 |
| © svetikd/Getty Images |
By Brian Resnick, Vox.com
Increasingly, Americans are bringing pets on planes to destress. But there’s little rigorous evidence to back them up.
A college student wanted to bring a hamster on a plane and then flushed it down an airport toilet after Spirit Airlines told her she wasn’t allowed to board with it. A United Airlines passenger attempted to get on a flight with a peacock. Another air traveler took a turkey on a plane. Yet another brought on a duck wearing red booties. Last winter, a dog’s teeth scraped a little girl’s head on a Southwest Airlines flight. Earlier this month, a Delta passenger complained that his seat was covered in dog feces.
These
were real events that happened in America: travelers toting “emotional
support animals,” claiming they need the ESAs (which are distinct from
service animals trained to help those with physical disabilities) to
stay calm while flying. And there are more of them out there: back in
January, Delta reported that it carries around 700 service or support animals daily and has had to create a special support desk for them.
How is it legal to bring your duck on the plane? Under the federal Air Carrier Access Act,
passengers are allowed to bring animals aboard by showing a letter from
a mental health clinician or doctor asserting that the pet is part of
their therapy. But the law is surprisingly vague about which species can
come on board and gives airlines significant discretion. “You are never
required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes,
other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the
cabin,” it reads.
Yet as a quick Google search will show,
it’s possible to obtain these letters online for a small fee. Some
passengers may very well be exploiting the law to bring pets on planes.
(Delta, at least, now also requires a note from a veterinarian.)
And stories about peacocks and ducks in booties on planes are
increasingly leading ESAs (and their handlers) to be treated as a
punchline. In the New York Times, columnist David Leonhardt called the
animals a “scam”
and “one of the downsides of a modern culture that too often fetishizes
individual preference and expression over communal well-being.”
But
before we consider these animals a national blight, we should ask: Do
they actually work to help people in distress cope? What do we really
know about the emotional support value of pets? It’s a question that
might be on your mind this holiday traveling season, if you see these
companion animals at the airport.
Molly Crossman is a psychology researcher at Yale who published a 2016 review in The Journal of Clinical Psychology
of the evidence on using animals to counter psychological distress.
Here’s what she found: “The clearest conclusion in the field is that we
cannot yet draw clear conclusions.”
Crossman’s research is about
finding ways to reduce the mental health treatment gaps in America.
“Traditional models of treatment therapy and medication reach a very
small proportion of the people who actually need services,” she says.
And given that one in five Americans
experience mental illness in a given year, she thinks animals are an
intriguing option to help more people. They could also be crucial for
combating the loneliness that comes with an aging population.
I
called her up to talk about how animals might be beneficial for mental
health — a question that, frustratingly, doesn’t yet have a clear
answer.
This interview, conducted in February, 2018, has been edited for length and clarity.
 |
| © Martin Poole/Getty Images |
I mean, just look at this face.
Brian Resnick
Do
we really need rigorous empirical evidence to know that pets bring
comfort to people? Isn’t that kind of obvious? Many, many people have
pets. Obviously they bring joy.
Molly Crossman
Yes. I get that question a lot. A lot. There are a few different answers.
One is that there are different standards of evidence.
So
if you want to say that “my pet makes me feel good and it’s fun,”
that’s great. You don’t really need lots of evidence for that.
But
with these emotional support animals, we’re talking about what is
essentially a prescription from doctors to people with clinically
significant symptoms. When we talk about that, there are very specific
standards of evidence for psychiatric and psychological treatment, and
these have not met that standard.
Brian Resnick
So is there good evidence that pets reduce emotional distress?
Molly Crossman
A
lot of people have this impression that [the evidence] is very well
established and we really know that [animals] are beneficial. But what
is surprising is that we actually don’t know that at all.
What the best evidence has to say about animals and distress
 |
| © Kerrick/Getty Images |
Brian Resnick
Overall, what are the strongest claims we can make about animals and mental distress?
Molly Crossman
Yeah.
Well, I’ll qualify it first by saying that most of the research in this
area is on dogs. There is some on horses as well, and a few studies on
other species.
