes the world go around. […] There remains affection. However, affection is not the opposite of dominance: rather it is dominance’s anodyne – it is dominance with a human face. Dominance may be cruel and exploitative, with no hint of affection in it. What it produces is the victim. On the other hand, dominance may be combined with affection, and what it produces is the pet. […] Affection mitigates domination, making it softer and more acceptable, but affection itself is possible only in relationships of inequality. It is the warm and superior feeling one has towards things that one can care for and patronize. The word care so exudes humaneness that we tend to forget its almost inevitable tainting by patronage and condescension.” --Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

General Health Benefits

In a comparative study (a type 2 study), professor Mike Kelly of Greenwich University showed that walking without a dog is far healthier than walking with one. Because of the dog’s numerous “pit stops” along the way – which the researchers called “lamppost syndrome” – the owner’s heart is never sufficiently stimulated to benefit. After only 14 weeks, the weight, cholesterol levels, and blood pressures of the non-owners were much lower than of those of the group that owned dogs. Overall, the general health of the group without four-legged companions was much better than that of the group saddled with canine company.

The Friedman's study on the effects of pets on the heart has very little scientific validity. Yet this study is cited over and over by the proponents of this therapy (see above).

A Finnish study published in 2006, which surveyed 21,000 Finnish adults aged 20 to 54, is one of the few independent studies that has looked at the effects of pets on the general population. In this rare quantitative study (one designed to test a hypothesis), scientists Leena K. Koivusilta and Ansa Ojanlatva showed that pet owners are sick more often and do a below-average amount of exercise: 26% of the pet owners in the study were overweight, compared with 21% for those who did not have pets; 16% of the pet owners exercised less than once a month in comparison to 2% for those without pets. The risk of having health problems is from 10% to 20% higher in pet owners than in non-pet owners, even when factors such as age and socio-economic level are considered. This is comparable to the risk in bachelors, widowers, and divorcees. Overall, this study associated pet ownership with poor, rather than good, health. --Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Benefits for Disabled and Autistic children

In 2007, in a paper entitled “Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions,” two of the world's most respected dolphin specialists, Emory University psychologists Lori Marino and Scott Lilienfeld concluded: “Nearly a decade following our initial review, there remains no compelling evidence that Dolphin-Assisted therapy (DAT) is a legitimate therapy, or that it affords any more than a fleeting improvement in mood. [...] The claims for efficacy of DAT remain invalid. [...] The studies [reviewed] were either too small, prone to some obvious bias, or offered no long-term perspective. [...] The evidence that it [DAT] produces enduring improvement in the core symptoms of any psychological disorder is nil. […]” A conclusion confirmed by a meta-analysis done by Tracy L. Humphries.

What Marino and Lilienfeld have found about dolphin-assisted therapy is also true for any type of animal-assisted therapy. After more than 60 years of “research” and countless articles published there is no evidence to this day that animal therapy works to combat any form of disability, disease, or condition, psychological or otherwise, beyond a short-lived placebo effect.--Charles danten (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)--Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Redeeming Benefits for Prisoners

Some of the most influential studies on the redeeming qualities of pets, like the prison study of David Lee, were never published in scientific journals. These “studies”, were never pier reviewed, according to scientists Beck and Katcher, “they were taken from published proceedings, documentary films, personal communications, or internal documents. There were also frequent citations from articles in the popular press and newsletters.” --Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Effects on Cancer Patients

Some children undergoing chemotherapy are said to be calmer and to have a better attitude in the presence of an animal, as shown by a lower-than-normal cortisol level in their blood. This is an empirical measure of their psychological state, but the observation says little about the effectiveness of the treatment. Also in question is the link of the animal itself to the observed decrease in anxiety. It could have more to do with the novelty of the situation, the demonstration of interest in the child, or the presence of a reassuring person close by. A game, a clown, a parent, or a friend might be just as effective if not more so, as many children are uncomfortable with animals.--Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Social Benefits

Despite the commonplace belief that pets offer their owners an opportunity for increased contact with other people, French sociologist Jean Yonnet explains that the opposite is more likely true:

“The twice-daily obligation of taking one’s dog for a walk appears to be insufficient to promote the social interactions attributed to zootherapy, and all the more so for cats, which are more popular than dogs and hardly ever leave their apartments. In addition, the presence of an animal on the street can be just as easily an obstacle to haphazard social interaction as a facilitator of it. In reality, the dog walker often has to keep far away from others because of the fear he arouses (in children, in the presence of other, incompatible dogs, out of fear of allergies or of dogs in general).”

People whose lives are socially unsatisfactory often try to spice things up by acquiring an animal, but there is no evidence to this day that having a pet truly relieves loneliness. Sharing thoughts and feelings with a person, animal, or object that cannot challenge you may lead to emotional hyper-dependence. Children, as well as immature adults, are particularly vulnerable to the trap. This phenomenon of psychological transference is well known to psychologists. In other words, the contemplation of self through the distorting prism of an object or an animal that will not or cannot set you straight is both a shelter and a danger.

The systematic escape from existential problems short-circuits one of nature’s most potent agents of change: sorrow. Only sorrow can make us appreciate the urgent need of change. Those who avoid it at all costs suffer countless negative effects on their relationships and on life in general. Escapism has become a way of life in our consumer society.--Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles danten (talk • contribs)

References

Conclusion

Although many studies have shown a positive effect of AAT, the poor quality of the evidence and the scale of the methodological flaws that are associated with this type of research are a cause for concern. The long term effects of this therapy are not documented. ATT appears to have a mere entertaining or placebo effect of short duration. It is not curative. Independent, large epidemiological studies as well as double blind studies are rare. The few available studies of this type have not substantiated the claims of AAT. No studies have taken into account the adverse effects of ATT on animals and nature as well as on humans for that matter. Zoonoses, bites and various other injuries, hygiene issues, for example, are not taken seriously enough. The use of animals for strictly self-serving reasons of questionable necessity is hard to justify. The immorality of making a pet out of an animal opens the door to every conceivable type of abuse. There are various other cruelty-free ways of attaining the same results. Our treatment of animals is a reflection of our treatment of others. --Charles danten (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• comment can this be worked on in userspace as this seems a messy location to do it? Also, wikipedia is not a reliable source, suggested text should not cite it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the tone more agreeable, however do we really need to keep repeating "alleged" in each of the titles.[[3]]. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, It seems bad style. The references to wikipedia should also be removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree about using the term alleged as well as the references to wikipedia. I have removed the term alleged--Charles danten (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many quality references in french that can be used.--Charles danten (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)