Understanding The Experience Of Couples’

Relationship With Their Pet-dog

Mandy Deguara

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Masters in

Systemic Family Psychotherapy

Institute of Family Therapy Malta

September 2015

  2  

  3  

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my tutor, Dr. Charlie Azzopardi, for

his guidance and support throughout this research.

My thanks also go to the Malta Dog Training Services, for supporting me with the

recruitment process of the participants.

Warm thanks to my parents Franky and Doreen and my siblings James and Sharon for

their invaluable support and for their patience and encouragement throughout my life

journey. A special thanks also goes to my genuine friends, Georgette, Stephanie, Zvetlana,

Mariella, Chantelle, Silvana, Charlotte and Conny who were always ready to offer their help

and have always supported me throughout my studies.

Thanks to my beloved dogs Millie and Bear and my two cats Chino and Nina for the

constant warmth and soothing presence they have provided me throughout this study.

Most of all I would like to thank my supportive husband Jonathan for believing in me

and for offering a constant source of comfort, understanding and love. Your practical and

emotional help has made the completion of this research possible.

Lastly but not least, I would like to wholeheartedly thank all the participants for their

trust and willingness to share their experiences with me. This research would not have been

possible without your unique stories and contribution.

  4  

Abstract

Literature about the human-pet bond has been predominantly individually focused.

Therefore this Qualitative study aimed to fill a research gap that would provide a systemic

understanding about the experience of the couples’ relationship with their pet-dog. The

mutual influence that couple and pet-dog have on each other was also delved into during this

study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. Five semi-structured interviews

were held in all with 5 Maltese couples living together and owning a pet dog for at least 6

months. The ages of the participants ranged from 26 to 37 years while the age of their pet-

dogs ranged from 1½ years to 7 years.

Verbatim transcripts of the interviews were then analysed using Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Four superordinate themes emerged from the analysis:

‘Different constructed beliefs revolving around pet-dog’, ‘Significance of the pet dog to the

couple’, ‘A special bond formed through a continuous exchange of interactions’ and ‘Pet –

dog promoting change’. The results of this study reveal that the couples’ past experiences

influence their constructed beliefs about pet-dogs. In addition this study demonstrates how

couples might view their pet-dog as a significant, entertaining and soothing presence in their

day-to-day lives. This study introduced new insights about the possible roles and complex

dynamics that a pet-dog can have within a couple relationship, which can be clinically useful

when working with couples’ that own a pet dog.

Keywords: Pet-dogs in couple relationships, human-pet bond, significance of pet-dog.

  5  

Table Of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 7  1.1 PREAMBLE ..................................................................................................................................................... 7  1.2 TITLE ............................................................................................................................................................. 7  1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION .................................................................................................................................... 7  1.4 RATIONALE .................................................................................................................................................... 8  1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 9  1.6 THE RESEARCHER ........................................................................................................................................ 10  1.7 EXPLAINED TERMS THAT WILL BE USED IN RELATION TO THIS PROJECT: ..................................................... 11  1.8 ROADMAP TO THE REMAINING CHAPTERS .................................................................................................. 12  

CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................... 13  2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 13  2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ...................................................................................................................... 13  

2.1.1 Family Systems Theory ....................................................................................................................... 13  2.1.2 Social Constructionist Theory ............................................................................................................. 15  2.1.3 Attachment Theory .............................................................................................................................. 16  2.1.4 How Will Systemic, Social Constructionist And Attachment Theories Support My Research? .......... 17  

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 18  2.2.1 Varying Perceptions And Cultural Beliefs Of Animals ....................................................................... 18  2.2.2 The Maltese Context ............................................................................................................................ 19  2.2.3 Is it “just a pet?” ................................................................................................................................. 21  2.2.3.1 Psychological And Physical Influence Of Human-pet Bond ............................................................ 21  2.2.3.2 Couple And Family Relations With Pet-dogs ................................................................................... 24  2.2.4 Pets In The Therapy Realm ................................................................................................................. 28  

2.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 30  CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 31  

3.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 31  3.1 RESEARCH QUESTION .................................................................................................................................. 31  3.2 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 31  3.3 CHOOSING IPA AS A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................. 32  

3.3.1 Grounded Theory ................................................................................................................................ 33  3.3.2 Discourse Analyses ............................................................................................................................. 33  3.3.3 Thematic Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 33  3.3.4 Narrative Analyses .............................................................................................................................. 34  3.3.5 Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) .................................................................................. 34  

3.4 THE PROCESS OF RECRUITING A HOMOGENEOUS SAMPLE .......................................................................... 36  3.4.1 Inclusion Criteria of the Study ............................................................................................................ 37  3.4.2 Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 38  

3.5 PARTICIPANTS’ INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................... 39  3.6 DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................................................... 39  

3.6.1 Interview Location .............................................................................................................................. 39  3.6.2 Semi Structured Interview Schedule .................................................................................................... 40  

3.7 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND INFORMATIVE QUESTIONS ASKED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INTERVIEW. ... 41  3.8 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................................................................................ 42  

3.8.1 Interview process ................................................................................................................................ 42  3.9 DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 44  3.10 INCREASING VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ................................................................................................. 45  3.11 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 46  3.12 SELF-REFLEXIVITY .................................................................................................................................... 48  3.13 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 51  

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ............................................................................................. 52  4.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 52  4.1 DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTED BELIEFS REVOLVING AROUND PET-DOGS ........................................................ 54  

a) Couples’ Experiences Shaping Their Constructed Beliefs About Pet-dogs ............................................ 54  

  6  

b) Couples’ Interpretation Of Social Beliefs Revolving Around Pet-dogs .................................................. 59  4.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PET-DOG TO THE COUPLE ....................................................................................... 63  

a) Couple Adopting the Position Of Parents - “Like a child to us” ............................................................ 64  b) “An experience beyond words” ............................................................................................................... 69  c) Dog Providing A Sense Of Satisfaction And Fulfillment ......................................................................... 72  

4.3 AN IRREPLACEABLE BOND FORMED THROUGH A CONTINUOUS EXCHANGE OF INTERACTIONS ................ 76  a) Couple And Their Pet-dog In A Continuous Process Of Adaptation ...................................................... 76  b) Couple And Dog Experiencing A Secure And Comforting Relationship ................................................. 80  

4.4 PET–DOG PROMOTING CHANGE ................................................................................................................... 87  a) Dog Evoking Change In The Couples’ Lifestyle ...................................................................................... 88  b) Dog’s Influence On Couples’ Dynamics ................................................................................................. 93  

4.5 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 100  CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 101  

5.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 101  5.1 DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTED BELIEFS REVOLVING AROUND PET-DOGS ...................................................... 101  5.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PET-DOG TO THE COUPLE ..................................................................................... 106  5.3 AN IRREPLACEABLE BOND FORMED THROUGH A CONTINUOUS EXCHANGE OF INTERACTIONS .............. 110  5.4 PET-DOG PROMOTING CHANGE ................................................................................................................. 117  5.5 LINKS AND PATTERNS THAT CONNECT THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ................................................... 120  5.6 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 122  

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 123  6.0 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY .................................................................................................................... 123  6.1 CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 125  6.2 PROPOSALS FOR POLICY ............................................................................................................................ 128  6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 129  6.4 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 130  

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 132  APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................... 144  

APPENDIX 1: RECRUITING ADVERT ................................................................................................................. 144  APPENDIX 2: LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE ETHICS BOARD ...................................................................... 145  APPENDIX 3: AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROCESS OF ELICITING THEMES FROM INTERVIEWS .............................. 146  APPENDIX 4: CONSENT FORMS (IN ENGLISH AND MALTESE) .......................................................................... 161  APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW GUIDE (IN ENGLISH AND MALTESE) ........................................................................ 169  APPENDIX 6: RESULTS – MALTESE EXCERPTS ................................................................................................. 173  

List Of Tables

TABLE 3-1: PARTECIPANTS INFORMATION ............................................................................................................. 39 TABLE 4.1 SUPERORDINATE AND SUB-THEMES ...................................................................................................... 53 TABLE A3-1 ELICITING THEMES FROM INTERVIEW ............................................................................................. 155 TABLE A6.2 SUPERORDINATE AND SUB-THEMES ................................................................................................. 174

  7  

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Preamble

Research suggests that pet-dogs can offer several benefits to humans both on a

physical as well as on a psychological level. Pet-dogs can be considered as significant

members in a family system (Abrams, 2009). Due to the significant and complex role that

pet-dogs might have in families, they can be implied in couple’s relational dynamic

processes. This study is a qualitative research exploring the experience of Maltese couples’

relationship with their pet-dog. There is limited research about the implications that pet-dogs

can have on the couples’ relationship. This study uses Interpretative Phenomenological

Analysis acquire a deeper understanding about the experience of Maltese couples’

relationship with their pet-dog.

This chapter begins with an outline of the research title and research question.

Following this, an overview of the rationale of the study and significance of the study will be

presented. This chapter also includes a presentation of the researcher’ perspectives and

position adopted during this research. The chapter concludes with a list of definitions of the

key terminology used.

1.2 Title

Understanding the experience of couples’ relationship with their pet-dog

1.3 Research Question

What is the experience of couples’ relationship with their pet-dog?

  8  

1.4 Rationale

Research highlights that families can experience satisfaction through a relationship

with a pet and can also consider the pet as a significant family member. The literature on the

human–pet bond has been predominantly individually and scientifically focused (Walsh,

2009a). Scientific research, unveiled the benefits of pets on a physical and psychological

level; for instance it has been proved that “few minutes of stroking pets can release a number

of feel good hormones in humans, including serotonin, prolactin and oxytocin” (Abrams,

2009, p. 16). By adopting a systemic perspective to the human–pet bond throughout this

study, the mutual influence that couples and pet-dogs’ have on each other can be understood.

While several animals can be considered as meaningful pets such as dogs, cats, cage

birds, mice, fish, snakes, rats, ferrets, and so on (Serpell, 2002), this study will focus on dogs.

The dog is reported to be the first domesticated animal that voluntarily took its place as a pet

in humankind (Laliberte, 2009). This study will focus on pet dogs especially because they are

known to be good receptors of care (Udelle & Wynne, 2008). From the time a dog is brought

into a human household it becomes entirely dependent on human caretakers. Dogs have

greater mobility than other animal pets and are more susceptible to be included in outings by

their family, as they need companionship and regular exercising (Power, 2008). Therefore,

while pet dogs might have similarities to other pets, they can be characterised by their high

maintenance and commitment that families have to engage in when aiming to offer a healthy

lifestyle to their dog such as time spent walking, feeding or cleaning (Hansen, 2013). The

aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the experience of the relationship pet

owners have with their pet-dog.

Imber-black (2009) highlighted that more studies need to be conducted in relation

  9  

to the human–animal bond especially in relation to the implications that pets can have on

couples’ relationship. As the couple progresses through various life stages within the family

life cycle, the role of the pet can vary and change according to the families’ needs and

circumstances. “A pet can take on a variety of roles from best friend to child” (Turner, 2005,

p. 11.). Since cohabitating couples share their living space and synchronise their lifestyle to

their pet dog on a daily basis, this study addresses the Understanding of the experience of

couples’ relationship with their pet-dog while also delving into the different dynamics the

couple experience when they are in their presence of their pet-dog.

1.5 Significance Of The Study

Social construction of pets can vary amongst individuals and couples (Blouin,

2012). Through Interpretative Phenomenological analysis (IPA) this research aims to provide

more empirical data about the different dynamics created amongst couples and their pet-dog.

A systemic perspective will hopefully unveil the circular influences of the dog-couple

relationship.

This study aims to fill a research gap that will provide more understanding about

the different experiences that couples might have with their pet-dog. This study can be

utilised to increase the understanding for professionals working with couples or with pets as

it can reveal the idiosyncratic experiences that couples might have in relation to their pet-dog.