But in terms of the dog studies, we can say that,
probably, interactions with animals don’t make stress-related symptoms
worse. So that’s good.
It also seems they convey sort of small to
medium reductions in stress and stress-related symptoms. That’s the
strongest thing I’m willing to say.
Brian Resnick
How is the research flawed?
Molly Crossman
We actually don’t know that it’s the animals specifically
that are producing these small to medium reductions in stress. It might
be other components of the interventions in which they’re evaluated.
It
might just be people get better over time. And if you have no control
group at all, you can’t say the animals were more beneficial than just
people coping on their own.
In cases where [researchers] do
include control groups, they’ve often been what we call “no treatment”
control groups. They’re just sort of a waitlist. [With that design, it’s
hard to know the benefits are directly attributable to the animals.] Is
it the handlers of the animals, who often interact extensively with
participants? And we know that social interaction with people is
essential for mental health. So there’s all these questions about how
important are the animals [in these therapies].
In our research,
we’re trying to get to the point where we can say there seems to be
something here specific about dogs. That it’s not the other people who
are involved; not just the passage of time.
Brian Resnick
I
imagine the research is also made difficult by the fact there are so
many different programs that use animals to reduce distress. There are
some where animals with handlers are brought to hospitals with
therapies. Which is different than owning a pet and having it at home.
Molly Crossman
Yeah.
Brian Resnick
So
you have reviewed a great amount of the research on using animals to
reduce distress. Is there research specifically on “emotional support
animals”?
Molly Crossman
They really haven’t been studied.
Research on pet ownership should speak to them. But there’s very
limited, if any, research on emotional support animals specifically.
The research on dogs is inconclusive. The research on emotional support peacocks and hamsters doesn’t exist.
 |
| © Dragan Todorovic/Getty Images |
Brian Resnick
So why are clinicians allowed to prescribe “emotional support animals” despite the lack of evidence?
Molly Crossman
In
psychology, we don’t license treatments — we license providers. So
there’s no FDA for psychotherapy. Once you’re licensed, within a certain
range, you kind of have the freedom to use whichever treatment you
want. And even though some treatments are considered evidence-based and
some are not, there’s nobody regulating which you use.
Brian Resnick
I
can see why the concept of “emotional support animal” is appealing for
mental health clinicians. When I talk to clinicians in reporting, they
sometimes lament how their time with patients is so limited to just a
few hours of appointment. An emotional support animal is a full-time
treatment.
Molly Crossman
It is extremely compelling, and I think that’s one of the draws, is this idea of full-time support.
Brian Resnick
Backing up: Do we even have good data on whether dog ownership increases well-being overall?
Molly Crossman
No.
And actually, I think that’s one of the areas where the evidence is
relatively weak, and that’s just because it’s a very hard question to
answer. You need very, very big data sets, where you can sort of control
lots and lots of variables in people’s lives. Isolating the effect of a
pet in the context of all the other factors that influence a person’s
mental health is so hard, so the evidence there is really, really mixed.
Brian Resnick
So most of this research is on dogs, and
it’s not very conclusive. I’m guessing it’s not right to generalize to
other species, like hamsters.
Molly Crossman
It’s not.
Probably
different animals are good at different things. So, for example, we’ve
seen just within dogs, different dogs have different personalities, and
they convey slightly different effects. We start with dogs, and I think a
lot of other research groups do as well, because it seems like dogs are
sort of specially designed, for lack of a better word, to interact with
people, to understand our social and emotional cues.
Emotional support animals could be harmful in some cases. And those effects need to be studied.
 |
| © Fox Photos/Getty Images |
Brian Resnick
Is there potential for harm with emotional support animals?
Molly Crossman
I
do have concerns about the potential for harm, which isn’t to say that I
think they’re definitely harmful. I just think it’s an important
possibility, and it’s a little bit of a complicated explanation, but
I’ll try.
