Monday, December 22, 2014

How pets improve social capital

The pet connection: pets as a conduit for social capital?

Lisa Wood, Billie Giles-Corti, Max Bulsara; School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia
Social Science and Medicine 61 (2005) 1159-1173

theoretical variations (

Wall, Ferrazzi, & Schryer, 1998

There is growing interest across a range of disciplines in the relationship between pets and health, with a range of therapeutic, physiological, psychological and psychosocial benefits now documented. While much of the literature has focused on the individual benefits of pet ownership, this study considered the potential health benefits that might accrue to the broader community, as encapsulated in the construct of social capital. A random survey of 339 adult residents from Perth, Western Australia were selected from three suburbs and interviewed by telephone. Pet ownership was found to be positively associated with some forms of social contact and interaction, and with perceptions of neighbourhood friendliness. After adjustment for demographic variables, pet owners scored higher on social capital and civic engagement scales. The results suggest that pet ownership provides potential opportunities for interactions between neighbours and that further research in this area is warranted. Social capital is another potential mechanism by which pets exert an influence on human health.

http://www.ccac.net.au/files/The_pet_connection.pdf

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Dog and health benefits for adolescents

J Prev Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jul 12, 2012.

Published in final edited form as:

Am J Prev Med. Mar 2011; 40(3): 334–337.

doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.11.007

PMCID: PMC3395162

NIHMSID: NIHMS266326

Dog Ownership and Adolescent Physical Activity

John R. Sirard, PhD, Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, Mary O. Hearst, PhD, and Melissa N. Laska, PhD, RD

Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Am J Prev Med

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Abstract

Background

Positive associations between dog ownership and adult health outcomes have been observed, but research involving youth is lacking.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of family dog ownership to adolescent and parent physical activity, weight status, and metabolic risk factors.

Methods

Data were collected on dog ownership in 618 adolescent/parent pairs between 9/2006 and 6/2008 and analyzed in 2010. Adolescent physical activity was assessed by ActiGraph accelerometers. Trained staff measured blood pressure, height and weight, and percentage body fat was calculated by impedance. A subsample of adolescents (n=318) opted for a fasting blood draw used to derive a metabolic risk cluster score. Parents and adolescents provided consent and assent, respectively.

Results

Adolescents’ mean age was 14.6±1.8 years and 49% were male. White and higher SES adolescents were more likely to own a dog. In models adjusted for age, puberty, gender, race, total household members and SES, adolescent physical activity (mean counts min⁻¹ day⁻¹) remained significantly associated with dog ownership (β=24.3, SE=12.4, p=0.05) while the association with minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity day⁻¹ became nonsignificant (β=2.2, SE=1.2, p=0.07). No significant results were observed for other adolescent characteristics.

Conclusions

Dog ownership was associated with more physical activity among adolescents. Further research using longitudinal data will help clarify the role that dog ownership may have on adolescent physical activity.

Go to:

INTRODUCTION

Physical inactivity is a major public health problem¹^–³ and may play a substantial role in the etiology of youth obesity and type II diabetes.⁴^–⁶ Recently, dog ownership has been positively associated with health-related factors among middle-aged and older adults, including physical activity,⁷^–¹² weight,⁹ and mental health.¹³^–¹⁶ However, there is little information about the associations between dog ownership and youth health behaviors and outcomes. The family dog may provide external motivation for physical activity similar to having a walking or workout partner—a common method used to increase exercise adherence. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of family dog ownership to adolescent physical activity, screen time and related health outcomes. It was hypothesized that dog ownership would be positively associated with physical activity and negatively associated with weight status, screen time and other health outcomes.

Go to:

METHODS

Samples

Adolescent participants were enrolled in one of two cohort studies: (1) the Identifying Determinants of Eating and Activity Study (IDEA, 2006–2007) and (2) the Etiology of Childhood Obesity Study (ECHO, 2007–2008). Both studies were conducted within the metropolitan area of Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota, and included identical measurement protocols. These samples were combined in order to provide a larger and more diverse sample. Both studies have been described previously.¹⁷^–¹⁸

Measures

Data were collected during a 2-hour clinic visit with an optional supplemental study including a fasting blood draw. All study protocols were approved by the University of Minnesota IRB.

Independent variable

Dog ownership was self-reported by parents by asking “How many dogs are in your home?” Response options of “0”, 1”, “2”, and “3 or more” were recoded to “none” and “one or more”.

Dependent variables

The ActiGraph accelerometer, model 7164 (ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL) was used to collect 7 days of physical activity data using standard right hip placement and 30-second epochs (data collection intervals).¹⁹^,²⁰ ActiGraph data were reduced using the ActiProcess software ²¹ which employs imputation based on the Expectation Maximization algorithm. Summary physical activity variables were calculated using the Freedson age-specific count cutoffs ²² distinguishing moderate- and vigorous-intensity based on age-adjusted METs.²³^,²⁴ Mean accelerometer counts per minute were also calculated as a measure of total movement.

Adolescent screen time behavior was assessed via self-administered surveys using items adapted from previous studies to determine mean screen time hours on weekdays and weekends.²⁵^–²⁷

Covariates

Adolescents reported their gender and age; parents reported the number of people living in the household, if their child qualified for free or reduced priced lunch (FRL, Y/N), and highest level of education among the adults living in the household (≥College degree, Y/N). Adolescents completed the self-report Pubertal Development Scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.77)²⁸ to control for puberty’s confounding effects when examining associations with BMI and body fat.

Analysis

Analyses were conducted in 2010 using SAS v. 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Only one parent/adolescent dyad from each household was included in these analyses. Unadjusted analyses included t-tests to determine differences by dog ownership category and Spearman correlations to determine bivariate associations between dog ownership and dependent variables. Subsequent regression analyses were conducted using those variables with p<0.05 in correlational analyses. PROC GENMOD (General Estimating Equations) was used for linear regression, adjusting for covariates, the study sample (IDEA vs ECHO), and accounting for possible clustering by school. Interactions were tested to determine if the relationship between dog ownership and the dependent variables was modified by adolescent gender and age.

Go to:

Results

After excluding dyads with missing data, the final sample was n=618. Adolescents who were white and/or not receiving FRL were more likely to be from dog-owning families (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). Mean daily minutes of Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA) was significantly greater for adolescents who owned a dog (p<0.05). See Table 1.

Table 1

Participant health-related physiologic and behavioral measures by dog ownership (n=618); M (SD) or %

Table 2 shows both measures of physical activity (accelerometer counts per minute and MVPA) were positively correlated with dog ownership (p<0.05). Therefore, these variables were evaluated in an adjusted regression model.

Table 2

Spearman correlations between dog ownership (0 vs 1+) and health-related physiologic and behavioral variables

Mean daily accelerometer counts per minute remained significantly associated with dog ownership (B = 24.3, SE = 12.4, p = 0.05) after controlling for all potential confounders. The association between dog ownership and mean daily minutes of MVPA was no longer significant (B = 2.2, SE = 1.2, p = 0.07) after controlling for confounders. There were no significant (p>0.05) interactions.

Go to:

DISCUSSION

A small but positive association was observed between dog ownership and adolescent total activity (mean daily ActiGraph counts per minute) that remained significant after controlling for a wide range of demographic confounders. Several previous studies observed similar positive associations between dog ownership and adult physical activity.¹¹ Children and adolescents may not have the primary responsibility of walking the dog but may actively play with the family dog, thus contributing to their overall minutes engaging in physical activity. However, dog walking behavior and active play with the family dog were not assessed in this study and need to be studied further. Although small, the magnitude of these associations should be considered within an ecologic perspective where physical activity is affected by multiple factors at several levels of influence.

The cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow us to determine causality between dog ownership and activity. Therefore, families with more-active children may be more likely to get a dog as a pet, rather than dogs causing youth to be more active. Longitudinal data measuring physical activity and other health outcomes before and after dog acquisition in large, representative samples are needed to address this question. Several small longitudinal studies have indicated increases in adult walking and physical activity following dog acquisition,²⁹^–³¹ but there have been no comparable studies with youth.

In addition, this study did not assess factors that could potentially moderate the association between physical activity and dog ownership, such as the size and breed of the dog, the home and neighborhood environments, the role of specific family members in walking and/or actively playing with the dog, and the level of attachment to the dog. Furthermore, the relatively healthy, homogeneous sample may have limited the ability to see stronger associations that might be more apparent with a more diverse population.