This research will also reveal the dynamics that might be created when two partners share

their household with their dog. Moreover, it offers more awareness about the possible

inclusion of pets as valuable resources in systemic assessments and interventions as it can

inform and enrich therapeutic work with couples and families (Imber – black, 2009).

From Maltese public places becoming more pet friendly to the opening of a 5 star pet

  10  

friendly hotel and spa, to cafe’s allowing the entrance of dogs and vast amount of pet shops

catering for all the needs of pets all highlight the increasing significance of pets, in the

Maltese society. Dogs have adopted another significant role within the Maltese society as

through the opening of Service Dogs Malta Foundation (2015), dogs are being trained to

assist visually impaired individuals, hearing impaired individuals, autistic individuals,

individuals who are wheelchair bound or who have mobility issues, individuals needing alert

for certain conditions such as seizures and diabetes and individuals with psychiatric

conditions (Service Dogs Malta Foundation, 2015).

These significant changes within the Maltese context, justifies the need for further

understanding about the experience of couples’ relationship with their pet-dog. Such study,

will hopefully elicit new knowledge and insight while generating more awareness about the

human-pet bond.

1.6 The Researcher

Having worked in the social work field for 4 years and in the therapy field for 3 years,

I have come across stories of people considering pets as their significant family members;

sometimes the most stable presence in their lives. My fascination about animals and their

contribution to the human race have always raised curiosities within me. These curiosities

were further intensified when I started studying systemic practice.

I have noticed how pets can be considered as important members within family

systems and can also be attributed a specific role by family members (Walsh, 2009a). I have

also witnessed arguments and conflicts related to lack of agreement by family members in

relation to the care of a pet. My curiosities stemmed from how pets can be integrated in

  11  

systems and how they can have a significant influence on systems while creating possible

change and difference. The very limited systemic literature was available about this matter

encouraged me to further study this phenomenon and to add empirical knowledge.

The method of analysis used during this research, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis,

is congruent with systemic thinking and second order cybernetics as it acknowledges that the

researcher has a very vital role throughout the research process (Simon, 2014). Therefore,

throughout this research both my position as a researcher and my self-reflexive process will

be acknowledged, accounted for and further elaborated within the methodology chapter.

1.7 Explained terms that will be used in relation to this project:

Pet-dogs – During this study the term pet-dog will refer to dogs that are kept for

companionship by their owners. The term pet-tog will also refer to dogs kept in a household

(Protection of Animals Offered in Pet Shops, 2014).

Couple – In this particular study, the term couple will refer to couples owning a pet- dog.

Human–pet bond – The human-pet bond is a mutually beneficial and dynamic relationship

between people and pets that is influenced by actions that are essential to the health and well

being of both (Altschiller, 2011).

Animal assisted therapy – Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT) is an umbrella used to refer to

therapeutic approaches that include an animal as an integral part of the treatment process

(Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer & Shaver, 2011).

  12  

1.8 Roadmap To The Remaining Chapters

Following this introduction, the frameworks selected for this study and the literature

review will be presented in Chapter 2. The Methodology and procedures administered in this

study are discussed in Chapter 3. The next chapter, Chapter 4, presents the results yielded

from the data collection processes. The review of the Data Analysis is presented in Chapter 5

where the main findings are presented and discusses in terms of the research questions of this

study. In the final chapter, Chapter 6 Conclusions, limitations, policy implications and areas

of further research are discussed.

  13  

Chapter 2: Conceptual Frameworks And Literature Review

2.0 Introduction

In this chapter I will present the conceptual frameworks for this study. I will then

review the existing literature on the topic. A historical and a contemporary context of the

relationship of pets will be presented. The literature in relation to the psychological and

physical Influence of human-pet bond and Couple and Family relations with pet-dogs will be

delved into. Finally a brief overview about how pets are currently included in the therapy will

be provided.

2.1 Theoretical Frameworks

The theoretical selected for this study are family systems theory, social constructionist

theory and attachment theory. These theories will support me to acknowledge the relational,

contextual, and attachment processes of the participating couples. In addition, the selected

theoretical frameworks can help me focus on the relationship that couples build with their pet

while exploring their experiences, emotions and understanding of such relationship.

2.1.1 Family Systems Theory

According to Simon (2014), being systemic is an attitude applied to working with

systems, researching and practicing. Systemic thinkers pay particular attention to the patterns

that connect relationships and also take into consideration the context surrounding systems.

“Family systems theory provides a valuable framework for understanding the many

varied roles pets play in couple and family functioning” (Walsh, 2009b, p. 469). Systems

theory defines a system, an assemblage of objects related to each other by some regular

  14  

interaction or interdependence (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2008). According to Walsh

(2009a), pets need to be also included in the thinking processes by researchers and therapists

that aim to understand the dynamic process within a complex family system.

The systemic perspective has been reformulated and expanded in order to provide

greater attention to the bio psychosocial factors influencing systems (Walsh, 2011).

According to Melson and Fine (2006) blinders to the presence of role of pets in families

stems from “humanocentric” perspective as this view only acknowledges human–human

bonds as significant. The paradigm shift from “humanocentric” model to a “biocentric”

perspective, acknowledges other connections that we have with other beings and the natural

world. This holistic perspective is resonant with the systemic alignment adopted by Gregory

Bateson (1979) and with the basis of family therapy theory and practice. Including an

ecological focus other than human-to-human relationships emboldens a wider perspective as

it includes ever-broadening social contexts (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2008).

Moreover, the systemic perspective is an inclusive one as it considers the bio

psychosocial model to be significant when understanding our context and surroundings.

Therefore such perspective can embrace the relationships humans have with other beings

within their environment, such as with pets. During the course of this study, the systemic

perspective can also shed light on the patterns, dynamics, and complex processes when

understanding the experience of couples owning a pet-dog.

  15  

2.1.2 Social Constructionist Theory

Social constructionism is a way of understanding the social world and our experience

of it. Social constructionist theory places its emphasis on the interactions amongst people and

how they use their language to construct their reality. Social constructionist theory also

focuses on the connection between social process, social world and our experience and

understanding of the social realities (Dallos & Draper, 2005). Social constructionist theories

acknowledge that there is no absolute truth and hence its emphasis is on the meaning of the

specific experience within a particular context (Gergen, 1999). According to social

construction theory, “our lives and relationships are socially constructed” (Chard, 2014,

p.42).

Social constructionists’ theory can inform this research as it emphasizes on “processes

by which people come to describe, explain or otherwise account for their world (including

themselves) in which they live” (Gergen, 1985, p. 266). I considered the Social

constructionist perspective significant for this study, as this perspective is open to other

realities, constructs, meanings and experiences of people in relation to their pets. In addition,

such approach does not dismiss the constructs of people who view their pet as significant,

meaningful or forming part of complex dynamic process of their relationship. Social

constructionist theory appreciates the different constructs of reality that people generate

(Berger and Luckmann, 1991).

Social constructionism is a therapeutic perspective within a postmodern worldview

(Chard, 2014). This epistemological stance is also congruent to the research design that will

be adopted throughout the current study, as it will aim to understand the experience of

couples owning a pet through a qualitative approach. A qualitative approach will allow the

  16  

verbal expression of the experience through the language thus constructing reality (Hertlein,

Lambert –Shute & Benson, 2004).

2.1.3 Attachment Theory

Attachment theory is based on the premise that humans like many animals, are

biologically predisposed to seek out and sustain physical contact and emotional

connection to selective figures with whom they become familiar and come to rely on

for psychological and physical protection (Sable, 2012, p. 94).

According to Bowlby’s (1969) attachment theory, ‘affectional relationships’ offer a

source of support, security and comfort whilst reducing stress and also aid emotional

regulation. Studies have shown that the attachment framework has been updated and

expanded in order to understand different forms of attachment with non-human figures such

as the human–pet bond (Mano, Mikulinvera & Shaver, 2011). The attachment theory offers a

useful framework when exploring the human-pet bond; as it indicates that these relationships

might meet the four prerequisites for an attachment bond including proximity seeking, safe

haven, secure base, and separation distress. Pets also offer consistency in a busy and altering

world (Sable, 2012). During, this study such framework, can be helpful especially when

aiming to understand the attachment bond that a couple might have with their pet-dog.

While research shows that pets can offer support to their owners and individuals, this

study will also delve into the experience of the couples’ relationship with their pet-dog.

Therefore, by focusing on the possible emotional and attachment bonds that are created

amongst the couple and their pet-dog, more knowledge can be generated on the attachment

bonds that couples might have with their dog.

  17  

2.1.4 How Will Systemic, Social Constructionist And Attachment Theories Support My

Research?

Steier (1991), argues that by holding a research from a social constructionist position

and systemic viewpoint, reflexivity and the relational aspects can be included throughout the

process of the research. This is distinct from the conventional first order position adopted by

researchers who thought they could express the realities of others by adopting an outside and

expert position (Kebbe, 2014). Therefore throughout this study it was acknowledged that

“Being systemic is an attitude. It is the commitment to curiosity over inference and the desire

to question metaphors and what they conceal as opposed to staying loyal to one speech

practice.” (Kebbe, 2014).

A blending of the systemic, social constructionist and attachment perspective will

support me to refer to previous human-pet research conducted from an attachment

perspective while taking into account other multiple influential factors. Attachment theory

has been criticized for its decontextualized theory of personality and for its lack of

consideration towards cultural and contextual influences. Therefore, by embedding

attachment theory within systemic and social constructionist ideas more insight and

reflections about the social, relational, cultural and environmental factor cans be generated

(Dallos & Vetere, 2009); in order to understand the experience of couples’ relationship with

their pet-dog.

  18  

2.2 Literature Review

2.2.1 Varying Perceptions And Cultural Beliefs Of Animals

People inevitably share the world with other animals; we might choose or not choose to

come in contact with the animals surrounding us (Hosey & Melfi, 2014). Different aspects’

of humans’ identity, such as race, gender, ethnicity, social class, age, nationality, contextual

and environmental factors, culture and religion might shape perceptions of the human-animal

bond (Blazina, Boyraz, & Shen-Miller, 2011). For instance people might be scared, repulsed,

fearful or fascinated by animals. Some people might view certain animals as sacred, while

others might be fearful of animals due to an experience they had been through or heard about;

such as an aggression of an animal. There are people who might avoid contact with animals

whilst they still do not wish them harm and people who might also have been raised with

animals and pets in their household and enjoy being in their presence (Brown, 2007).

The social construct of the term ‘animal’ is still widely used to include various roles

that the animal might have as:

Animals are used for food and clothing, production, for transportation and draught

power, for sport, religion, amusement, recreation and betting, for warfare, hunting,

tracing and protection, for assisting others through their service, shepherds and

lumberman, for obtaining social status and social support, for nature conservation and

for research. In all functions, different relationships are maintained (Bokkers, 2006

p.31).

However, the socially constructed term ‘pet’ differs from the term ‘animal’ in its

definition as the term pet is used to delineate the warm presence of animals that is provided

  19  

through their companionship (Grier, 2006). Evidence suggests that the presence of pets has

been present throughout human history, in particular dogs. Some of the oldest known

archaeological findings reveal that 11,000 to 14,000 years ago, domesticated dogs have been

buried with humans in Israel and Northern Europe (Serpell, 2011). Domestication is the

process by which a population of animals changes and becomes adapted to human beings as a

pet and usually creates a dependency to the extent that the animal loses its ability to survive

on its own in the wild. Clear examples of this are domesticated pet dogs. (Bokkers, 2006).

Throughout history, the relationship between humans and pets has been one of the most

riveting bonds that drew the attention of many researchers. Past studies demonstrate that the

role of pet-dogs in contemporary society can be significant for many people (Serpell, 2011).

According to a survey held in 92 countries by the world society for the protection of animals,

people share their home with an estimated 342 million dogs in 93 countries (Batson, 2008).

It is interesting to note that according to an American pet products Association survey;

the vast majority of pet owners regard their pet as their friends (95%) or family members

(87%) (Walsh, 2009a). A similar survey was conducted in United Kingdom with 1135 adult

pet owners revealed that 90% of the pet owners regard their pet as part of the family. The

same survey shows that while 15% consider their pet more important than their cousins, 6%

stated that they like their pet more than they liked their own partner.