Basically, in treatments for anxiety that work, we ask
people to face their fears. We work with them to gradually approach the
things they’ve avoided. These treatments work really well. They’re some
of sort of the best mental health treatments that we have. A concern we
have in those kinds of treatments is that people will feel like, “I can
only approach this terrifying situation if they have my mom with me, or
my blankie,” or whatever.
If someone who’s very afraid of heights
is only able to approach heights with their emotional support dog, they
might start to say, “Wow, I can do this because of Buddy.” We want you to learn you can do it, and we don’t want it to be about Buddy.
While
Buddy makes the fear better in the short term, he’s making it worse in
the long term. So that’s the concern, is that you’re reinforcing fear in
the long term.
Brian Resnick
The animal becomes a crutch.
Molly Crossman
Exactly.
Forcing some animals to provide emotional support could be bad for their welfare
 |
| © Getty Images/EyeEm |
Think this turtle like flying?
Brian Resnick
Could an animal be harmed as the result of supporting a person’s emotions? I could imagine emotional support tortoises hate being on airplanes.
Molly Crossman
We’re
talking about treatments that involve live animals, and we have an
obligation to those animals to make sure that if we’re sort of using
them for our benefit, that the benefits are really being conveyed.
Because, for example, being something like a service animal is hard
work. Being on a plane can be stressful for an animal; these kinds of
things really raise the stakes in my eyes for making sure that they
work.
I think importantly, there are some species in which it’s
probably not wise to be asking the questions in the first place, because
[the] animals themselves are not well suited and will not enjoy doing
this work, and there are risks of harm to the people and to the animals.
In general, it’s a problem when people advertise benefits of
interaction with species that are not domesticated, because there are
risks to those interactions, and then people get upset when bad things
happen.
My favorite example is [Washington University in St. Louis] brought a bear cub to their campus as part of a pet therapy program, which should be such an obviously bad idea, right? A bear?! Yeah.
But
it’s not obvious, and there was this media frenzy when this happened
because the bear cub attacked a bunch of students, and then there was
this rabies scare. And, like, we just can’t blame the bear in that
scenario. It should not have been brought to a campus to play with
students. That was not a great idea.
How to move the research forward
 |
| © Catherine Ledne/Getty Images |
Wouldn’t you want to know if these pups are good for decreasing distress? Let’s do the studies to find out.
Brian Resnick
How do we find out if dogs are beneficial?
Molly Crossman
I
think to the question of does that study exist, no, because no single
study is gonna tell us that. It’s an accumulation of evidence, just like
in any field. So I think our group is trying to do that. There are a
number of other research groups around the country trying to do this as
well, and I think we’re getting there. So we have a few recent studies
where we’ve shown that dogs, interacting with a dog, outweighs the
effects of just kind of being exposed to it, viewing it, so the
interaction is important. The effects of interaction with a dog exceed
those of other common coping strategies that people use, and also exceed
the effects of sort of any intervention that people are told will work.
Brian Resnick
What does the coverage of emotional support animals in the media miss?
Molly Crossman
I
think what most of the media coverage misses is that the central issue
here, from my perspective is, do these animals work. I don’t know how to
put it in a more refined way, but do they convey the effects that we
hope? I think until we answer that question, all of these other
arguments [such as whether they’re a sign of a fragile American psyche]
are a little bit peripheral.
From the perspective of
psychologists, we should answer that question first and then worry about
what it says about millennials.
Brian Resnick
In your
review paper, you write, “Animals are not equipped to overhaul the
limitations of the mental health care system.” What do you mean by that?
Molly Crossman
I
think animals can reach lots of people outside of traditional models of
treatment. Animals might bring a few extra people in because they’re
appealing and can sort of facilitate entry into treatment, [but] they’re
not gonna close that gap between. ... Roughly 30 percent of people in
need of treatment get any kind of treatment, and I would say that’s a
pretty conservative estimate. Animals are not gonna take that from 30 to
100 percent. That’s just not gonna happen.
But, like I said, 70
percent, almost, of homes in the US have pets, so if pets are beneficial
and we can somehow leverage those benefits, they might reach lots and
lots of people that way.