Go to:

CONCLUSION

A positive association was observed between family dog ownership and objectively measured adolescent physical activity. In contrast, dog ownership was not significantly associated with youth sedentary behavior. This study is among the first of its kind to examine such relationships among youth. Additional research is needed to further understand the associations between dog ownership and health.

Go to:

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating families and our funding sources: NCI’s Transdisciplinary Research in Energetics & Cancer Initiative (NCI Grant 1 U54 CA116849-01), Examining the Obesity Epidemic Through Youth, Family & Young Adults (PI: Robert Jeffery, PhD).

Go to:

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

Go to:

References

1. CDC. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – U.S., 2007. Morb Mortal Weekly Rep, MMWR. 2008. p. 109.

2. Pate RR, Wang CY, Dowda M, Farrell SW, O'Neill JR. Cardiorespiratory Fitness Levels Among U.S. Youth 12 to 19 Years of Age: Findings From the 1999–2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(10):1005–1012. [PubMed]

3. Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJR, et al. Evidence Based Physical Activity for School-age Youth. J Pediatr. 2005;146(6):732–737. [PubMed]

4. McGavock J, Sellers E, Dean H. Physical activity for the prevention and management of youth-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus: focus on cardiovascular complications. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2007;4(4):305–310. [PubMed]

5. Patrick K, Norman GJ, Calfas KJ, et al. Diet, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors as risk factors for overweight in adolescence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(4):385–390. [PubMed]

6. Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(5):963–975. [PubMed]

7. Bauman AE, Russell SJ, Furber SE, Dobson AJ. The epidemiology of dog walking: an unmet need for human and canine health. Med J Australia. 2001;175:632–634. [PubMed]

8. Ham S, Epping J. Dog walking and physical activity in the U.S. Prevent Chronic Dis. 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/apr/pdf/05_0106.pdf.

9. Coleman KJ, Rosenberg DE, Conway TL, et al. Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):309–312. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

10. Brown SG, Rhodes RE. Relationships among dog ownership and leisure-time walking in Western Canadian adults. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):131–136. [PubMed]

11. Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Burke V. Dog ownership, health and physical activity: A critical review of the literature. Health & Place. 2007;13(1):261–272. [PubMed]

12. Thorpe RJ, Jr., Simonsick EM, Brach JS, et al. Dog ownership, walking behavior, and maintained mobility in late life. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:1419–1424. [PubMed]

13. Albert A, Bulcroft K. Pets, families, and the life course. J Marriage Fam. 1988;50:542–552.

14. Demello LR. The effect of the presence of a companion-animal on physiological changes following the termination of cognitive stressors. Psychol Health. 1999;14:859–868.

15. Garrity TF, Stallones L, Marx MB, Johnson TP. Pet ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly. Anthrozoos. 1989;3:35–44.

16. Katcher AH. Are companion animals good for your health? Aging. 1982;331–332:2–8. [PubMed]

17. Lytle LA. Examining the etiology of childhood obesity: The IDEA Study. Am J Comm Psychol. 2009;44(3–4):338–349. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

18. Dengel DR, Hearst MO, Harmon JH, Sirard J, Heitzler CD, Lytle LA. Association of the home environment with cardiovascular and metabolic biomarkers in youth. Preventive Medicine. 2010;51:259–261. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

19. Louie L, Eston RG, Rowlands AV, et al. Validity of heart rate, pedometry, and accelerometry for estimating the energy cost of activity in Hong Kong Chinese boys. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1999;11(3):229–239.

20. Trost SG, Ward DS, Moorehead SM, Watson PD, Riner W, Burke JR. Validity of the Computer Science and Applications (CSA) activity monitor in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(4):629–633. [PubMed]

21. Catellier DJ, Hannan PJ, Murray DM, et al. Imputation of missing data when measuring physical activity by accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11 Suppl):S555–S562. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

22. Freedson PS, Sirard J, Debold E, Pate RR, Dowda M, Trost SG, Sallis JF. Calibration of the computer science and applications, inc. (csa) accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(5):S45.

23. Harrell JS, McMurray RG, Baggett CD, Pennell ML, Pearce PF, Bangdiwala SI. Energy costs of physical activities in children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(2):329–336. [PubMed]

24. Sirard JR, Welk GJ, Heitzler CD, Lytle LA. Youth accelerometer cutoffs for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity: A sensitivity analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(5 Suppl):S314.

25. Gortmaker SL, Cheung LW, Peterson KE, et al. Impact of a school-based interdisciplinary intervention on diet and physical activity among urban primary school children: eat well and keep moving. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153(9):975–983. [PubMed]

26. Utter J, Neumark-Sztainer D, Jeffery R, Story M. Couch potatoes or French fries: Are sedentary behaviors associated with body mass index, physical activity, and dietary behaviors among adolescents? J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(10):1298–1305. [PubMed]

27. Heitzler CD, Lytle LA, Erickson DJ, Sirard JR, Barr-Anderson DJ, Story M. Physical activity and sedentary activity patterns among children and adolescents: A latent class analysis approach. J Phys Act Health. In Press. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

28. Petersen A, Crockett L, Richards M, Boxer A. A self-report measure of pubertal status: reliability, validity, and initial norms. J Youth Adolesc. 1988;17(2):117–133. [PubMed]

29. Cutt H, Knuiman MW, Giles-Corti B. Does getting a dog increase recreational walking? Intl J Behavior Nutr Phys Act. 2008;Vol 5 [PMC free article] [PubMed]

30. Schofield G, Mummery K, Steele R. Dog ownership and human health-related physical activity: An epidemiological study. Health Promo J Austr. 2005;16(1):15–19. [PubMed]

31. Serpell J. Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behavior. J Royal Soc Med. 1991;84(12):717–720. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

The benefits of walking the Dog

Walking Sole Mates:
Dogs Motivating, Enabling
and Supporting Guardians’
Physical Activity
Joan Wharf Higgins*, Viviene Temple*, Holly Murray†,
Ellen Kumm‡ and Ryan Rhodes*
*School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
†Behavioural Medicine Laboratory, School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
‡Department of Health Education and Health Promotion (HEHP), University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
ABSTRACT Dog walking is receiving increasing attention in the public health literature as a strategy to improve dog guardians’ physical activity levels. Quantitative research suggests that dog guardians walk more often and for longer than non dog-guardians, and offers suggestions as to the reasons for these differences. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore dog guardians’ walking practices and relationships with their dogs, to better un- derstand how and why dog walking might become an intervention point to en- hance physical activity levels. Five focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 16 adult dog guardians. Following an initial analysis of the re- sults, 10 additional dog guardians were individually interviewed to review and confirm the findings. Four themes emerged to explain the dog-walking phe- nomenon: Transcending the human–animal distinction; Dogs as walking sole mates; Activity/health benefits; and Dogs as social conduits. We argue that an empathetic stance benefits dog guardians because, as valued family members whose health and happiness they are responsible for, their canine companions serve to motivate, enable, and sustain walking behaviors.
Keywords: dogs, family member, physical activity, qualitative data, walking
y Even with mounting evidence of the health benefits of moder- ate to intense physical activity, including moderate walking (Jakicic et al. 2008; Blair and Morris 2009), physical inactivity re-
mains a population-wide plague around the world. According to the World Health Organization (2002), 60% of the world’s population are

