One of my closest friends claims that I had a deprived childhood. I take no offence at that because I know Tony adds the rider that "you didn't have a pet, Nigel". I protest at length that my budgie Little Jim ["He's fallen in the wa-ater"] qualified but he scoffs. I mention tropical fish, in which I once had a short-lived (as were the fish) interest, and he claims I am missing the point. Which is what, Tony?
Tony has a dog, Lily.
Lily is a pug. Tony and Lily are very attached to each other.
(I feel like I'm writing a children's book here: "Tony goes out for a walk" - turn the page - "Lily runs after Tony" - next page - "Lily's legs are shorter than Tony's so she has to run faster").
I think Tony would say they care for each other; give each other joy. I get that but - there's always a but - is there any evidence that having a dog or other species of pet has a positive effect on children? Not on people of advanced age (I'm not going to reveal Tony's age; or Lily's for that matter). Would I have been a better person if I had had a cat? The Research Institute of the Bassett Medical Center in New York conducted a study in 2015, using 643 children, mean age 6.7 years. Their headline conclusion was "Having a pet dog in the home was associated with a decreased probability of childhood anxiety".
More broadly, a wide study in 2016/2017, authored by seven researchers from six institutes of psychology, health and community medicine in the UK and USA examined 22 studies of this subject. I hope you're still with me, and patient, because here's a direct quote from the conclusions:
"The review found evidence for an association between pet ownership and a wide range of emotional health benefits from childhood pet ownership; particularly for self-esteem and loneliness. The findings regarding childhood anxiety and depression were inconclusive. Studies also showed evidence of an association between pet ownership and educational and cognitive benefits; for example, in perspective-taking abilities and intellectual development. Evidence on behavioural development was unclear due to a lack of high quality research. Studies on pet ownership and social development provided evidence for an association with increased social competence; social networks; social interaction and social play behaviour. Overall, pet ownership and the significance of children’s bonds with companion animals have been underexplored; there is a shortage of high quality and longitudinal studies in all outcomes."
I read the whole paper to find references to what animals were studied. That phrase "companion animals (including horses, dogs, cats, rabbits and other rodents [rats? really?])" was used and there is a conclusion that these "have the potential to promote healthy emotional youth development in many ways".
"There is growing evidence that children turn to their pets for comfort, reassurance and emotional support when feeling anger, sadness, or happiness. Thus, it is plausible that companion animals may have the potential to encourage better emotional health and reduce anxiety and depression."
I get all this. What I don't see is whether this "companion animal" effect is particular to children with particular characteristics. Perhaps some children need a pet more than others do? Maybe an only child? There's more to this but Tony, I see what you're saying, my friend!
Final words from the man Tony himself:
"A child with a four-legged warm blooded pet has something which will give him/her unconditional love, no moods, sulks, arguments, responsibility together with an attitude to animals that will warm his heart for life. There is nothing else in the world that can have such a rewarding, lasting and beneficial effect."
Please, people, don't get me a rabbit for Christmas!