2.2.2 The Maltese Context

There is no qualitative research reported in relation to the human-animal bond within

the Maltese context. However, it can be observed that more awareness is being raised in

relation to animal welfare and the rights of animals. For instance, several non-profit

  20  

organisations held numerous awareness campaigns during the past years, promoting animals’

wellbeing. The Dogs Trust Malta, for example, co-ordinated the ‘puppy plan’ campaign,

which aimed to help puppies, be fully prepared for their future as pets with their owner. In

addition, neutering and Micro chipping campaigns for dogs and cats are also being promoted.

Moreover, eight animal sanctuaries in Malta and one in Gozo work in order to support

abandoned cats and dogs with the final aim to home them with a loving family. Online

forums on various social networking websites, have also been created and used widely by the

Maltese population with the aim to home abandoned animals, share stories, information and

photos of pets and sign online petitions against national and international animal cruelty.

Awareness of the Maltese population also contributed to the proposed amendment of

the legislation for Animal Welfare Act (Animal Welfare Act, 2002). Such regulations aim to

advocate for and to protect the well being of animals (Animal Welfare Amendment Act,

2014). An animal ambulance operating 24/7 is provided by the Malta Animal Welfare

Department in order to support injured stray animals and to assess reports of animal neglect

and abuse. Whilst, there are people who care and love their animals, sadly, domesticated

animals have often been abused by humans (Walsh, 2009a). Fines are being implemented for

people maltreating and abusing animals in Malta. The current animal welfare act stipulates

that any person, who maltreats animals, can be convicted to pay a fine ranging from one

thousand euros to fifty five thousand euros or/and imprisoned for a period not exceeding

three years year (Animal Welfare Amendment Act, 2014).

There are also specific laws for owners to safeguard their pets’ safety, for instance; all

dogs over the age of four months must be micro chipped and registered with the Government

Livestock database and license issued as from 30th April 2012 (Electronic Identification of

  21  

Dogs Regulations, 2011). Such law ensures that if the pet goes astray the owner of such pet

can be easily identified. Moreover, owners have now the responsibility by law to keep dogs

on leash when they are in public places (Control of dogs regulations, 2001). In response to

the Maltese dog owners’ requests, more importance is now given to the need of having dog

friendly areas within the Maltese Islands. In fact there are now 2 dog parks and 14 bays have

been designated as dog friendly. The above-mentioned laws and regulations shed light on the

importance that Malta is attaching to animal welfare, by striving to protect, care and support

animals.

People adopting, buying and raising pets, have responsibilities on a financial as well as

on a social level. Pets need to be cared for by being fed, taken to the vet when required and

by ensuring that the pet knows the basic behavioural skills when being exposed to other

people to avoid being a threat to society. Recently, several behavioural classes have been

introduced in Malta. These classes aim to help pet owners control unwanted behaviour by

their pet, while also serving as a great platform to build the bond between owners and their

pets (Kruger, Mcune & Merrill, 2012).

2.2.3 Is it “just a pet?”

2.2.3.1 Psychological And Physical Influence Of Human-pet Bond

Evidence suggests that pets, especially dogs, might offer psychological, physical and

social benefits to humans (Smolkovic, Fajfar & Mlinaric, 2012). Dogs have complex thinking

processes and have acute sensory perceptions. In addition biological anthropologists have

found that dogs have the ability to be attuned to the human cues and signals (Udelle &

Wynne, 2008).

  22  

Whilst the term ‘pet’ is a social construct to describe the warm and enjoyable

presence of domesticated animals, scientific research has incited such belief as it

demonstrated the pleasure that people might experience on an attachment level when they are

with their pet-dog. Studies have shown the physiological changes of being in the presence of

a pet or stroking a pet; for instance the cortisol, heart rate and blood pressure, stress

hormones like adrenaline and non adrenaline are reduced, whilst the oxytocin, also referred to

as a happy hormone is increased. These changes in the brain result in a reduction of stress,

anxiety and at times pain, while increasing a sense of relaxation and physical well being

(Barker & Wolen, 2008).

In addition previous studies have also demonstrated that animals, may even benefit

from the contact with humans as the “dog’s attachment behaviour toward its owner is

mediated via the same system, notably the oxytocin system, which is also active in the close

social interactions between humans.” (Julius, Beetz, Kotrschal, Turner & Unvas –Moberg,

2013 p. 141). These studies demonstrated that when pet owners stroke their pet-dog, similarly

to humans, dogs experience an increase in oxytocin and a decrease in cortisol level (Julius et

al., 2013). The various studies held in relation to psychological and physical well-being of

humans and animals are also the staple concept that guides animal assisted therapy practice in

various therapeutic contexts; such as in the mental health setting, therapy with children,

adults and older adults, and therapy in the medical field to reduce physical pain of patients

(Fine, 2006).

The physiological benefits and chemical changes in human brain when in contact with

their pet-dog might be directly correlated to the pets’ loyal, non-judgmental, constant and

  23  

stable presence (Smolkovic et al. 2012). Based on qualitative studies, pet-dogs might also

facilitate social interaction and get people talking to one another, as they are the type of pets

most likely to venture with their owners in the broader community. “Animals are considered

to be powerful catalysts for positive social interaction across many different contexts”

(Kruger et al., 2012. P 11). By virtue of a dog’s own needs of walking, owners might have a

direct positive influence on physical health, as according to Ham and Epping (2006), dog

owners are more likely to get a 30 minutes of exercise per day.

The physical and mental health benefits of pets have been well documented, with pet

owners reporting a number of advantages when compared with non–pet owners. For instance

a longitudinal research held in Germany and Australia revealed that people who had

continuously owned a dog were the healthiest group when compered to those who did not

have a dog (Headley & Grabka, 2007). In addition studies also report fewer visits to the

doctor, lower blood pressure and cholesterol, and a more stable routine in their daily living

(Anderson, Reid, & Jennings, 1992).

While the above results, prove that pet-dogs can evoke positive psychological and

physical benefits in the life of humans; these are created through a process and build up of a

positive relationship (Kruger et al., 2012). Like every relationship, positive relationships

with pets are not built automatically, but through a circular process of caring and sharing

frequent positive interactions (Sanders, 2003). The human-animal bond is a mutually

dynamic relationship that is influenced by behaviours, which are essential to the health and

well-being of both. This includes, emotional, psychological, and physical interactions of

people, animals, and the environment (Serpell, Coppinger, & Fine, 2006).

  24  

This implies that the above-mentioned studies and benefits of pets are not universal,

and depend on the relationship that humans have with pets. Studies have also acknowledged

that not every human is willing to form a bond with animals, and people might not consider

animals as significant in their life. In fact many people choose not to have a pet in their

household or else “some human-animal relationships may present themselves as insecure or

disorganized.” (Julius et al., p.139). Different family members sharing their home with a pet

might also differ in their perspective and bond created with the pet. (Hosey and Melfi, 2013).

2.2.3.2 Couple And Family Relations With Pet-dogs

Since people’s interactions with pets, usually occur in a family context, household

pets are considered as fully fledged participants in the family system influencing and being

influenced by its context and family members (Sanders, 2003). Family members forming an

emotional bond and feeling very close to a pet might also foster an ability to empathise and

be compassionate with other beings (Walsh, 2009a). A relationship created with a pet-dog is

different from any other relationship within the family system as it is dependent on the touch,

attunement, non-verbal cues and senses. A typical example of an empathic response is when

humans recognise that the pet-dog is feeling unwell by the way it is behaving (Arkow, 2006).

Walsh (2009a) distinguishes the pet dog relationship from any other familial relationship as

“Pets greet their human companions enthusiastically on the worst days; they do not notice

bad hair; they forgive mistakes; and they do not need to talk things through.” (p. 471).

In addition, unlike human-human relationships, pet dogs do not present a ‘double-

bind’ situation, as they cannot convey a discrepancy between the verbal and non-verbal cues

(Myers, 1998). Through their characteristics pets can offer an ‘uncomplicated’ relationship in

  25  

a person’s life (Quindlen, 2007).

While having pets can be a positive experience, it can also be considered a major

source of commitment, as it requires adaptation (Walsh, 2009a). Conflicts amongst family

members in relation to rules and responsibilities can sometimes arise. Often these spousal

conflicts over pets are related to different views such as one spouse being too soft with the

pet-dog, whilst the other spouse being too strict (Walsh, 2009b). Incongruence and

inconsistent rules often influence the pet-dog’s behaviour and in turn this might impact the

family system and the couple relationship due to lack of stability in the pet-dog’s behaviour.

The well-known dog behaviourist Ceaser Milan also known a dog whisperer (2006) adopts a

structural approach (Minuchin, 1974) and works with the ‘parents’ when pet-dog problematic

behaviour arises in order to create structure, boundaries and hierarchy within the family

system. Grandin and Johnson (2009) express that like children pet-dogs require good

parenting, rewards and boundaries.

A struggle that couples might experience in their relationship is to find the right

balance between connecting through common activities and spending time together, whilst

maintaining individuality and space for separateness (Gottman & Levenson, 2000). Whilst a

dog can increase the time spent together as a couple, according to Cline (2010), if one of the

spouses is extremely invested in their pet dog, an imbalance, which influences the couple

relationship, might be created.

In a pioneering study, Cain, a Bowen-oriented family therapy educator, presented her

survey on the significant role of pets in family systems (Cain, 1983). From this study, it was

revealed that frequent use of “triangling” occurred with pets in the family systems of 60 pet-

  26  

owning families. Triangles, as Bowen (1978) described are patterned ways of transferring

intense interpersonal feeling onto another third member. “Thus, a father might yell at the dog

when he was angry with his wife, a mother might say something to the cat that her daughter

would overhear, or two pets would begin fighting when family members are distant or tense”

(Melson & Fine, 2006, p.217). According to Cane (1983), couple members can have

different relationship with their pets and hence different attachment bonds with their pet-dog

might be created.

When triangulation occurs, couple members can risk showing warmth and affection

towards the pet-dog whilst neglecting the couple connection. In specific relationship

dynamics, such as pursuer-distancer relationship, couple members could experience jealousy

and hurt, especially if a partner seeks more intimacy than the other member within the couple

relationship. Cain (1983), provided an example of a couple that went for couple therapy; the

scenario of a wife feeling starved for connection with her husband, who sat petting their pet

on his lap whilst he could not show affection to her was presented. Such dynamics can prove

meaningful information about the couple relationship pattern. Cohen (2002), found that

gender differences might also influence the way that the couple might perceive their pet-dog.

The latter mentioned study revealed that men tend to be less verbally expressive about their

relationship with their pet when compared to women.

Walsh (2009a), highlights that although pets can be triangulated in the couple

relationship when tension arises, the special bonds that people create with their pet-dog does

not necessarily reflect a failed connection or tension with other family members; as the

animal-pet bond can also enhance other close family relationships. For instance, Allen

(1995), found that couples with high attachment to their pet-dog and couples relating to their

  27  

pet-dog in addition to ones’ spouse offered greater marital satisfaction and well-being. Pets

can act as social facilitators within the family system and increase the time the couples spend

with each other. This is especially reflected when routine tasks to care for the pet-dog such as

walking the pet-dog are done jointly by the couple (Smolkovic et al., 2012)

“Young adults, both singles and couples often choose to raise pets before or instead of

parenthood, gaining abilities to provide nurturance, affection, limit-setting and concern for

another living being.” (Walsh, 2009, p. 482). For families with growing children, pets can

also be part of the social support system and learning process as they can offer opportunities

to experience nurturance (Hart, 1995). According to Cain (1983) when a significant bond is

formed with pets, they can act as the “glue in the family – bringing members together and

increasing family cohesion” (as cited in Walsh, 2009, p. 483).