E-Print © ISAZ

237 Anthrozoös DOI: 10.2752/175303713X13636846944286

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

insufficiently active to reap health benefits. In North America, fewer than 5% of American and 13% of Canadian adults meet national physical activity recommendations (Troiano et al. 2008; Shields et al. 2010).
The most oft and consistently cited internal and external barriers to being active include lack of: time and skills/knowledge to engage in physical activity, social support, motivation, and enjoyment; costs associated with exercise programs or facilities; difficulty integrating physical activity into the daily routine; advancing age; poor health; and inclement weather (Chinn et al. 2006; Reichert et al. 2007; Silva et al. 2008; Brinthaupt, Kang and Anshel 2010; Choitz et al. 2010; Burchfield, Fitzhugh and Bassett 2012). Dog walking has been recognized as one of the world’s most popular recreational activities (Banks and Bryant 2007), and offers a solution to address many of these obstacles (Johnson and Meadows 2010).
In fact, health promotion research in Australia, Britain, and North America has recently turned its attention toward dog walkers, and the potential for dogs to act as motivators and supports for people to engage in moderate physical activity through daily walking (Chan et al. 2005; Schofield, Mummery and Steel 2005; Coleman et al. 2008; Oka and Shibata 2009; Johnson, Beck and McCune 2011; Reeves et al. 2011). What we do know from cross-sec- tional and longitudinal research is that dog owners1 are more active than non-dog owners (Brown and Rhodes 2006; Thorpe et al. 2006; Coleman et al. 2008; Yabroff, Troiano and Berri- gan 2008; Oka and Shibata 2009; Christian, Giles-Corti and Knuiman 2010; Lentino et al. 2012; Westgarth et al. 2012) and cite exercising through dog walking as a benefit of dog own- ership (Duvall Antonacopoulos and Pychyl 2010a). While not all dog owners admit to be the persons responsible for dog walking, about half are physically active with their dog (Bauman et al. 2001). Though promising, this line of inquiry has relied on self-report accounts from, and observational data on, dog walkers and non-dog walkers (Cutt et al. 2007; Temple, Rhodes and Wharf Higgins 2011).
Despite a comparatively large evidence base on the salutary mental, physical, and social benefits of dog guardianship and the human–companion animal bond (Serpell 1991; Beck and Meyers 1996; Tastchl, Finsterer and Stöllberger 2006; Heady and Grabka 2007; Barker and Wolen 2008; Walsh 2009a; 2009b; Epping 2011a), there is less available to explain how dogs can serve as daily prompts for their guardians’ walking behaviors. What is it about dogs that serve as important stimulators for their guardians to engage in physical activity? Quanti- tative data from the physical activity literature point to dog owners’ perceived social norms from family, other owners, and veterinarian expectations (Cutt et al. 2008a), as well as encouragement from dogs to walk (Christian, Giles-Corti and Knuiman 2010), and higher perceived benefits of dog health (Hoerster et al. 2011).
Others have argued that dog walking may support and motivate physical activity by pro- viding companionship, support, and creating expectations for care or sense of obligation (Brown and Rhodes 2006; Ham and Epping 2006; Johnson and Meadow 2010; Salmon et al. 2010; Oka and Shibata 2012). The People and Pets Exercising Together study (Kushner et al. 2006) found that two-thirds of total physical activity (mostly walking) among overweight owners was spent with their dogs, thanks in part to their pets serving as initiators of activity and walking buddies. A longitudinal study of diabetics’ physical activity practices found dog walking to be the sole type of physical activity maintained over four years (Peel et al. 2010) be- cause of the extrinsic incentive that even the “self-professed naturally lazy” (p. 574) patients believed that dogs provided. Perceived social support, companionship, and motivation of- fered by dogs, as well as accessible and appropriate dog walking infrastructure, were found

E-Print © ISAZ

238 Anthrozoös

to be important correlates of dog walking among Australians (Cutt et al. 2008b; Christian, Giles-Corti and Knuiman 2010). Perhaps more compellingly, even when adults walked shel- ter (Johnson and McKenney 2011) or therapy dogs they did not own, the “most commonly stated reason for adherence was that the dogs ‘need us to walk them’” (Johnson and Meadow 2010, p. 387). Is such an ethic of care for our pets a “biological side effect of our innate drive to care for our young” (Horowitz and Bekoff 2007, p. 31)?
Research from other literatures offers considerable insight into the dog–human relationship (Veevers 1985; Robins, Sanders and Cahill 1991; Sanders 1993; Marston and Bennett 2003; Beck and Madresh 2008; Greenebaum 2010), and though it remains almost silent on under- standing how dogs can facilitate human physical activity practices, does tender some avenues to pursue. For example, others’ data suggest that peoples’ sense of attachment to dogs as com- panions (Beck and Meyers 1996; Enders-Slegers 2000; Holbrook et al. 2001; Duvall Antona- copoulos and Pychyl 2008; Knight and Edwards 2008; Archer and Ireland 2011; Dotson, Hyatt and Clark 2011) “profoundly affects [their] lifestyles” (Dotson and Hyatt 2008, p. 458), including buying them birthday and Christmas presents, welcoming pets in their beds, referring to them- selves as their pet’s parents and adapting their own schedules and health issues to accommo- date their pets (Phillips Cohen 2002). This is not insignificant given that 94% of US dog owners consider their relationship to their dog as “close” (Charles and Aull Davies 2008), and many con- sider them to be a member of their family (Marston and Bennett 2003; McNicholas et al. 2005; Taylor, Funk and Craighill 2006). Sociological research of the human–animal relationship suggests that “guardians” endow their pets with “personhood status” (Greenebaum 2010, p. 130) when the dog, cat, or horse is perceived as a subjective being actively engaging in meaning making with them. Drawing on Serpell’s (2003) definition that anthropomorphism is “the attribution of human states (thoughts, feelings, motivations and beliefs) to nonhuman animals” (p. 83), such a strong inclination to attribute human qualities to pets, comment Horowitz and Bekoff (2007), “ ... is not only prevalent, it is the nearly exclusive method for describing, explaining, and predicting animal behavior” (p. 24) among lay people, and may be the foundation of rewarding pet relationships.
To our knowledge, there has been minimal qualitative understanding of the dog walking ex- periences and motivations in the public health or other literatures (the exceptions being Kush- ner et al. 2006 and Cutt et al. 2008c). If indeed there exists “a powerful human tendency to assign human qualities to animals such as our pets” (Horowitz and Bekoff 2007, p. 31) that may play an important role in defining our relationship to them, it is at least understudied if not entirely neglected with regards to dog walking as a physical activity intervention.
The purpose of this article is to describe our qualitative findings exploring motivations for, and experiences of, dog walking, including the nature of the guardian–dog relationship and how this influenced, if at all, reasons for, and feelings about, dog walking. Wishing to generate a deeper understanding of the dog walking experience, focus groups and interviews were se- lected as a fitting method (Crabtree and Miller 1992). Given the exploratory nature of the study— at least in terms of the qualitative evidence base of dog walking as a form of physical activity—we did not enter our discussions with a specific a priori theoretical framework. However, based on the existing dog walking and physical activity literatures, we expected that an “ethic of obliga- tion and care” and sense of social support emanating from a strong bond or relationship with their dog, would represent the primary reasons for dog guardians’ walking practices. The former re- flects an individual-cognitive-behavioral construct for understanding physical activity, and the lat- ter a broader manifestation of social influences (Bauman et al. 2011), and the attachment and bond established between guardians and their dogs (Charles and Aull Davies 2008).

Wharf Higgins et al.

E-Print © ISAZ

239 Anthrozoös

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

Methods
Research participants in this study were initially invited to be part of an intervention study to promote dog walking, recruited through posters and advertisements disseminated to veteri- nary offices, pet stores, and online dog blogs/forum (Rhodes et al. 2012). Of the 108 adult dog owners who responded, 62 were excluded from participation because they met or exceeded the intervention study’s exclusion criterion regarding “regular” dog walking. Regular walking with their dog was defined as the minimum of the Canadian Guidelines for physical activity (i.e., more than four times per week for a minimum of 30 minutes at a brisk pace) at the time of the study. Because these 62 interested dog owners regularly walked their dogs, they were sent an email invitation to participate in this study to qualitatively explore their dog walking experi- ences. Sixteen of these individuals agreed to participate, and over a six-month period they came to one of five focus groups. Personal interviews were conducted with two individuals, as their schedules did not permit attending one of the focus groups.
Participants were predominantly Caucasian (89%), female (93%), and with a mean age of 47.3 (SD = 13.8) years, and half of them had a post-secondary education and earned be- tween $75,000 and 100,000 annually. Participants were offered refreshments and a chew toy for their dog as appreciation for their involvement in the qualitative phase of the study. Focus groups lasted between 1.5–2 hours, while interviews were no longer than 45 minutes. Both were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants used their dogs’ names as pseudonyms to protect their identity. The study was approved by the Human Ethics Board of the University of Victoria. Questions asked in the five focus groups and two interviews are presented in Table 1.
Data analysis began with open coding strategies using constructs from animal-companion- ship literature as an initial conceptual orientation for data analysis (Patton 2002). For example, using an editing analysis approach (Crabtree and Miller 1992), open coding of concepts related to dogs as family members, as a source of social support, health benefits of walking, and so forth, were identified as a strategy to condense the data and create broad categories. This was fol- lowed by a thematic analysis (Grbich 1999) conducted by two of the authors (JWH, EK) using a reciprocal coding approach (McDonnell, Lloyd Jones and Read 2000), where we engaged in open dialogue about themes and data interpretation. Finally, grounded theory analytic strategies (axial coding, memoing, clustering and factoring) were used to more deeply interpret patterns and relationships among, between and bridging the codes in order to collapse and group them more conceptually (Strauss and Corbin 1990). In doing so, we examined the categories for higher-level concepts to transform the data from categories to themes (Morse 2008). This inductive process generated one core thematic category capturing the central phenomenon (Schreiber 2001), and three sub-categories each described in the next section.
At this point, an additional 10 dog guardians, recruited through snowball sampling, were consulted through personal interviews as a means of member checking the trustworthiness of the findings (Guba and Lincoln 1989). They were asked to read the findings, organized into the themes and categories including the quotes from the original 16 participants, and com- ment as to the authenticity with regards to their own experiences. All 10 individuals supported the results themes, confirming that for them, “the findings ring true” (Lucy). Excerpted quotes gathered through these interviews are also included in the results section. To move the data beyond a classification of themes, we then recontextualized data with existing theory (Morse 2008), to comment on the relevance of the findings for practice and advance our theoretical understanding of motivations for dog walking.

E-Print © ISAZ

240 Anthrozoös

Table 1. Focus group/interview questions.

We are interested in finding out about your dog walking experiences. Can you begin by telling us how often and for how long you usually go for walks? Can you tell me about a typical day of dog walking? (prompts)
s How many walks, for how long, and where?
s Is your dog on/off leash, chasing a ball, playing with other dogs?
s Who do you encounter when walking—are they familiar or new to you? s Do you know the names of other owners and their dogs that you meet?
How would you characterize the dog walk as it relates to other physical activities you do in your typical week? Does your dog get other exercise in addition to or instead of walking?
What are the benefits and downsides from dog walking, for both you and your dog?
Do you experience any barriers to walking your dog? (weather, traffic, lack of sidewalks etc.).
Why is it important that you walk your dog?
What motivates and supports your decision to take your dog for a walk?
How do you perceive your dog as fitting into your family or household?
How would you characterize or describe the relationship between yourself and your dog? Do you see yourself as a “dog person”? What does this mean exactly?

Results
The overall narrative of focus group participants’ experiences with dog walking was initially confirmed by Dotson and Hyatt’s (2008) framework of underlying dimensions of the human– canine relationship. For example, we found evidence that our participants: increased their ac- tivity levels because of dog guardianship; perceived and treated the dog more as a person rather than a pet; and, willingly adapted and changed their patterns of living to accommodate their dog. As well, we found evidence of Holbrook et al.’s (2001) elements of pet “ownership,” (p. 7), specifically that dogs provide their owners companionship and opportunities to be nur- turing, caring, and to be a parent. Finally, the idea of dogs as exercise buddies, as identified by Kushner et al. (2006) was also revealed in our data.
Further analyses resulted in collapsing and reorganizing some of these dimensions, pro- ducing one primary theme and three sub-categories that we found to characterize motivation for the dog walking experience: Transcending the human and non-human animal distinction; Dogs as walking sole mates; Shared activity/health benefits; and Dogs as social conduits. Each of these is explained below with excerpted quotes. Although distinctions are made between these themes, we feel that the notion of “Transcending the human and non-human animal distinction” is the core and primary category that underlies and connects the other three.
Transcending the Human and Non-Human Animal Distinction
This was the dominant theme into which most of the reflections about living and walking with dogs fit, and from which the remaining three themes derived in explaining participants’ specific mo- tivations of dog walking. All participants described their dog walking routines in terms of this ori- entation to dog guardianship. Initially, in extricating participants’ explanations for routinely walking their dogs, we first discerned participants’ strong tendency to describe their dogs as sentient family members (particularly children). This question from Molly typifies participants’ comments: “Why would you get a dog if you weren’t going to treat them like part of the family?”
We understood participants’ accounts of their relationships with their dogs—their inclu- sion of, and referral to, their dog as a family member—as transcending the distinction or boundaries between humans and animals. This included ascribing human emotions or

Wharf Higgins et al.

E-Print © ISAZ

241 Anthrozoös

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

characteristics to their dogs that placed participants in an empathetic relationship and underscored their motivation and commitment to dog walking:
Well [the dog] just feels so happy when she’s had her walk. You know, you feel good about that, the dog is happy, she comes back and she’s tired. (Heidi)
When asked why it was important to them to walk their dogs, some participants found it difficult to articulate beyond explaining, “I think it’s just because they are part of the family” (Molly). Added Lulu, “[because] I respect them.” While previous research has found obligation and/or companionship to be motivating factors for dog walkers (e.g., Brown and Rhodes 2006; Johnson and Meadows 2010), some participants in our study framed such a sense of duty and bond as caregivers for their beloved family members:
It’s important to me that I walk my dogs because they enjoy it and they want to go outside and they want to be walked and that’s important to me. It’s kind of like when you have a child, you want to do things for your child and that’s important to you and they’re my children—I want to do things for them. (Baxter)
To me, it’s not even really a choice, it’s like feeding your children and getting them ready for school, it’s kind of along the same lines. It’s fun and it’s really nice but that’s the main motivation, I think, is that you just got to do it. (Nellie)
But it’s surprising how much he’s my son, and what I do and the choices that I make. There is a sacrifice, and that time [for walking] could be doing other things, for sure. But, with him I have to go out. I have to tailor my [routine] to him. There are some days that he will pull me out first out of a sense of duty. (Finnegan)
Participants also exhibited a tendency to interpret their animals’ behaviors, personality, or body movements (e.g., wagging tail, ears laid back) in the form of human emotions, in what Arluke and Sanders (1996) described as a reflection of the intimacy of the relationship so that “the owner can effectively discern what is on his or her mind” (p. 67):
Guilt! [The dog] has this look and does a body check that says “let’s go.” I think it’s a responsibility. When we got her we knew we had the responsibility to get her ex- ercise every single day. One way or another, she needs to get it, and if we don’t do it we’re not being responsible. She loves it, so why wouldn’t we go for a walk? (Buffy)
Even the few participants (two only) who did not characterize themselves as “dog people,” went on to portray their relationships with their dogs as family members. Initially, Penny remarked that, “I don’t think I’d say that I am a dog person even though I have two of them.” But, she went on to say:
So [my dog] has her sad eyes looking at me and is whimpering and I just feel so bad and it’s just like I am letting a person down. And she’s very expressive so I just feel so guilty if I don’t take her out. That’s really the main motivation. Just makes me feel so bad or sad!
In fact, this ethic of care was often easily dismissed when considering simply her own needs:
Like, I think because it’s right in front me, the dog is like a physical manifestation of “I need to get exercise,” whereas when I am by myself, it’s like, “oh it’s OK if I don’t go today, I’ll just go tomorrow.” So it’s easier to pass up and justify in my head. (Penny)

E-Print © ISAZ

242 Anthrozoös

As beloved members of the family, dogs occupied important companion roles in the lives of participants, offering a strong emotional connection that, as others have noted, can match those in human relationships (McNicholas et al. 2005). With an empathetic mindset, partici- pants identified their dogs as fictive kin (Charles and Aull Davies 2008) and described how this relationship influenced not only dog walking, but their lives overall:
I just feel like I really, really love my dog—especially the one, well both of them, but I really, really have a connection to the one I go hiking with because we spend so much time together. It’s sad to go without her; I always want to have her [because] it is a lot of fun to take her along. (Penny)
As a result of embracing their dogs as important family members whose care was entirely their responsibility, participants then went on to describe how this relationship played out in terms of their walking practices. The following three themes offer additional insight into participants’ motivations for walking their dogs, all firmly grounded in the proclivity to perceive their pets as family: dogs’ behavior as the impetus, reminder and support to walk; the common health benefits of walking together; and the social bonding and bridging aspects that walking with their dogs secured.
Dogs as Walking Sole Mates
Participants spoke, often in humorous and poignant ways, how their dogs acted as corporeal stimulus cues to, and supportive buddy for, walking:
They’re good companions and motivators [for walking], especially when you are by yourself. If we haven’t walked by 11, then she [dog] starts bugging me around the house. Literally, stalks me around the house. (Heidi)
She’ll [the dog] ask to go out a lot. She’ll come and stand by the door and ask to go out. (Emma)
My husband passed away three years ago . . . so he had an illness and I had to be with him all the time and he ended up in a care home and it was pretty stress- ful. [My] girls suggested we got a dog somewhere in there. And he was great for getting me out [walking] and visiting people in the care home as well. (Viking)
The commitment to walk their dog was further evidenced by participants’ disregard for weather or their own health concerns, their own activity preferences, or schedules. Walking the dog was an important and habitual part of each day but not necessarily because it met participants’ own exercise needs. Indeed, some described in length how they tempered their own activity levels to accommodate their dogs’ needs:
... without him, I would tend to be more active. Just because I run a lot and I’ve always run a lot—mileage wise—and I can’t take him all the time. There’s only so many hours in the day and I’m responsible for him, so that may take precedence over me sometimes. So, I may just end up doing the walk with him, as opposed to a run. (Finnegan)
I would go for a bike ride or a swim [without the dog] if I didn’t spend the time going on three walks a day. (Emma)
Further, and unlike other adults for whom weather is an inhibiting factor to their walking (Burchfield, Fitzhugh and Bassett 2012), participants were compelled to dismiss foul weather as an excuse in order to satisfy their dogs’ twice daily needs for exercise:

Wharf Higgins et al.