A qualitative research held about ‘framing pets as interactional resources in family

discourse’ (Tannen, 2004) draws from two-middle-class, dual-career white couples with

children who audio taped their own interactions for 1 week, revealed that pet-dogs can be

used as resources in accomplishing and framing family members interactions. A typical

example is the following:

A couple who live together are having an argument. The man suddenly turns to their

pet dog and says in a high-pitched, baby-talk register, “Mommy’s so mean tonight.

You better sit over here and protect me.” This makes the woman laugh—especially

because she is a petite 5 ft., 2 in.; her boyfriend is 6 ft., 4 in. and weighs 285 lb.; and

the dog is a 10-lb. Chihuahua mix. (Tannen, 2004, p. 399).

  28  

Through such interactions with their pet-dog the families who participated in this

study buffered criticism, used humour to reframe negative interactions, delivered praise to

other members, resolved conflict, apologised and thought values to their children. In addition

the pet-dog reinforced the bond of couples through the position of parents adopted with their

pet-dog. The positions that the family members created during Tannen’s study, could be seen

as a form of ‘triangulation’, however this dynamic is framed as something positive as it views

the pets as interactional resources in the family system.

When pets are considered as important part of the family system, various feelings

might be conveyed in relation to pets; such as love, anger, guilt and fear. Very challenging

situations in relation to their pet-dog’s health might also be experienced in the couple

relationship, such as illness, accidents or voluntary euthanasia precipitated by the animals’

age or weakness (Sanders, 2003). “Whenever a life transition occurs, individuals and couples

have to manage changes in their emotional responses, in their sense of identity (their inner

world) and their roles, responsibilities and relationship with others (their social world).

These shifts have the potential to create positive and negative outcome.” (Walker, Abela and

Walker, 2014p. 131). Therefore, the couples’ different stages experienced when raising a

pet-dog, might be lived differently by diverse family systems.

2.2.4 Pets In The Therapy Realm

The inclusion of pets in individual psychotherapy is becoming commonly practiced,

especially with children; nonetheless limited attention has been dedicated to the human–

animal bonds within family therapy research and practice (Imber-black, 2009). Several

practitioners working in European countries and USA incorporate animal-assisted therapeutic

  29  

interventions into their work; such as psychotherapists, school counsellors, speech

pathologists and therapists, physical therapists, physicians, psychologists and social workers

(Arkow, 2006).

Walsh (2009b), highlights the need to incorporate pet-dogs also in the Systemic

psychotherapy realm, when issues related to a pet arise; for instance when conflicts in

relation to a pet are experienced or else when the family experience the loss of a pet. Since a

pet can adopt different roles and meanings with different family members within a system,

the loss of a pet-dog may create a strong grieving process; especially when past losses have

been experienced. McGoldrick, Gerson and Petry (2008), have introduced the importance of

including pets in the family genogram, even if they are not physically present in the therapy

room. Such information can reveal meaning and significance of bonds with pets;

involvement, concerns, or conflict about a pet, animal illness or pet loss; animals’ role in

couple and family relationships and metaphorical discussions about pet that can facilitate the

expression of difficult emotions.

Whilst pets can be used therapeutically with families even when they are not present

in the therapy room, certain therapists might also invite the family to bring their family pet in

for therapeutic sessions (Fine, 2006). This can have a number of benefits; while pets can

posses a unique capacity to facilitate interactions in challenging therapeutic context,

observation of the interactions with the family pet in the therapy room can yield to important

information about the relational dynamics. In addition, pet owners might feel safer and secure

in the presence of their pet during therapy (Zilcha – Mano et al., 2011).

  30  

2.3 Conclusion

Through this study, it is aimed to provide further insight for professionals working

with couples who own a pet as the experience of the couples’ relationship with their pet dog.

This aims of this study is going to be fulfilled through qualitative data collection with the use

of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. This will be delved into during the following

chapter that will focus on the methodology used to conduct this study.

  31  

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.0 Introduction

This chapter will start by explicating the research question of this study. Following

that, the Qualitative research design used to explore the experience of the couples’

relationship with their pet-dog will be explained. The different approaches within qualitative

research and the rationale for choosing Interpretative Analysis will be delved into. This

chapter will also include the established criteria for choosing participants and the recruitment

process of participants. A discussion of the interview guide will be presented. In addition, a

description of the data collection, data analysis procedures, validity and reliability of this

study and ethical considerations implemented throughout this study will be outlined. Finally,

the self-reflexive process of the researcher will be included in this chapter.

3.1 Research Question

What is the experience of couples’ relationship with their pet-dog?

3.2 Qualitative Research Design

The Qualitative method used in this study enables the researcher to obtain insights

about participants’ experience that would have been rather difficult to obtain through

quantitative research (Rubin & Babbie, 2007). Whilst quantitative methods aim at

generalising findings, qualitative approaches focus on capturing experiences through

  32  

narratives. The research strategy adopted in qualitative research is usually inductive,

constructionist and interpretative (Bryman, 2012).

Qualitative research enables the use of open-ended questions in order to give the

participants’ the freedom to respond in their own words rather than limiting them with fixed

responses. Such a design is more likely to reflect a truer picture and an in-depth

understanding of the participants’ experience since it facilitates their expression of feelings

(Rubin and Babbie, 2007). According to Cresswell (2009), people who engage in a

qualitative study need to adopt an inductive style, focus on the individual meaning and reflect

the complexity of the respondents’ accounts.

3.3 Choosing IPA as a Qualitative Research Design

There are different methods within the qualitative paradigm. Some of these include

grounded theory approach, discourse analysis, thematic analysis, narrative analysis and

interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Commonalities among the above mentioned

methodologies exist, as the central purpose of all of them is to enrich our understanding of

the phenomena in question, yet research designs can still differ radically in their assumptions

and implications as they have each developed their own theoretical and methodological

approaches. Therefore it was important to consider all the variables when choosing the right

research design for this study in order to ensure that the objectives of the research will be

achieved through the chosen research method (Smith & Bekker, 2011).

A brief description of the different qualitative methodologies will be outlined in order

to explain why IPA was chosen above other existing qualitative research methods.

  33  

3.3.1 Grounded Theory

Grounded theory explores social processes that occur in human interactions and is

concerned with the process of the interaction rather than describing it. The purpose of

grounded theory is mainly to develop a theory relating to the studied social processes. This is

particularly relevant when the area being studied has no theoretical underpinnings (Smith &

Bekker, 2011). Grounded theory was not chosen for this study, as generating theory was not

an explicit aim of this research. Moreover according to Biggerstaff (2012), “due to the

complexity of people’s lived experiences, participants’ narratives about their lives, feelings/

or emotions, may not always be best served by adopting GT as a method (p. 188).

3.3.2 Discourse Analyses

Discourse Analysis is mainly concerned with nuances of dialogue. Discourse Analysis

has become more of a critique of how we describe the language we use. This method is

different than other qualitative methods such as IPA as it does not aim to examine the

meaning people ascribe to their experience but explores the role of language in participants’

descriptions of events and conversations (Biggerstaff, 2012).

3.3.3 Thematic Analyses

Similar to IPA, thematic analysis focuses on identifiable themes and patterns of living

and/or behavior. Nonetheless unlike IPA it is not recommended when researchers want to

address questions about people’s experiences and working with small samples. Thematic

  34  

analysis is recommended when the focus is more on patterned meaning across the data

(Wood, Giles & Percy, 2009).

3.3.4 Narrative Analyses

Narrative analysis focuses on the structure, content and function of the stories

narrated by individuals. In Narrative analysis participants are encouraged to tell their story as

through their narrative, the person’s understanding of the meaning of events in their lives can

be analysed by the researcher (Bryman, 2012). IPA has a connection with various forms of

narrative analysis as it is also concerned in with meaning making. However, due to the

purpose of the research, IPA was more appropriate as it is consistent with the epistemological

position of my research question that focuses upon the ‘understanding of couples’

relationship with their pet-dog.’ IPA research tends to focus upon people’s experiences and

understandings of particular phenomena (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

3.3.5 Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

A number of questions that researchers can reflect upon when choosing the research

method are; what do I want to discover about this particular phenomenon? What kind of data

collection is required? These questions are imperative to consider before choosing a

qualitative analytical tool (Shaw, 2001).

After considering the available qualitative research methodologies and reflecting on

the above-mentioned questions, the research question of this study was more suitably

  35  

addressed though a phenomenological research method such as IPA. IPA is concerned about

the experience of the participants and for this reason it is conducted in small sample sizes

(Biggerstaff, 2012). Therefore, Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) will be used in

this study to understand the experience of couples’ relationship with their pet-dog.

IPA fits within a systemic framework as it is influenced by a postmodern

epistemology. Congruent with systemic ideas IPA acknowledges the importance of the

researchers’ self-reflexivity and the influence of second order cybernetics (Smith et al.,

2009). The phenomenological aspect of IPA lies in its aim to explore the participants’

personal experience and to delve deeper in their meaning making process (Smith et al., 2009).

In turn, researchers must acknowledge their own ideas, to be truly phenomenological in their

studies. According to Smith et al. (2009) researchers need to detach their own selves from the

activity and be in touch with the ‘taken-for-granted experience of it’ also referred to as

‘bracketing’ our own ideas.

IPA is particularly suitable where the topic under investigation is new, or under-

researched (Smith & Osborn, 2007) as in the case of the current study. According to Smith

(2010), IPA is also idiographic given that it provides a detailed analysis of each case. In

addition, Smith (2010) introduced the ‘double hermeunetic’ process where the participant

makes sense of their experience and then the researcher tries to interpret the experience of the

participant’s ‘sense-making activity’. Smith et al. (2009) maintain that IPA can combine a

hermeneutic of empathy with a hermeneutic of questioning aiming to produce rich

experiential description of the participants’ experience.

  36  

3.4 The Process of Recruiting a Homogeneous Sample

During this study purposive sampling was used. Purposive sample is a type of

probability sample where the sample is a representative subset of some larger population, and

is constructed to serve a very specific need or purpose (Bryman, 2012). Therefore IPA

attempts to find a more closely defined group for whom the research question will be

meaningful through purposive sampling (Smith, 2010).

At the beginning stage of this research, initial contacts were made through the Malta

dog training service. The Malta dog training service is an organisation that offers sport

training, ring training, obedience training and behaviour consultancy for dogs with

behavioural issues. A small advert was formulated (Appendix 1), highlighting the research

title and research criteria. After being approved by the Institute of Family Therapy Malta

ethics committee (Appendix 2) the advert was sent to the mailing list of Malta dog training

service. Although for homogenous purposes, at first it was planned that all the sample would

be recruited through the Malta dog training services, only one couple committed to

participate in the study through such link. The IPA model suggests that the “recruitment

might be reviewed as it is occurring and if it difficult to recruit participants from a particular

group one may need to expand one’s inclusion criteria” (Smith, et al., p. 50). Therefore the

recruitment advert was posted in a Maltese animal awareness group on Facebook. Those who

were interested to participate contacted me via e-mail and more information about the study

was provided. Initially 10 couples contacted me, as they wanted to know more about the

research. However only 5 couples committed themselves to meet for the interview. This

fulfilled my sample criteria as I had planned to interview 5 couples.

  37  

A pilot interview was held. Pilot studies offer the opportunity to reflect the

interviewing process whilst considering any possible changes that might support the study

(Yin, 2011). Such means supported me to review the questions and reflect about any aspects

that might be altered within the Interview schedule. Through the pilot interview and

consultations with colleagues, the semi-structured interview was revised so that the questions

were worded in a clearer and more succinct way.

3.4.1 Inclusion Criteria of the Study

• An adult cohabiting couple; such criterion was established as cohabiting couples

could reflect dynamics and patterns about their daily experiences. Such criterion

could also offer further homogeneity amongst the sample population.

• The dog had to have been adopted at least six months before the interview. A 6-month

bonding period is followed by various animal – assisted therapy organisations

working with therapy pets. Such time frame offers the possibility for owners who

wish to register their pet as a pet therapist to build a strong relationship with the pet

(Pet Partners, 2012). Therefore a 6-month bonding period will be also followed in this

study, so that pet owners would have had the opportunity to build a relationship with

their pet.