E-Print © ISAZ

243 Anthrozoös

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

When we go for a walk, we go for a walk, it doesn’t matter what the weather is. (Frankie)
Thus, for our research participants, dogs not only served as a daily prompt for physical activity, but with whom they bonded as “sole mates—as in the sole of your foot” (Emma). Owners relished spending time with their dog, importantly, in an activity that their dog enjoyed. Daily walking was not only a manifestation of attachment to their pet but, as the next theme explains, a practice that contributed to their own wellbeing and their pet’s health.
Shared Activity/Health Benefits
Not surprisingly, it was easy for participants to recount and describe the activity and health benefits from dog walking, both for themselves and their canine charges. For Roxy, exercis- ing with the dog was a family activity: “We take the dog on our runs, our son takes her, our daughter walks her, so we all get healthy as a family.” The benefits participants experienced reinforced the importance of walking in their lives:
Definitely I think it’s beneficial for keeping physically strong. (Elly)
I have some back issues so I really shouldn’t sit for very long. So, if I’ve done a bunch of gardening or something; if I’ve done two hours of gardening and it’s been digging and I want to kind of get the kinks out, then I’ll grab the dog [and go for a] walk. (Viking)
By inferring “a subjective sense of self in the other” (Irvine 2004, p. 144), the benefits participants described for themselves were frequently the same for their dogs:
I think the more your dog is active, the more active your dog is, the longer they will live unless they get a disease but it keeps her, like it keeps us better, too. It’s like the more activity that we do the better that we are, and I think it’s the same for our dogs, too. (Molly)
Keeps their weight off, keeps [them] at the ideal weight. Keeps their heart and every- thing like that in shape. And it’s important to keep up their social skills, too. (Lulu)
For some participants, dog walking was either their only or primary source of activity and they readily acknowledged the role of their dogs in keeping them moving:
Dog walking is it for me. That’s what gets me out, because if I don’t do that than I am just sitting too much and not really getting any exercise. (Snack)
You know, it really is the most, other than the hiking that I do, it’s really the only exercise I get all week; so that’s good for me. I don’t think I’d ever go and just walk by myself. Like, I am not a gym person, I don’t think I’d feel compelled to walk if I wasn’t walking [the dog], you know? (Penny)
In addition to the personal, mental, or psychological benefits participants cited from walk- ing their dogs, including relaxation and stress relief, many mentioned that their dogs served as social lubricants to strangers or were an integral part of their social support network, as detailed in the final theme below.
Dogs as Social Conduits
This final important benefit of walking for participants was the informal connection with others that their dog afforded. The social consequences, from informal chats with other park users

E-Print © ISAZ

244 Anthrozoös

to establishing long-term walking groups, were perceived as enjoyable and rewarding aspects of dog walking:
We always meet new people. It’s like they say, “oh, I’ve never seen that dog, before!” I like meeting the people. And you know, just a little bit of chit chat. I enjoy that part of it. (Baxter)
Because I am retired and when we moved down here, I didn’t know that many people. My husband is not very social so I joined a newcomer’s club and that’s how the people I dog walk with sort of branched off and formed our own groups and that’s how I met the people that I dog walk with. (Snack)
This too functioned as motivation for participants to walk, with their dogs serving as “so- cial catalysts ... facilitating positive encounters” (Knight and Edwards 2008, p. 439). Moreover, dogs served as a “third party” facilitator of social support networks for some participants (Wood and Christian 2011) who might not otherwise have an obvious reason to begin a conversa- tion, become acquainted, or develop a relationship. As social agents (Charles and Aull Davies 2008), dogs were seen as contributing to their owners’ social relations with other humans through their walking experiences:
I’ve talked to some older people that I’ve met on walks, they stop and asked about the dog. How old, and what type, and all that stuff. And, with kids too who want to pat the dogs. So, I’m getting a lot of social contact. (Oreo)
You just talk to people you wouldn’t talk to otherwise. I mean, people think you’re crazy if you’re on the street and you just went up and start talking to them but with the dog, with the dog, seriously you can! (Viking)
In summary our findings, although specific to dog walking and from a small and specifi- cally recruited group of dog guardians, confirm the assertion of McNicholas et al. (2005) that “people do not own pets specifically to enhance their health, rather they value the relationship and contribution their pet makes to their quality of life” (p. 1254). No participant in this study told us that they acquired dogs for the single purpose of being more physically active, but their strong bond to, and ethic of care for, their dogs translated into routine walking as an expression of their affections.
Discussion
We entered this phase of our dog walking research agenda informed by our earlier experi- ences and the literature. Previous self-reported data suggested that dog owners walked more frequently and for longer durations than non-dog owners (Brown and Rhodes 2006; Ham and Epping 2006; Cutt et al. 2008a), including those who live with dogs, but walk without them (Cutt, Knuiman and Giles-Corti 2008). Observational data (Temple, Rhodes and Wharf Higgins 2011) have confirmed this and extended the hypothesis regarding an ethic of care. The idea that people walk their dogs out of a sense of responsible pet ownership was reinforced through the observational snapshot of park use: dog walkers maintained their walking practices through fair and foul weather. But why?
As with Kuhl’s (2011) account of the trusting and respectful partnership between mush- ers and their sled dogs, our participants’ direct experience caring for their dogs enabled them to immerse themselves “into the perspectives of the dogs with whom [they] have re- lationships” (Sanders 1999, p. 147). As noted by Duvall Antonacopoulos and Pychyl (2010b),

Wharf Higgins et al.

E-Print © ISAZ

245 Anthrozoös

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

this relationship increasingly resembles our own with other humans such that “the role of companion animals involv[es] strong anthropomorphic attributions” (p. 380). Adopting the animals’ point of view rather than dismissing it (Horowitz and Bekoff 2007; Kuhl 2011) served as a motivational prompt for participants to walk their dogs as “loving owners fulfill obligations to act on their pet’s behalf to ensure a quality of life consistent with other family members” (Hill, Gaines and Wilson 2008, p. 561). Charles and Aull Davies (2008) suggest the terminology “humans and non-human animals” (p. 16) to reflect such a shift toward more empathetic relationships. Our findings support this and suggest that, behaving in selfless ways to ensure their dogs’ health and happiness, guardians benefit as well (Duvall Antonacopoulos and Pychyl 2008).
Our data supported four themes that we argue contribute to dog walking. The primary and central theme revolved around owners’ sense of subjectivity of their dogs (Kuhl 2011) and how this mindset served to blur and go beyond the human and non-human animal distinction. While living with, loving, and embracing dogs as family members, research participants poignantly ex- pressed their motivation for dog walking in terms of human emotions and values. We concur with Beck and Madresh’s (2008) assertion that the structure of relationships with pets resembles that of relationships with humans, particularly those of us with “exercise buddies” who help to motivate and sustain our physical activity practices (Ham and Epping 2006; Kushner 2008).
There is a long evidence trail demonstrating the importance of social support on humans’ physical activity (Courneya et al. 2000; Trost et al. 2002; Molloy et al. 2010), and it occupies a central premise in several theories of physical activity (Ajzen 1991; Courneya and MacAuley 1995; Deci and Ryan 2002; Bandura 2004; Silva et al. 2008). In the physical activity literature, the concept of social support includes both having someone to encourage activity and to be active with (Molloy et al. 2010), but the social influence need not be just another human (Salmon et al. 2010; Bauman et al. 2011). While McNicholas et al. (2005) note that, conceptually, a sense of companionship with one’s pet provides intrinsic but not extrinsic support, and so it is “theoretically distinct from social support” (p. 1253), our findings support recent cross-sectional data (Westgarth et al. 2012) to suggest that this notion of camaraderie and attachment to dogs serves to motivate, enable, and support their guardians’ walking practices.
While humans need not look far to justify the decision to defer exercise—poor weather, no time, lack of equipment or facilities or companions, other competing tasks—notwithstanding our acknowledgement of the importance of physical activity (Brinthaupt, Kang and Anshel 2010), it becomes more difficult to ignore when our canine companions expect and depend on us for their daily activity (Epping 2011b). We argue that our participants engaged in what Irvine (2004) calls critical anthropomorphism: understanding the exercise needs of their dogs as animals whilst regarding them with “human tendencies” (p. 74). This “consistent initiating” (Kushner et al. 2006) motivates owners to exercise their dogs, most often in the form of walking in their neighborhood or local park, helping to diminish the “super barrier” of perceived lack of time or inconvenience (Brinthaupt, Kang and Anshel 2010, p. 260). Neither is there a need for specialized equipment or honed physical skills, and despite weather and a lack of human company there is mounting evidence that dog walking becomes habitual (Kushner et al. 2006; Knight and Edwards 2008; Epping 2011a; Lail, McCormack and Rock 2011; Temple, Rhodes and Wharf Higgins 2011).
Guardians’ empathetic attachments to their dogs may also explain why their walking be- haviors are maintained and offer a source of extrinsic motivation in the form of introjected (avoiding guilt) and identified (doing something based on desired consequences) regulation (Silva et al. 2008), and behavioral co-regulation (where each individual in a relationship serves