• The dog must be kept in their house. This aspect was considered important in order to

assure that the dogs are not kept in a garage or a yard for instance. The latter reality is

not conformant with couples that keep their dog in their household. Therefore for

homogeneity’s purposes such criteria was applied when recruiting participants.

  38  

3.4.2 Participants

Although the interviews were held with 5 couples living together and owning a pet

dog for at least 6 months, the couples’ life stages differed. For instance 2 couples were newly

weds, 2 couples were married and parents of young children and one of the couples have

been cohabitating together for the past one year six months. The ages of the participants

ranged from 26 to 37 years while the age of the dogs ranged between one 1 1/2 years old and

7 years old. The life stage and age of the couple was not included as a criterion, because the

aim of the study was to explore the different and particular experiences of couples with their

pet dog. Therefore. the different life stages and experiences could offer further insight about

the uniqueness and different relationships that couples have with their pet dog in their

particular situation. Such differences could also reflect the dynamics of the couples’ with

their pet dog within their context and familial circumstances.

Although the sample may appear small, it conforms to the recommended sample size

for IPA work i.e. three to six (Smith et al., 2009). This is because the main aim is to produce

an in-depth analysis of the accounts of a small number of participants, in this case 5 couples

residing together and have had a pet-dog for at least six months. Any conclusions derived

from this study are specific to this group and any action beyond that must be undertaken

tentatively.

  39  

3.5 Participants’ Information

Table 3-1: Participants’ Information

3.6 Data Collection

3.6.1 Interview Location

Five interviews were conducted in all, one with each couple. The interviews were

held where it was more convenient for the respondents. Three of the interviews were carried

out at the participants’ home and two interviews were held at Institute of Family Therapy,

Malta. The three interviews that were held in the couples’ home enabled me to grasp a clearer

picture of these families’ lives and observe their interactions with their pet-dog (Newhill,

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’

pseu

dony

ms

Age

of

part

icip

ants

Part

icip

ants

do

gs’

pseu

dony

ms

How

long

th

ey h

ave

had

been

livi

ng

toge

ther

How

long

th

ey h

ave

had

thei

r do

g

Oth

er fa

mily

m

embe

rs

resi

ding

in th

e ho

useh

old

Couple 1 Ray 32

Toffee 4 months 4 months /

Leah 31

Couple 2 John 30

Maya and Ella 1 ½ years 1 year and 2 months

/ Amy 29

Couple 3 Luke 37

Mina 8 years 7 years 3 year old daughter

Sandra 37

Couple 4 Mark 31 Lora 8 years 4 years 9 month old

son Anna 30

Couple 5 Jack 29

Jess 1 ½ years 1 year and 4 months

/ May 26

  40  

2004). Whilst the couples that preferred to hold the interviews at the Institute of Family

Therapy Malta were invited with their pet-dog, they attended without their pet-dog, as it was

more convenient for them.

3.6.2 Semi Structured Interview Schedule

An interview schedule was devised. The semi-structured interview guide was

designed in order to facilitate the conversations and answer the main research question that is

concerned with ‘What is the experience of couples’ relationship with their pet-dog?’

Conformant with IPA design, questions were open ended, non-leading and aimed to highlight

the experience of the couple with their pet-dog. The interview guide was revised on several

occasions, so that the questions are clear and succinct. The interview schedule began with

demographic and background questions followed by questions about the experience of the

couples’ relationship with their pet-dog. The demographic questions asked at the beginning

of the interview provided a clearer picture of the participants’ context, identity and

background information relevant to this study.

The Social constructionist and Systemic theory informed the questions designed for

the semi-structured interview. The couples’ experience, meaning, and the relational aspect

were provided significant importance when designing the questions. The systemic aspect was

also very important as questions focused on dynamics of the couple with their pet dog and

also how their relationship with their pet-dog might influence them as a couple.

The first question of the semi-structured interview aimed at revealing the experience

and the relationship of the couple with their pet-dog. The interview started with this question

in order to allow the participants to recount a fairly descriptive experience with their pet-dog.

The second question, aimed to reflect the process of deciding to introduce a pet dog whilst

  41  

exploring the dynamics of the couple before and after they homed their pet-dog. Such

question focuses on the experience, patterns and the couple relationship.

The third question aims to delve into the process of the couple’s daily routine and

experience with their pet-dog. This aspect might reveal information about how they adapt

their daily life style as a couple in order to take care of their pet-dog in amalgamation with

other commitments the couple might have. The fourth questions aims to explore how the

couples manage the relationship between connectedness and separateness in the couple

relationship and also with their pet-dog.

The last question was a circular one and aimed to explore how their pet-dog might

perceive them as a couple. This question could reveal further information about dynamics

and experiences of the couple in relation to their pet-dog.

3.7 Demographic Data And Informative Questions Asked At The

Beginning Of The Interview.

Age –

Work -

How long have you been together?

How long have you been living together?

How long have you had your dog?

Are there any other members residing in the household?

  42  

3.8 Semi-Structured Interview Guide

1. How would you describe the experience of having a pet-dog?

-­‐ What does your pet dog mean to you?

-­‐ How do you describe your relationship with your pet-dog?

2. Please could you tell me more about how you decided to bring a dog?

-­‐ How did you decide as a couple?

-­‐ How was your relationship similar or different after you brought your dog?

3. Could you describe a typical day with your pet-dog?

4. How do your relate to your dog when you are on your own and when you are in each

other’s company?

-­‐ Can you tell me what place the dog has in your couple relationship?

5. How do you think your dog experience you as a couple?

3.8.1 Interview process

Consistent with IPA, the schedule did not dictate the direction of the interview.

Rather, flexibility was used with most participants, allowing issues to be raised even when

they were not directly related to the interview schedule (Smith & Osborn, 2007). Eatough and

Smith (2006, as cited in Smith & Osbourn, 2007) highlighted how semi-structured interviews

allow a flexible approach to data gathering for IPA and give a central place to understanding

the individual's experiences and meanings while maintaining an awareness of the contextual

  43  

factors surrounding the interview. While the interview helped me to keep track and relate

back to the original research question, I did not always follow the sequence on the interview

schedule, nor did I ask every question as at times the participants answered the questions

while they were recounting their experience. Therefore flexibility and adaptability to the

situation supported the process of the interviews.

According to Smith et al. (2009), “Used effectively, and sensitively, semi-structured

interviews can facilitate rapport and empathy, and permit great flexibility of coverage”

(p.66). During the first few minutes of the interview, I introduced myself and established

rapport with the participants in order to help them feel at ease. I then made sure that

participants understood what taking part in the research entailed and provided their consent to

participate in the research. When the participants were comfortable to start to interview, the

semi-structured interviews were initiated.

During the interviews I made sure that the participants were given time to provide a

full account of their experiences and, when required, I also facilitated the process by using

prompts. I made sure that my enthusiasm and knowledge on the topic would not influence my

way of interviewing and I therefore consciously adopted the role of an active listener with a

non-directive style consisting mostly of reflecting and probing whenever needed. Probes

were used throughout the interviewing process, in order to help participants deconstruct

further their experience (i.e. How? Can you tell me more about that? What do you mean?

How did that make you feel? How did you experience this?).

The interview was held with couple. It was decided to hold the interview together

with the couple rather than individually, as such approach could reveal further the dynamics

about the couple during the interview whilst offering a systemic perspective of the couples’

experiences. Such approach could also reveal their actions and reactions of their individual

  44  

responses in front of each other. A spontaneous and interesting dialogue was created during

the interview together with the couple; at times they were agreeing with each other, adding to

each other’s perspective or giving an alternative perspective to what was said by their partner.

The interviews also offered the opportunity to include members who were not present, such

as their pet dog, children and their family, since questions were asked in a circular fashion in

order to include their wider context.

The interviews were recorded on an MP3 player with digital recording facilities and

lasted around one hour each. The resulting interviews were then transcribed verbatim.

3.9 Data Analysis

The data was analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The first step

in the analysis involved repeated reading of transcripts while taking notes related to key

phrases and processes of the interview from each transcript. All verbal and non-verbal

communication was also taken into consideration during the interview and when transcribing

and analysing the interviews.

After each reading, I felt more immersed in the data acquired and, as a result, I

became more responsive to what the participants said. The notes taken served to analyse any

significant comments made by the respondents In addition, these also helped to summarise

and make associations that come to mind. It also helped me to shape preliminary

interpretations about the participants’ experience (Smith & Osborn, 2007).

Within each transcript, these notes were summarised in order to produce initial

themes (Appendix 3). Care was taken so that these exploratory comments were consistent

with the data. When this process had been repeated with each transcript, the resulting set of

initial themes were examined to identify recurrent patterns across the transcripts, producing a

  45  

final set of super-ordinate themes. The links between these themes and the data set were

checked again at this stage.

After the entire transcript was read and analysed, all the significant themes were listed

chronologically on a sheet of paper so that emerging themes were observed and clustered in

an analytical fashion. Following this process, connections between the emerging themes

could be formed. Throughout the whole process of analysis, it was attempted to acknowledge

and bracket my reflections and ideas. This was done in an attempt to view the world as the

respondent experiences it. I also kept a notebook to write my reflections so that I could

acknowledge, externalise and process my thoughts.

Once the main themes were identified, they were grouped together in themes that

were broader and more encompassing. This stage consisted of a more analytical and

theoretical ordering, as meaning was made from the connections between the emerged

themes. Some of the themes were clustered together while others emerged as super-ordinate

concepts.

The above outlined process was repeated with every interview. Nevertheless,

particular attention was provided to repeating patterns whereas new issues emerging from

different interviews were also taken into account. Hence it was recognised that “accounts

from participants are similar but also different” ( Smith & Osbourn, 2007, p.73). Finally the

identified themes were discussed in terms of the existing literature. (Refer to discussion

chapter).

3.10 Increasing Validity And Reliability

In order to increase the validity and reliability of this qualitative study, the following

methodological strategies were implemented;

  46  

• Researcher’s self-reflexivity and self-awareness were important throughout the

process of the study so that the values and possible biases would not impinge on the

outcome of the study. Keeping notes of personal reflections and regular discussions

with colleagues were held in order to ensure that my biases and ideas were carefully

reflected upon and processed.

• A considerable number of verbatim extracts from participants’ material were included

in the findings chapter. Participants’ accounts give participants a voice in qualitative

studies whilst allowing the reader to check for the consistency and coherency of the

interpretations generated by the researcher (Smith et al., 2009).

• Regular meetings were held with the supervisor and independent auditing was held in

order to increase the coherence and plausibility of the study. Independent auditing

allows another person who has played no part in the research to check that the final

report is a plausible one in terms of the data that have been collected (Smith et al.,

2009).

3.11 Ethical Considerations

During this study, it was made sure that no harm would be done to participants.

Confidentiality was assured and maintained; therefore, a consent form, which included

information about the study, was provided to each participant (Appendix 4). Moreover the

purpose of the study, the confidentiality policy as well as the participants’ right to withdraw

from the research was clearly explained to the participants. It was also made clear that the

recorded audio interviews would be deleted when the research is finalised.

  47  

Participants were also informed about the nature of their involvement. They were

made aware about how I intended to proceed with the information collected and how I might

use quotes in the findings chapter. They were assured that confidentiality would be

safeguarded when using verbatim extracts and explained that the participants will be given

fictitious names and labeled accordingly on the transcripts.

If participants unpredictably manifested a type of behaviour, which might be of

concern during the interview, the person could have been guided and referred to the

appropriate professional support. During the whole research, pets were not harmed or tested

upon. However, the wellbeing of the pets was also taken in consideration. If from the

interview it emerged that the dogs had behavioural issues that are not being tackled, the

participants could have been provided the appropriate guidance about available dog

behaviour classes available in Malta. Referrals of the participants or their pet dog for

professional support was not necessary as there was no concerning issues that required

professional support throughout the interviews.

Discussions with the supervisor were held in order to anticipate any safety issues.

Since three of the interviews were held at the house of the participants the dogs were going to

be present, I made sure that I was informed about animal behaviour and body language as this

would support me to be aware and in tune to the dog’s needs. The interviews with the

participants and their pet dog proved to be a very fruitful experience. The participants had all

taught basic behavioural training to their pet-dogs; therefore no safety issues were

encountered throughout the interviews.

  48  

3.12 Self-Reflexivity

During this study self-reflexivity was crucial as it helped me to become aware of my

personal responses, beliefs and ideas. Consequently, I was able to consider and reflect on

intersubjective dynamics between my reflections and the data analysis. The process of such

an experience will be described below.

As soon as I furthered my studies in the systemic psychotherapy field, I found myself

reflecting more about my significant relationships in life, including that of my beloved pets.

My curiosity and interest in the bond that I built with my past pets and with my 2 dogs and 2

cats, have motivated me to read more about human-animal bond. My life philosophy from a

very young age reflected my respect towards other beings; whether a human, horse, cat, dog

and any other being or species. I acknowledge that every relationship is unique in its kind

and so it was with my animal companions. They all differed in their characteristics and ways

of relating; but they did have in common their amusing moments, their calmness when

petting them and their soothing presence. The values of compassion, caring for others,

responsibility and concerns for other beings can be tracked on my trans generational family

tree as I recall my grandparents, aunts, parents and siblings feeding and taking care of a

starving animal. I do acknowledge that my beliefs and experiences revolving around pets

encompass a positive script.

When holding this research it was crucial to be aware about my personal and cultural

contexts that reflected my beliefs revolving around pet-dogs. This helped me to be open and

adopt a curious position in relation to different possible narratives about the participants’ pet-

dogs, being positive or less positive, in order to allow the realities and the experiences of

participants to emerge. My self-reflexive process prior to the interview, helped to adopt the

position of a listener, which facilitated the conversation of participants through the use of

  49  

probes. I recall myself connecting with the reality of the participants, however my inner

dialogue allowed me to stay focused on the participants’ narratives rather than making

assumptions about the participants’ reality. This journey was a very enriching process as it

helped me to appreciate the different and unique bonds that people have in relation to their

pets. I was fascinated by new stories that I never encountered, for instance when couples

leave pets with a dog sitter if they go out during weekends or when participants left from

work during their break to take their pet-dog for a walk. The IPA analysis and listening to

their account several times after the interview helped me to stay with the couples’

experiences and with the themes presented. The dynamics reflected in the participants’

narratives was something striking to me, as it provided deeper insight about influence that

pet-dogs can have within couple relationships.

The fact that three of the interviews were held in the participants’ home was very

significant to me as I was able to observe the family in its environment together with their

pet-dog. I felt thankful to how the couples trusted me in their households with their stories

and experiences even if it was the first time we met. I felt really honoured to be part of the

couples’ system during the interview and I have also reflected on how my attitude and

approach has also influenced the way the families interviewed related to me. Indeed the

couples noticed my familiarity and comfort with dogs; however such aspects seemed to have

facilitated the process of engagement as the couples felt comfortable with their dogs moving

around us during the interviews. I could observe how the couples’ narratives were congruent

to how they were relating with their pet-dog during the interviews.

My experience and knowledge gained in my role of practitioner helped in the

engagement process with the participants as throughout the interview I maintained a non-

directive stance and a non-judgmental attitude. I made sure that the non-verbal cues also

  50  

reflected respect, acceptance and understanding of the presented reality. While listening to

the recorded interview I could further reflect on my actions and responses. I could recall how

at times during the interview I could empathize with the pain of the couples that were

discussing difficult emotions and fear of losing their dog. I could also recall my discomfort as

I could not intervene in the way I intervene during my work as a practitioner when listening

to the realities of the participants. This is because I was aware that the purpose of the

interview was different from therapy. Notwithstanding this, my role as a practitioner helped

in facilitating the process as I adopted a systemic approach throughout the interviews. For

instance I used systemic ideas to connect the couples’ narratives and give a space to voice the

thoughts and ideas of both.

Therefore, throughout the interviews I was continuously aware about my positioning

as a researcher. For instance while conducting this interview, I was also aware about how my

gender might have also influenced the research context. “Gender differences between the

researcher and the research play an important role in conducting research” (Liamputton,

2010, p. 123). According to Liamputton (2010), the gender identity of the researcher is

something that has been discussed for decades amongst feminist research. In addition, that

the feminist perspective posits that women are best interviewed by female interviewers. Such

a process was very similar to the reflexive process I go through when holding therapeutic

sessions. For instance I always reflect about how my gender might influence the process of

therapy. During this research I was interviewing the couple jointly. Since I had already read

previous literature about the human-pet bond in relation to gender prior to the interviews, I

made sure to be open rather than concur with stereotypical notions that position men as not

expressive about their pet-dog while women as more open to talk about their bond with their

pet-dog. Therefore, my curious stance helped me to be interested in the men and women’s

narratives. In fact upon reflection and after listening to the interviews, both the males and the

  51  

females were engaged and comfortable to talk about their experiences and the bond they have

with their pet-dogs. While analyzing the transcripts I still acknowledged and reflected about

my position as a female researcher and the importance to equally privilege the lived

experience of both the males and females.

Operating from a postmodern and collaborative position helped me to constantly

reflect about my own position and stance adopted during this study. It also helped me to

acknowledge my own experience and ideas within the field, rather than attempting to ignore

them or suppress them. It gave the permission to acknowledge the fact that “Personal views

and beliefs do, however guide our choices between paradigms and methods, as well our topic

of research ” (Etherington, 2004, p.25).

3.13 Conclusion

This chapter has presented an overview of the way the research was designed and the method

by which the data was collected and analysed. The main findings from the interviews will be

presented and discussed in the following chapters.

 

  52  

Chapter 4: Presentation Of Results

4.0 Introduction

Throughout this chapter, a detailed presentation of the results of the research

conducted will be provided. An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the transcribed

data yielded four superordinate themes:

- Different Constructed beliefs revolving around pet-dogs

- Significance of the pet-dog to the couple

- A special bond formed through a continuous exchange of interactions

- Pet-dog promoting change: A change in the couples’ lifestyle and dynamics.

Exploration of these master themes and their constituent superordinate themes will

form the basis of this chapter, with each theme illustrated by verbatim extracts from the

interviews (as presented in 4.1 below). The accounts highlight the couples’ experience in

relation to their pet-dog and the significance that the pet-dog has for them. As the themes are

discussed, the narratives of the participants’ reflection on the unique bond created with their

pet-dog will be delved into.

In presenting the verbatim extracts some minor changes have been made to improve

readability. Missing material is indicated by three dotted lines (…), and where material has

been added to add further clarification or to explain what participants are referring to, it is

presented within brackets. All identifying information has been removed or changed, and the

pseudo names of the participants and their dogs presented in the Method chapter have been

maintained to protect the anonymity of participants.

  53  

Superordinate Themes Sub-Themes

1. Different Constructed beliefs

revolving around pet-dogs

a) Couples’ experiences shaping their

constructed beliefs about pet-dogs

b) Couples’ interpretation of social beliefs

about pet-dogs

2. Significance of the pet-dog to the

couple

a) Couple adopting the position of parents -

“like a child to us”

b) Dog providing a sense of fulfillment and

satisfaction

c) “An experience beyond words”

3. A special bond formed through a

continuous exchange of interactions

a) Couple and their pet-dog in a continuous

process of adaptation

b) Couple and dog experiencing a secure

and consistent relationship

4. Pet–dog promoting change

a) Dog evoking change in the couples’

lifestyle

b) Dog’s influence on couples’ dynamics

Table 4.1 Superordinate and sub-themes  

  54  

4.1 Different Constructed Beliefs Revolving Around Pet-dogs

This superordinate theme highlights the diverse constructed beliefs revolving

around pet dogs generated by the couples and the people surrounding them. The

different experiences that the couples have gone through, and their narratives

revolving around pets will be elucidated in the sub-theme ‘couples’ experiences

shaping their constructed beliefs about pet-dogs’. The second sub-theme captures the

couples’ interpretation and reactions to people’s different beliefs revolving about pet-

dogs.

a) Couples’ Experiences Shaping Their Constructed Beliefs About Pet-dogs

The couples’ past experience influenced their current constructed belief about

pet-dogs. May and Jack perceived their childhood experiences with their pet-dogs as

positive. This influenced their construct about the significant role that a pet-dog has

in their home. The following excerpt also reflects how this belief influenced Jack and

May’s decision to adopt a pet-dog.

Jack: Ehe…our first home that we moved into, someone got home sick.

May: It was only because of the dog. We spent two months without a dog.

May: I was brought up with dogs.

  55  

Jack: I also, we always had a dog, so it was just so strange moving into a house

without one!

May: I’m an only child... I always grew up with dogs, if you see my photos as a

newborn baby, there’s a dog running after me or sitting down and playing with

my barbies everything. For me it was a sense of security. I never had, I was very

close to relatives, cousins etc., but for me I used kind of think of my dog as a

brother or sister. You would tell me ‘bis-serjeta?’

May’s experience signifies the meaningful presence that the family pet-dog

provided through her childhood years. May started her account by highlighting that

she is an only child and how she experienced her family dog as a constant companion.

May perceived her family dog as a sibling and a playmate that offered her a sense of

security. Due to their positive experiences in relation to pet-dogs May and Jack both

agreed to bring a dog prior to moving in together. Such decision is also reflected in

the preparation process also when they were looking for property;

May: In fact when we were looking for property, we went to see a couple of

flats, the first thing we would ask them is ‘are animals allowed?’ If they say

‘no dogs allowed’ we would go away. Cause we knew we would get an

animal.

Leah also expressed that they both had past experience of pet dogs.

  56  

Leah: We had but yes yes I at mummy’s home there were always dogs and Ray

they always had dogs.

Ray and Leah’s experiences influenced their perceptions and constructs about

their pet-dog. Since Ray’s ‘family dog’, was an energetic, large breed dog, his family

could not keep him any longer. Ray and Leah also express how their beliefs in

relation to their pet-dog Toffee differed from that of other family members. They

express that such a journey enhanced their bond with their dog even further as they

united as a couple, and keep their pet-dog. Ray also expressed that through such an

experience his love for his dog grew stronger.

Ray: Yes my mother got her, she didn’t bring the dog with the intention that I

would take her but it was meant to stay there.

Leah: we went through a period where like everyone wanted to get rid of him

and I think that was the point where we formed a truly big bond with the dog

because you would be standing against everyone to keep this dog.

Ray: …I mean after what happened you sort of start loving him more

Anna and Mark also expressed that they both had past experience of pet-dogs.

However, their constructed beliefs influenced their different positions prior to

adopting their pet-dog as Anna was convinced that she wanted a pet-dog whilst Mark

was more cautious about it. Mark expressed that his cautiousness was stemmed from

the awareness he had about the responsibilities it entailed. Although Anna and Mark

  57  

were both exposed to past experiences with pet-dogs, they distinguish their past

experiences from their current one, as they are now the main carers;

Anna: I really wanted a dog, he considered it for a while

Mark: I really wished a dog, I wished to get a dog as much as you did, but I

was aware of the responsibilities he would bring him eh. Today I don’t regret

it at all I mean.

Interviewer: And you both had dogs?

Anna: I didn’t always, he used to come and go, he had a dog.

Mark: We had a dog, but it was not the same as we have now but we had.

Anna: He sort of what to say that it’s not the same when it is yours, you bring

him up as you like.

Whilst the above three couples were all exposed to pet-dogs before adopting

their dog, Amy and John had diverse experiences with pet-dogs, which influenced

their constructed beliefs prior adopting their pet-dog. Whereas Amy expressed that

she was raised with dogs, on the other hand John said that he was never exposed to

pet-dogs and he was raised in a family that ‘fear’ dogs. John expresses that he was

also very fearful of dogs and what the commitment of caring for a pet-dog entails.