E-Print © ISAZ

246 Anthrozoös

as the primary behavioral regulator for their partner) (Molloy et al. 2010). Unlike some formal and facility-based exercise activities, which have been identified as non-purposeful, walking ful- fills the resolute activity of caring and connecting with dogs (Johnson and Meadows 2010), and is not merely done for the activity itself (Ham and Epping 2006; Coleman et al. 2008). At the same time, the routine and enjoyment of walking with their companions was consistently noted. These benefits serve to sustain guardians’ dog walking practices because, as Coleman and colleagues (2008) note, “ ... dogs need to be walked every day for several years” (p. 311).
Dog walking as a means to improve human and dog physical activity levels has been rec- ommended by the veterinary (German 2006; Lund et al. 2006; Roudebush, Schoenherr and Delaney 2008), medical (Tastchl, Finsterer and Stöllberger 2006; Kushner 2008), and public health (Epping 2011a) fields. Mirroring the literature, participants in this study effortlessly rec- ognized multiple physical health (Stephens et al. 2011) and social benefits (McNicholas et al. 2005; Charles and Aull Davies 2008; Wood and Christian 2011) of walking, and offered an ex- planation for the reinforcing nature of dog walking behavior. This is not surprising given find- ings of previous, though primarily quantitative, studies (McNicholas and Collis 2000; Wood, Giles-Corti and Bulsara 2005; Kushner et al. 2006), but warrants noting given the relatively low levels of physical activity across North America.
Limitations of the Research
The small sample size and recruiting strategies in this study meant that participants repre- sented (mostly female and Caucasian) dog guardians interested in dog-related research, and thus may be extremely attached or bonded to their dogs. In addition, participants may not be representative of dog guardians with diverse and/or less favorable demographics. A broader range and larger sample of dog walking and dog guardian perspectives is needed. It is likely that individuals who own “working dogs” (on farms, as police dogs etc.) may not hold the same view of their dogs as family members as did our research participants. Secondly, it may be that dog walkers living in Victoria BC, Canada, actually do walk more because of climate and geography, relative to other parts of North America. This may reflect this region’s higher levels of activity among the general population overall (Statistics Canada 2006). Examining dog guardians residing in different climates and urban/rural settings is needed.
Suggestions for Future Research
Our exploratory findings pose at least three new directions for research: 1) As related to the dog walking and physical activity research agenda, future studies should examine dog guardians whose dogs are not regularly walked to determine the nature of the human–dog relationship in those households and its influence (if any) on dog walking. Can dogs be an in- tervention point for physical activity (Christian, Giles-Corti and Knuiman 2010; Hoerster et al. 2011; Reeves et al. 2011; Yam et al. 2012), and if so, how can this be accomplished ethi- cally? Because the initial months of living with a new pet can often be stressful, we need to understand how to negotiate the frustrations experienced in the early days with the later ben- efits to be realized, lest our advocacy for dog walking contributes to abandoning or relin- quishing pets to shelters (Greenebaum 2010); 2) We have found glimpses of how empathetic relationships of guardians with their dogs may relate to theoretical constructs in the physical activity literature. Further and more specific examination is required to see if dog walking practices contain elements of such motivational and social support concepts; 3) Because our data echo previous human–animal studies (e.g., Beck and Meyers 1996; Holbrook et al. 2001; Duvall Antonacopoulos and Pychyl 2008; Dotson, Hyatt and Clark 2011; Kuhl 2011),

Wharf Higgins et al.

E-Print © ISAZ

247 Anthrozoös

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

additional work is needed to examine how other aspects of the pet–human relationship benefits or detracts from adopting the perspective of the family pet. Finally, investigating theoretical nuances that distinguish empathetic attachments to companion animals from “sentimental” and “critical” anthropomorphism (Irvine 2004) may offer further insights into how our relationships contribute to motivating, enabling, and supporting dog walking.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore and offer, qualitatively, an explanation why some dog guardians may be more successful at walking than non-dog owners. Confirming the qualita- tive results of Cutt and colleagues (2008c), social support, motivation, and companionship accounted for dog walking by our participants. Expanding on this, our findings suggest that dog guardians’ empathetic stance renders their canine companions as valued family members whose health and happiness they were responsible for, and thus served to motivate, enable, and sustain walking behaviors. Further, our findings offer possible avenues for more direct and distant intervention points. In a more immediate sense, because dog guardians are known to follow veterinary advice (Cutt et al. 2008a), clinical guidelines encouraging guardians to un- derstand their pets as subjective and sentient beings may improve dogs’ (and thereby their guardians’) physical activity levels. Walking programs coordinated through shelters and recre- ation centers, or other community partners (e.g., hotels) may habitualize walking behaviors for humans while expanding the volunteer base for shelters.
Drawing on research from specific consumer markets and the hospitality industry in accom- modating vacationing dogs (Dotson, Hyatt and Clark 2011), makes it clear that being cherished as family members can be successfully used to frame competing perspectives as a way to sat- isfy dog guardians and improve the bottom line. Baumann and colleagues (2001; 2011) have cal- culated that increases in physical activity from dog walking would curb between 5 to 9% of the incidence of chronic diseases, estimating annual healthcare savings of $175 million, should Aus- tralian dog owners walk their dogs on a regular basis. If indeed the promise of dog walking is to be realized as “ . . . an untapped health promotion resource waiting to be let off the leash” (Cutt, Giles-Corti and Knuiman 2008, p. 125), leveraging owners’ commitment to their pets as adored family members (Beck 2011; Stephens et al. 2011) and orienting their perspectives to that of their pets (Kuhl 2011) may be a dog training technique beneficial for dogs and their guardians.
Acknowledgements
JWH is supported by a Canada Research Chair award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. RR is supported by investigator awards from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Canadian Cancer Society.
Note
1. The physical activity literature uses the term dog “owner” when reporting on research about dog walking. In this paper, we refer to a dog owner as a “guardian” when not referring to the physical activity research to better reflect the relationship characterizing the human-nonhuman animal literature.
References
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.
Archer, J. and Ireland, J. L. 2011. The development and factor structure of a questionnaire measure of the strength of attachment to pet dogs. Anthrozoös 24(3): 249–261.