  58  

The following excerpt reflects John’s adaptation process and the shift in John’s and

his mother’s position in relation to dogs;

John: Yes we never had. And not only did we not have, that my mother is

extremely afraid of them. She is not afraid of these because she saw them

when they were tiny and she got used to them. But at the beginning, I was

afraid, I was afraid from the commitment because I didn’t know what it

entailed…they barely got here then. When I saw them that was it eh, I started

to play with them, give them to eat.

Sandra and Luke also had diverse experiences of pet-dogs; Sandra was raised

with dogs, while Luke never had a pet-dog. Luke loved dogs and his wish to

experience the bond with a pet-dog facilitated the process of the couple’s decision.

Sandra and Luke both had agreed to adopt a pet-dog prior to buying their house. In

fact they were also searching for dog-friendly property;

Sandra: Ever since I was young we always had a dog at home. I mean for me

every since I was little…my siblings are older than me, but I didn’t really have

anyone to play with. So I always used to have this dog following me you know.

The last one we had I was 5 years old until I was 15, so he grew up with me, I

mean I had a lot of experience with dogs. My husband no. He always wanted a

dog. In fact, when we were looking for a place, we used to look for a big yard

so that we could keep the dog. It was always in our plans to get a dog. I mean

I know the benefits of having a dog.

  59  

Luke: Yes like she said. I never had an experience with a dog, but I

wanted…even though I never had, I always loved them and liked them.

In her account Sandra also relates to her childhood experience and the benefits

of having a pet-dog. She had someone to play and to relate to. Sandra’s experience

was so positive that she also wanted to expose her child to the human-animal bond.

Anna also expressed her belief that children who are raised with animals tend to be

more caring and empathic;

Sandra: I always used to wish that my children would have the same

experience I had with a dog…I think that children who grow up with animals

have more empathy, they are more caring.

b) Couples’ Interpretation Of Social Beliefs Revolving Around Pet-dogs

A prominent theme in most of the couples’ accounts was how they interpret,

process and cope with different social constructs revolving around pet-dogs. For

instance Sandra and Luke pinpoint how they experienced restrictions in the Maltese

context.

Luke: In Malta we are close -minded

Sandra: We get upset that for example as a family we cannot go out for

example if we want to go to the playing field forget it. And we go out all right

  60  

as a family but restricted…for example there was a period when you couldn’t

go to Ta’ Qali with dogs but now it’s all right.

Moreover in the following excerpt Sandra highlights that in Gozo they tend to

experience a friendlier environment;  

Sandra: In Malta we are more close-minded… (in) Gozo, “do you want a

bowl with water for the dog?” before they ask whether you want a high chair.

(Laughing). And there are more places to take them for walks.

Jack’s and Amy’s following account echoes Sandra and Luke’s experience as

when they went to Sicily with their dog and Amy’s family dog they experienced a

more dog friendly context;

May: Abroad, in Sicily they accept dogs much more than here…Shops,

restaurant, you know? They go out of their way, because if you have a dog

they put you in a section alone and they actually welcome you and they see if

they want to eat as well. They prepare something special for the dog.

Jack: The education is very different.

May: Very different.

  61  

Jack: If you are walking around, let’s say just walking down the road, you’ve

got shops around there’s a lot of other people. Over here you see people

staring, taking a step back, keep them away, keep them on a chain.

The above conversation reflects the Couples’ interpretation of social beliefs

revolving around pet-dogs. They perceived other environments as more accepting to

dogs than Malta. The following account by Anna and Mark also reflects their

reactions to different people’s beliefs in relation to their dog Lora when Anna was

pregnant;

Anna: You get surprised how people think differently, for example when we

used to go for a walk, I was pregnant and they used to see me with Lora, they

would tell us get rid of her, to get rid of her politely

Mark: They used to ask us, what are you going to do with the dog? Or else,

and the dog? Now the dog? Are you going to keep her?...They tried to put

more pressure, than we put on ourselves

Interviewer: Who were these people?

Mark: Even people we didn’t know, they saw her pregnant

Anna: Even people we knew, like friends that love them but with a limit sort of.

We knew it was going to be a challenge, but…

  62  

Mark: I take it personally. Because for us she’s our daughter, and you would

be telling me “are you getting rid of your daughter?” You never get rid of

your family, or ignore it eh!

Anna: People put a lot of pressure – ‘you need to have a very clean house

because of the baby’. For example no one mentions sort of that our baby was

never sick and one of the reasons apart from breastfeeding is that.

In the above narratives, Anna and Mark, felt a lot of tension and pressure

imposed by societal constructs and expectations revolving around dogs and children.

They experienced such a phase as a challenging one as they found it hard to

understand how people could encourage them to get rid of their beloved pet-dog.

They also had to deal with all the societal expectations revolving around children

while upholding their beliefs. The pain and disappointment was still felt through their

narrative. They felt that people were creating a problem when they did not view it as

such;

Mark: These silly little things eh because the more you put pressure on

yourself, and you let people put [pressure], the more the issue is going to

become twofold and threefold when there isn’t a problem eh! There isn’t a

problem.

Anna: There isn’t a problem eh but the person creates it.

  63  

Although Leah and Ray did not express their experiences in relation to society

in general, after having gone through the experience of their dog’s not being accepted

by Ray’s family they tended to feel tense when they invited other people in their

house. As a result they said that they felt more comfortable to stay exclusively in

their dog’s presence;

Leah: No we get tense, we get tense…

Ray: But we are tense due to the fact that we know that the people we invited

don’t know the dog you see, you have to tell them and guide them how to

speak to him…not speak to him in the sens…we prefer not iniviting people so

that we are comfortable ourselves and himself I mean.

4.2 Significance Of The Pet-dog To The Couple

This superordinate theme reflects the couples’ significance of their pet–dog. The

significance is reflected by the couples’ comparison to the experience of having a child and

through the fulfillment and satisfaction that the dog provides to the couple. Whilst the

couples were verbalising their experience and the meaning of the bond that they have with

their pet-dog a pertinent theme that was reflected at some point during all the interviews was

the challenge to verbalise the bond created, as it is “an experience beyond words”.

  64  

a) Couple Adopting the Position Of Parents - “Like a child to us”

All the participants started the interview by comparing the experience of having of

having a pet-dog to the experience of having a child. All the couples were going

through different life stages as two of the couples were newly weds and just moved

house, one of the couples just moved into their house together and two other couples

were raising young children. However the comparison to having a child was

consistent in all the couples. The couples might have also used the word child to

emphasize their pet-dog’s importance to them and their relationship as a parent-child

bond as such a bond reflects one of the most meaningful bonds socially constructed

amongst society. The position of parents also reflects a sense of care and

responsibility. The following accounts reflect the couples’ positioning of parents.

Excerpt 1

May: She’s like a child, she’s like a child. If my mum goes out and has a

wedding, the other one usually comes to me. (giggling). If we both have an

event then, we go to a doggy sitter. We refer to her as our daughter. It’s

funny. Well she is like a kid in reality. We’re not going to leave a kid alone at

home, you know.

Excerpt 2

Luke: For me part of the family, I mean there’s nothing to argue. You see I

treat her as though she was my daughter. Part of the family for me.

  65  

Excerpt 3

John: You see for us they are like our children, they are like our children.

Leah added that she felt that their dog fulfilled her maternal instinct whilst

Ray expressed that he felt more comfortable to relate with dogs than with children.

Therefore through their accounts it was reflected their mutual decision not to have

children for the time being. While they seemed comfortable and open to discuss their

position, when Ray was saying that he felt more comfortable with dogs then with

children, Leah was agreeing with him while laughing. However at one point although

Leah was still laughing, she silenced Ray as she might have felt conscious about how

I, as an outsider, might perceive his statement;

Leah: I think that in summary he is like our son

Leah: Ray and I, I think for now we prefer having a dog or dogs rather than

sort of children. That’s why when you asked us we told you our son.

Leah: Sort of ever since Toffee came along, I admit I never was one who feels

the big need to have children but I think that the little maternal instinct I have,

it comes out with the dog.

Ray: Even the fact for example you put a baby sort of…

Leah: shhh

  66  

Ray: Even if I go to a home and there would be a girl or a boy and a dog, I

feel more able to relate with the dog, rather than for example I don’t imagine

myself if there’s a girl that I would sort of ask her how she is and stuff you see.

I feel more comfortable with the dog.

Mark and Anna’s account also reflected the couples’ significance of their pet-

dog to their family system by not only referring to their dog as a child, but also

referring to their dog as their son’s sister;

Interviewer: And if you had to describe what Lora means to you?

Anna: She like our daughter…

Mark: For me she’s our daughter

Anna: In fact, our son we tell him your big sister

The couples expressed that the position of parents are reflected also in their

different “parenting roles” adopted with their pet dog. This concept reoccurred

thematically throughout participants’ narratives and it reflects the different dynamics

that might be created amongst the couple and their pet-dog. For instance Anna

expressed the different positions that the couple adopted with their pet–dog and how

this reflected the behaviour of their dog when relating to them;

  67  

Anna: She is more afraid from one of us and with me it’s not that she does

what she wants let’s put it this way, but I am more easy

Similarly May also reflects the different roles adopted with their pet-dog;

May: think he’s more fun then me in reality... ‘Cause he plays a little rough,

he plays games with her which for me are too much. Like with the lead when

she keeps on pulling and jumping (giggling). But with me, she starts pulling

me and jumping on me.

Leah highlights the different roles that the couple adopts in different contexts

for instance when dealing with different circumstances related to their pet-dog;

Sandra: You see he is calmer, but then in health situations he panics. In

certain medical situations when there are hospitals and doctors involved I am

calmer in them. We have different roles.

While John highlighted the different roles that they had as a couple, he also

reflected about how their current position might also influence their parenting styles

when they would have children;

John: You see the style sort of already emerged. I cannot say how I would be

when I have kids, but I imagine that the situation would be like this as well,

that I would be the fun parent and you would be more disciplined.

  68  

The two couples that have children highlighted the importance to agree about

common rules as parents in order to provide consistency when teaching and training

their dog;

Anna: it’s the same as having children. I always describe it this way because

you have to see how to bring them up…So for example I tell him “don’t do

that, don’t tell her sit, tell her this”. We need to make sure that we agree. So

we need to agree, so that we see that her

Sandra also highlights the importance of providing consistency and setting

common boundaries as a couple;

Sandra: we had to agree on a set of rules, because maybe for Luke it would

have been I don’t know maybe for him certain things are ok, and for me they

aren’t, or the other way round.

In the following account Sandra also expresses how the training provided to

their dog supported her when parenting their daughter;

Sandra: Because we I say this, I can tell this to you, but I would not say this

with other people because they are like what? I (laughing) the training for our

daughter, it was sort of similar to the training of the dog. Because you

reinforce the positives so that they do more of it…then when I had our

daughter and we started reading and you know, you start experiencing

tantrum and how you deal with them, it’s similar to dogs’, because if you yell

  69  

at them you don’t get anything other than fear and anger. It’s not always easy

eh.

Whilst Sandra and her husband started the interview by saying that she

considers her dog as their child, an element of cautiousness, similar to the one

experienced with Leah and Ray, was felt when comparing the training provided to

their dog to the experience provided to their child. This is reflected by Sandra’s

statement “I would not say this with other people”. Jack’s following statement reflects

the lack of understanding that his partner May and him might experience by other

people;

Jack: It’s hard for a lot of people to understand because they don’t see a pet

the same way we do.

Interviewer: What is hard to understand?

Jack: that we love our dog as much as they love their kids. If they understand

that, then that’s enough.

b) “An experience beyond words”

The struggle of several participants to find words to describe the significance of

their pet-dog and the bond created, at some point during the interview, might reflect

the experiential aspect that might not always be easy to verbally articulate;

  70  

Sandra: I keep saying that there is something indescribable, that you cannot

put into words, the sensation they give you. They give you certain love, certain

attention, they give you certain serenity. You wouldn’t be doing anything

special, but I would not imagine my life without her.