E-Print © ISAZ

248 Anthrozoös

Arluke, A. and Sanders, C. 1996. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bandura, A. 2004. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior 31: 143–164. Banks, P. B. and Bryant, J. V. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural
area. Biology Letters 3: 611–613.
Barker, S. B. and Wolen, A. R. 2008. The benefits of human–companion animal interaction: A review. Journal
of Veterinary Medical Education 35(4): 487–495.
Bauman, A. E., Christian, H., Thorpe, R. J. and Macniven, R. 2011. International perspectives on the
epidemiology of dog walking. In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for Pets and People, 25–49, ed. R. A.
Johnson, A. M. Beck and S. McCune. Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Bauman, A. E., Schroeder, J. R., Furber, S. E. and Dobson, A. J. 2001. The epidemiology of dog walking: An
unmet need for human and canine health. Medical Journal of Australia 175: 632–634.
Beck, A. M. 2011. Dog walking as a new area of inquiry: An overview. In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for Pets and People, 1–6, ed. R. A. Johnson, A. M. Beck and S. McCune. Indiana: Purdue University Press. Beck, A. M. and Meyers, N. M. 1996. Health enhancement and companion animal ownership. Annual Review
Public Health 17: 247–257.
Beck, L. and Madresh, E. A. 2008. Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment
theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoös 21(1): 43–56.
Blair, S. N. and Morris, J. N. 2009. Healthy hearts—and the universal benefits of being physically active: Physical
activity and health. Annals of Epidemiology 19(4): 253–256.
Brinthaupt, T. M., Kang, M. and Anshel, M. H. 2010. A delivery model for overcoming psycho-behavioural
barriers to exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11: 259–266.
Brown, S. G. and Rhodes, R. E. 2006. Relationships among dog ownership and leisure-time walking in western
Canadian adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30(2): 131–136.
Burchfield, R. A., Fitzhugh, E. C. and Bassett, D. R. 2012. The association of trail use with weather-related
factors on an urban greenway. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 9(2): 188–197.
Chan, C., Spierenburg, M., Ihle, S. and Tudor-Locke, C. 2005. Use of pedometers to measure physical activity
in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226(12): 1–6.
Charles, N. and Aull Davies, C. 2008. My family and other animals: Pets as kin. Sociological Research Online
13(5). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/5/4.html. Accessed on March 2, 2012.
Chinn, D. J., White, M., Howel, D., Harland, J. O. E. and Drinkwater, C. K. 2006. Factors associated with non- participation in a physical activity promotion trial. Journal of the Royal Institute of Public Health 120: 309–319. Choitz, P., Johnson, M. P., Berhane, Z. and Lefever, G. 2010. Urban fitness centers: Removing barriers to promote
exercise in underserved communities. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 21(1): 221–228. Christian, H., Giles-Corti, B. and Knuiman, M. 2010. “I’m just a’ – walking the dog.” Correlates of regular dog
walking. Family and Community Health 33(1): 44–52.
Coleman, K. J., Rosenberg, D. E., Conway, T. L., Sallis J., Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D. and Cain, K. 2008.
Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Preventive Medicine 47(3):
309–312.
Courneya, K. S. and McAuley, E. 1995. Cognitive mediators of the social influence-exercise adherence
relationship: A test of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 18(5): 499–515. Courneya, K. S., Plotnikoff, R. C., Hotz, S. B. and Birkett, N. 2000. Social support and the theory of planned
behavior in the exercise domain. American Journal of Health Behavior 24(4): 300–308.
Crabtree, B. F. and Miller, W. L. 1992. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B. and Knuiman, M. 2008. Encouraging physical activity through dog walking: Why don’t
some owners walk their dogs? Preventive Medicine 46: 120–126.
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti B., Knuiman, M. and Burke, V. 2007. Dog ownership, health, and physical activity: A critical
review of the literature. Health & Place 13(1): 261–72.
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M. and Pikora, T. J. 2008b. Physical activity behavior of dog owners:
Development and reliability of the dogs and physical activity (DAPA) tool. Journal of Physical Activity & Health
5(1): S73–S89.
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., Timperio, A. and Bull, F. 2008a. Understanding dog owners’ increased
levels of physical activity: Results from RESIDE. American Journal of Public Health 98(1): 66–69.
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L. J., Knuiman, M. and Burke, V. 2008c. Barriers and motivators for owners
walking their dog: Results from qualitative research. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 19(2): 118–124.

Wharf Higgins et al.

E-Print © ISAZ

249 Anthrozoös

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

Cutt, H., Knuiman, M. and Giles-Corti, B. 2008. Does getting a dog increase recreational walking? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5(17): 5–17.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. eds. 2002. Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Dotson, M. J. and Hyatt, E. M. 2008. Understanding dog–human companionship. Journal of Business Research 61: 457–466.
Dotson, M. J., Hyatt, E. M. and Clark, J. 2011. Traveling with the family dog: Targeting an emerging segment. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 20(1): 1–23.
Duvall Antonacopoulos, N. M. and Pychyll, T. A. 2008. An examination of the relations between social support, anthropomorphism and stress among dog owners. Anthrozoös 21(2): 139–152.
Duvall Antonacopoulos, N. M. and Pychyll, T. A. 2010a. An examination of the potential role of pet ownership, human social support and pet attachment in the psychological health of individuals living alone. Anthrozoös 23(1): 37–54.
Duvall Antonacopoulos, N. M. and Pychyll, T. A. 2010b. The possible role of companion-animal anthropomorphism and social support in the physical and psychological health of dog guardians. Society & Animals 18: 379–395.
Enders-Slegers, M-J. 2000. The meaning of companion animals: Qualitative analysis of the life histories of elderly cat and dog owners. In Companion Animals & Us: Exploring the Relationships Between People and Pets, 237–256, ed. A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul and J. Serpell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Epping, J. N. 2011a. Dog ownership and dog walking to promote physical activity and health in patients. Exercise is Medicine 10(4): 224–227.
Epping, J. N. 2011b. Physical activity recommendations and dog walking. In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for Pets and People, 7–24, ed. R. A. Johnson, A. M. Beck and S. McCune. Indiana: Purdue University Press. German, A. 2006. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. The Journal of Nutrition 136: 1940S–
1946S.
Grbich, C. 1999. Qualitative Research in Health. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenebaum, J. 2010. Training dogs and training humans: Symbolic interaction and dog training. Anthrozoös
23(2): 129–141.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ham, S. A. and Epping, J. 2006. Dog walking and physical activity in the United States. Preventing Chronic
Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, Policy 3(2):1–7.
Heady, B. and Grabka, M. M. 2007. Pets and human health in Germany and Australia: National longitudinal
results. Social Indicators Research 80: 297–311.
Hill, R. P., Gaines, J. and Wilson, M. R. 2008. Consumer behaviour, extended-self, and sacred consumption:
An alternative perspective from our animal companions. Journal of Business Research 61: 553–562. Hoerster, K. D, Mayer, J. A., Sallis, J. F., Pizzi, N., Talley, S., Pichon, L.C. and Butler, D. A. 2011. Dog walking:
Its association with physical activity guideline adherence and its correlates. Preventive Medicine 52: 33–38. Holbrook, M., Stephens, D. L., Day, E., Holbrook, S. and Strazar, G. 2001. A collective stereographic photo essay on key aspects of animal companionship: The truth about cats and dogs. Academy of Marketing Science
Review 5: 1–17.
Horowitz, A. C. and Bekoff, M. 2007. Naturalizing anthropomorphism: Behavioral prompts to our humanizing
of animals. Anthrozoös 20(1): 23–35.
Irvine, L. 2004. If You Tame Me: Understanding Our Connections with Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Jakicic, J., Marcus, B., Lang, W. and Janney, C. 2008. Effect of exercise on 24-month weight loss maintenance
in overweight women. Archives of Internal Medicine 168(14): 1550–1559.
Johnson, R. A., Beck, A. M. and McCune, S. 2011. The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for Pets and People.
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Johnson, R. A. and McKenney, C. A. 2011. “Walk a hound, lose a pound”: A community dog walking program
for families. In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for Pets and People, 89–104, ed. R. A. Johnson, A. M.
Beck and S. McCune. Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Johnson, R. A. and Meadows, R. 2010. Dog-walking: Motivation for adherence to a walking program. Clinical
Nursing Research 19(4): 387–402.
Knight, S. and Edwards, V. 2008. In the company of wolves: the physical, psychological and social benefits of
dog ownership. Journal of Aging and Health 20: 437–455.

E-Print © ISAZ

250 Anthrozoös

Kuhl, G. 2011. Human–sled dog relations: What can we learn from the stories and experiences of mushers? Society & Animals 19: 22–37.
Kushner, R. 2008. Companion dogs as weight loss partners. Obesity Management October: 232–235. Kushner, R., Blatner Jackson, D., Jewell, D. E. and Rudloff, K. 2006. The PPET study: People and pets
exercising together. Obesity 14(10): 1762–1770.
Lail, P., McCormack, G. R. and Rock, M. 2011. Does dog-ownership influence seasonal patterns of
neighbourhood-based walking among adults? A longitudinal study. BMC Public Health 11: 148–155. Lentino, C., Visek, A. J., McDonnell, K. and DiPietro, L. 2012. Dog walking is associated with a favorable risk profile independent of a moderate to high volume of physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health
9: 414–420.
Lund, E. M., Armstrong, P. J., Kirk, C. A. and Klausner J. S. 2006. Prevalence and risk factors for obesity in adult
dogs from private US veterinary practices. International Journal of Applied Research and Veterinary Medicine
4(2): 177–186.
Marston, L. C. and Bennett, P. C. 2003. Reforging the bond towards successful canine adoption. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 83: 227–245.
McDonnell, A., Lloyd Jones, M. and Read, S. 2000. Practical considerations in case study research: The
relationship between methodology and process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32: 383–390.
McNicholas, J. and Collis G. M. 2000. Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: Robustness of the effect. British
Journal of Psychology 91: 61–70.
McNicholas, J., Gilbey, A., Rennie, A., Ahmedzai, S., Dono, J. and Ormerod, E. 2005. Pet ownership and human
health: A brief review of evidence and issues. British Medical Journal 331: 1252–1254.
Molloy, G. J., Dixon, D., Hamer, M. and Sniehotta, F. F. 2010. Social support and regular physical activity: Does
planning mediate this link? British Journal of Health Psychology 15: 859–870.
Morse, J. 2008. Confusing categories and themes. Qualitative Health Research 18: 727–728.
Oka, K. and Shibata, A. 2009. Dog ownership and health-related physical activity among Japanese adults.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health 6: 412–418.
Oka, K. and Shibata, A. 2012. Factors associated with the stages of change for dog walking among Japanese
dog owners. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 9: 122–131.
Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peel, E., Douglas, M., Parry, O. and Lawton, J. 2010. Type 2 diabetes and dog walking: Patients’ longitudinal
perspectives about implementing and sustaining physical activity. British Journal of General Practice 60:
570–577.
Phillips Cohen, S. 2002. Can pets function as family members? Western Journal of Nursing Research 24:
621–638.
Reeves, M. J, Rafferty, A. P, Miller, C. E. and Lyon-Callo, S. K. 2011. The impact of dog walking on leisure-time
physical activity: Results from a population-based survey of Michigan adults. Journal of Physical Activity and
Health 8: 436–444.
Reichert, F. F., Barros, A. J .D., Domingues, M. R. and Hallal, P. C. 2007. The role of perceived barriers to
engagement in leisure-time physical activity. American Journal of Public Health 97(3): 515–519.
Rhodes, R., Murray, H., Temple, V., Tuokko, H. and Wharf Higgins, J. 2012. Pilot study of a dog walking
randomized intervention: Effects of a focus on canine exercise. Preventive Medicine 54: 309–312.
Robins, D. M., Sanders, C. R. and Cahill, S. E. 1991. Dogs and their people: Pet-facilitated interaction in a
public setting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 20(1): 3–25.
Roudebush, P., Schoenherr, W. D. and Delaney, S. 2008. An evidence-based review of the use of therapeutic
foods, owner education, exercise, and drugs for the management of obese and overweight pets. Journal of
the American Veterinary Medical Association 233(5): 717–725.
Salmon, J., Timperio, A., Chu, B. and Vietch, J. 2010. Dog ownership, dog walking and children’s and parent’s
physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(3): 264–271.
Sanders, C. 1993. Understanding dogs: Caretakers’ attributions of mindedness in canine–human relationships.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22: 205–226.
Sanders, C. 1999. Understanding Dogs: Living and Working with Canine Companions. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Schofield, G., Mummery, K. and Steel, R. 2005. Dog ownership and human health-related physical activity: An
epidemiological study. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 16: 15–19.

Wharf Higgins et al.

E-Print © ISAZ

251 Anthrozoös

Walking Sole Mates: Dogs Motivating, Enabling and Supporting Guardians’ Physical Activity

Schreiber, R. 2001. The “how to” of grounded theory: Avoiding the pitfalls. In Using Grounded Theory in Nursing, 55–84, ed. R. Schreiber and P. Stern. New York: Springer.
Serpell, J. A. 1991. Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behavior. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 84: 717–720.
Serpell, J. A. 2003. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection—beyond the “cute response.” Society & Animals 10(4): 437–545.
Shields, M., Tremblay, M., Laviolette, M., Craig, C. L., Janssen, I. and Connor Gorber, S. 2010. Fitness of Canadian adults: Results from the 2007–2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Reports. Ottawa, CA: Component of Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X.
Silva, M. N., Markland, D., Minderico, C. S., Vieria, P. N., Castro, M. M., Coutinho, S. R., Santos, T. C., Matos, M. G., Sardinha, L. B. and Teixeira, P. J. 2008. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate self-determination theory for exercise adherence and weight control: Rationale and intervention description. BMC: Public Health 8: 234–247.
Statistics Canada. 2006. Leisure time physical activity by sex, household population aged 12 and over, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions and peer groups, 2005. Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 82- 2211: 1–7.
Stephens, M. B., Wilson, C. C., Goodie, J. L., Netting, F. E., Olsen, C., Byers, C. G. and Yonemura, M. E. 2011. Owners and pets exercising together: the metabolic benefits of “walking the dog.” In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for Pets and People, 147–161, ed. R. A. Johnson, A. M. Beck and S. McCune. Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tatschl, C., Finsterer, J. and Stöllberger, C. 2006. Back to the dogs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30(4): 362.
Taylor, P., Funk, C. and Craighill, P. 2006. Gauging family intimacy: Dogs edge cats (dads trail both). A Social Trends Report. Pew Research Center. http://pewresearch.org. Accessed on June 12, 2010.
Temple, V., Rhodes, R. and Wharf Higgins, J. 2011. Unleashing physical activity: An observational study of park use, dog walking and physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 8: 766–774.
Thorpe, R. J., Simonsick, E. M., Brach, J. S, Hilsa, A., Satterfield, S., Harris, T. B., Garcia, M. and Kritchevsky, S. B. 2006. Dog ownership, walking behavior, and maintained mobility in late life. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 54: 1419–1424.
Troiano, R. P., Berrigan, D., Dodd, K. W., Masse, L.C., Tilert, T. and McDowell, M. 2008. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40(1): 181–188. Trost, S. G., Owen, N., Bauman, A. E., Sallis, J. F. and Brown, W. 2002. Correlates of adults’ participation in
physical activity: Review and update. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 34: 1996–2001. Veevers, J. E. 1985. The social meaning of pets: Alternative roles for companion animals in pets and the family.
In Pets and the Family, 11–30, ed. M. B. Sussman. New York: Haworth.
Walsh, F. 2009a. Human–animal bonds I: The relational significance of companion animals. Family Process
48(4): 462–480.
Walsh, F. 2009b. Human–animal bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family therapy. Family Process
48(4): 481–499.
Westgarth, C., Liu, J., Heron, J., Ness, A. R., Bundred, P., Gaskell, R. M., German, A. J., McCune, S. and
Dawson, S. 2012. Dog ownership during pregnancy, maternal activity, and obesity: A cross sectional study.
PLoS ONE 7(2): e31315.
Wood, L. and Christian, H. 2011. Dog walking as a catalyst for strengthening the social fabric of the community.
In The Health Benefits of Dog Walking for Pets and People, 51–74, ed. R. A. Johnson, A. M. Beck and S.
McCune. Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B. and Bulsara, M. 2005. The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Social
Science & Medicine 61(6): 1159–1173.
World Health Organization. 2002. The World Health Report 2002. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life.
Geneva: World Health Organization.
Yabroff, K. R., Troiano, R. P. and Berrigan, D. 2008. Walking the dog: Is pet ownership associated with physical
activity in California? Journal of Physical Activity and Health 5: 216–228.
Yam, P. S., Morrison, R., Penpraze, V., Westgarth, C., Ward, D. S., Mutrie, N., Hutchison, P., Young, D. and Reilly,
J. J. 2012. Children, parents, and pets exercising together (CPET) randomised controlled trial: Study rationale, design, and methods. BMC Public Health 12(208): 1–22.

Evidence for the Benefits of Pet ownership

Monday, December 22, 2014

How pets improve social capital

The pet connection: pets as a conduit for social capital?

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Dog and health benefits for adolescents

Dog Ownership and Adolescent Physical Activity

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

Samples

Measures

Independent variable

Dependent variables

Covariates

Analysis

Results

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Acknowledgments

Footnotes

References

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

Cited by other articles in PMC

Links

Recent Activity

The benefits of walking the Dog