Sandra’s narrative reflects that the sensation felt cannot be described in words.

Sandra’s significance of the bond is reflected in the paradox, which transpired in the

simplicity of the relationship “she would not be doing anything special” but also in

the intensity and significance of the relationship “I would not imagine my life without

her”. This aspect might not be always easy to explain and to express verbally. Leah,

John and May also found it a struggle to explain the significance of the bond with

their pet-dog, especially because it is “something that you have to experience”;

Excerpt 1

Leah: I’m trying to see how I am going to explain it because it’s something

you have to experience, it’s not something…it’s something that you build on a

period of time, it’s not like you say tomorrow I will behave in a certain way

and automatically you have the bond.

Excerpt 2

John: I don’t know how I am going to describe it.

Excerpt 3

May: I don’t really know how to express it.

  71  

The absence of verbal language is also reflected in the bond that is created

with the pet-dog as it was expressed by the couples’ numerous accounts that their pet-

dog offers a significant presence through non-verbal language. May, Anna and

Mark’s accounts reflect the support that a dog can provide through non-verbal

language and through the dog’s attunement to their needs, which Luke refers to as a

“silent company”.

Excerpt 1

Luke: They are company eh. At the end of the day they are silent company.

Excerpt 2

May:. If you’re in a good mood, if you are in a bad mood, she’s not going to

stay wagging her tail and jumping. She’s going to sit, lie down, lick me and

that’s it. And that’s a sense of security. You know, it’s just fun to have a dog.

You know friends sometimes they give you good advice they give you bad

advice, but dogs [give] you just relief, they don’t say anything and that’s

good.

Excerpt 3

Anna: even at night you are not alone eh

Mark: You have support without words

Anna: Exactly

  72  

Mark: She is always supporting you eh in everything. Even lately he was in

pain she used to come (referring to their dog Lora)

Ray also expresses how the dog’s response when relating to him through play is

revealed through his non-verbal language. His experience similarly to the other

narratives highlight that their dog does not need verbal language to communicate with

him;

Ray: I can say that when he comes to play so that I play with him and I start

playing with him I see him having fun. It’s almost as if he doesn’t need to speak.

c) Dog Providing A Sense Of Satisfaction And Fulfillment

All participants experience a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction by caring,

teaching and relating with their pet-dog. Through the following accounts it was

revealed that although the pet-dog increases the level of work and commitment of the

couples, is it still considered as a satisfying experience;

Excerpt  1  

Luke: It’s something that gives you a lot of satisfaction in return…you teach

the dog, he is learning and you are seeing a bit of progress in him, and that

you have something to take care of.

Excerpt 2

Mark: I feel that the dog fill our lives, it’s a lot of work you need to do with

her but it is very satisfying…

  73  

Excerpt 3

Amy: See hair, I wash the sheets more frequently. There is a bit more work.

But at the end I don’t regret sort of that I do these things.

Sandra expressed that by caring for their pet-dog, she experienced a sense of

distraction from her daily routine whilst Ray and Leah highlighted the satisfaction felt

by the reaction of their dog when they return back home. It is like the couples’

feeling of acknowledgement made the experience of having a dog as a worthwhile

one;

Excerpt 1

Sandra: Even having someone else that you are caring for, it gives you

something else on what to think about out of the normal life that you would

have

Excerpt 2

Leah: He makes you happy

Ray: Yes it’s like…he gives you satisfaction, you realize he was waiting for

you, he’s enjoying the fact that we are back

A sense of fulfillment was described through the narratives of the participants.

The couples highlighted that their pet-dog fulfills something that no other being can

fulfill. The couples interviewed also emphasized that they considered their couple

  74  

relationship as a strong one also before having a dog. They also added that however

their pet-dog offers something different while complimenting their couple

relationship. The couples were all very open and secure to talk about such aspect in

front of each other, as it was something that they both understood and shared through

their experience with their pet dog;

Ray: How am I going to tell you it’s like he gives you something that makes

you happy and we feel that he gives this to us sort of…you can ask me sort of

so Leah doesn’t make you happy?

Leah: But it’s differenti, a different kind of happiness and love

Ray: It’s like there is something else that he gives to you

Although May and Jack also agreed that they have a good couple relationship,

Jack expresses how their dog fulfills a need that no other relationship can provide;

May: well as a couple obviously I mean, we have a good relationship, because

most of the time we are happy, happy together, we are obviously sort things

out together.

Jack: There’s a lot of things were you need your brother or your father, you

need your mother your girlfriend, but there are some times when you need

your dog.

  75  

Similarly Sandra explains how different relationships fulfill different needs.

Sandra beautifully describes how she believes that if people would have a comforting

dog like their dog they would not feel lonely or sad;

Sandra: In those years they fill up they fill up part of your life that nothing

else can fill. It nice to have children and a husband, but a dog is different…I

for example always say this that when I’m sick the fact that she used to come,

giving me that comfort, I start to think that whoever is alone in this world and

would have a dog like Mina, he wouldn’t be so sad. He wouldn’t feel that he is

alone in this world.

.

The following accounts describe a different type of fulfillment; a presence that

completes their house. Jack expresses how he felt that their “house that became a

home” when they brought their dog;

Jack: Since we moved in, it completely changed the…the…let’s say we move

into a house that became a home when we got the dog.

May: She filled up the empty spaces.

John’s following passage, reflected his comparison before and after he brought

their pet-dogs. He explained that retrospectively he felt that their house was empty

before they brought their pet–dog whilst after that their house seemed more complete;

  76  

John: I feel the house more complete with them. Nowadays, before I didn’t

used to see the house empty, because I didn’t know what it meant, but

nowadays when I compare with the time before [getting the dogs] I say that

the house was empty without them.

4.3 An Irreplaceable Bond Formed Through A Continuous Exchange Of

Interactions

This superordinate theme exemplifies the couples’ process to build a special bond

with their pet-dog. Across all accounts, the bond created through a continuous exchange of

interactions was given importance by the couples. The first subtheme reflects how the dog is

perceived as a receptive and responsive being whilst the second subtheme unpacks the secure

and consistent relationship experienced by the couples as well as by their dog

a) Couple And Their Pet-dog In A Continuous Process Of Adaptation

All the couples interviewed experienced their dog as a receptive and responsive

being. The couples’ relationship with their pet-dog was created through a constant

exchange of interactions over time.

The initial phase of the couples’ and their dogs’ adaptation process seemed to

have been a demanding one for most of the couples. However the couples

interviewed still managed to surpass such a phase as they all invested in their dogs’

  77  

relationship and valued dog obedience training. In the following account, Sandra

explains her reaction during the initial period of adaptation;

Sandra: Until I got home and the first thing I smelled used to be pee, there I used

to say ‘on no again’. I told him take her back (laughing).

Luke:  Exactly  and  I  was  scratching  my  head  

 

Sandra: and coincidentally it was a time where eh, a bit of word stress…a bit of

sacrifice, sacrifice not as such sacrifice, but you know I put my mind to it and I

said no I said I need to get used to this. Then it didn’t take her long. We used to go

outside and play.

Whilst Sandra’s initial reaction was that to return her dog, through her

perseverance and determination she managed to train their dog and adapt to the

situation. Similarly, Leah’s following narrative reflected a process of adaptation by

the couple and the dog. Leah and Ray expressed that they sought professional help by

a behavioural therapist in order to help their dog adapt to his new environment.

Leah’s and Ray’s excerpt elucidated the circular process that is created in human-

animal relationships as the more the couple invested in their dog’, the more the dog

was responsive and consequently the more responsive their dog was, the more the

couple invested in the dog’s relationship.

Leah: He use to do inside, he was disoriented. We had spoken to a

behavioural therapist before we moved in so that we see how best to move,

  78  

ease him into it…he used to go to the toilet inside, but nowadays I mean, this

has been in 4 months, it’s not such a long period of time, he goes in front of

the yard’s door, now it’s wintertime, it would be closed, he barks and I open it

for him…games for example especially with Ray, when he decides it’s

playtime he starts to get all his toys out, and he comes to lift your hand,

especially if you are on the computer…

The process of adaptation was described by Amy’s and John’s conversation as

they highlight that the older their dogs grow the more responsive and receptive they

have become;

John: Because that’s the beauty of it when they grow up, they get used to you

and you get used to them.

Amy: When they are puppies they are cute, up to a certain extent cute, but they

wouldn’t understand you…but then when they grow up and they start to

understand it’s different

John: And they learn, she is not going to pee in the kitchen for example. She

know, she goes in from of the door, and if it is ajar she opens it with her head

and she goes out and if it’s not she cries sort of to tell you open the door for

me. Certain key words they get used to them.

Although May and Jack also had to go through an adaptation process,

conversely to the other couples, they did not adopt a puppy but a three year old

  79  

trained dog. The couple intentionally adopted a three-year-old dog trained dog so that

their dog would be compatible with their lifestyle;

May: She’s..ehe…the Labrador is very well trained, probably more than kids.

Hux? (May and Jack both giggling). She doesn’t bite, even in our house, she

never ate anything, doesn’t…we adopted her when she was 3 years old.

Jack: But she had training.

May: She was very well trained. We did not as a puppy, because puppies are a

lot of work.

Jack: And because we are both working.

Although they still had to adapt to the initial challenges to living with a large

breed dog in their house, they described such a process as a flowing one as after her

first night their dog adapted easily;

May: I think the only night she didn’t sleep well was her first night when she

was at us. She was unsettled. [Otherwise], it’s like she never had another

home. And when she sees her [previous] owner she’ll be happy but she comes

back to me.

Anna and Mark do not only talk about the initial adaptation process of having

a dog, but also about the adaptation process of the dog with their newborn baby.

  80  

They expressed that the dog responded positively to such a change after having

prepared her in order to facilitate the adaptation process;

Anna: I really enjoy it when she is with our son. I put my son on her, and she

would lick him. He looks for her, puts his hand out to cuddle her even though

he is only six months old. And like with our son she really bonded beautifully.

We didn’t know what her reaction would be. We planned for it, because we

used to make her smell the nappies…we prepared and we got the pushchair

out as well so that she would not be afraid or surprised. And sort of she

started to love our son immediately.

b) Couple And Dog Experiencing A Secure And Comforting Relationship

Through a process of constant interactions, all the interviewed couples

experienced a comforting and secure relationship with their dog. The participants

reflected about how their dogs’ behaviour and interaction provides comfort, security

and consistency to them.

Ray perceived their dog’s constant proximity seeking as a way to connect with

them and showing them that he wants to be in their presence;

Ray: Because even for example I would be on the sofa…because he likes to sit

in a circle and he would be touching you and if for example I move a bit he

would get up and move so that he would be touching you again. It’s like he’s

tell you ‘I want to be touching you’…he wants to be in contact. Like that you

  81  

would know that the dog wants you, he shows you, even though he doesn’t

speak, he doesn’t tell you, but the fact that you moved, and he got up and

moved next to you, he shows that he wants you…

Amy and Jack explain that being in their dog’s presence during the night and

when they wake up provides a sense of comfort. The reconnection and rebond that

happens during their morning ritual, seems to be experienced as a very positive one.

Amy and Jack also distinguish the different type of comfort that the dogs provide

from the one experienced in the couple relationship;

Amy: When they came they used to sleep in their bed, but then they started to

reach our bed, we would get up in the morning and find them near us. Then

you let them once, twice and you start to feel comfortable with them near you

and you wouldn’t want to let them out of the bed.

Jack: I wouldn’t imagine myself now.

Interviewer: How is your experience with him during the night?

Jack: It’s nice eh. In the sense that you feel like there is more comfort sort of.

Amy: It’s not that without each other we don’t have but it’s different.

  82  

Sandra referred to an experience she went through when she was facing health

challenges and highlighted how her dog’s constant presence and touch offered a sense

of company, calmness and understanding;

Sandra: I stayed 6 weeks here [at home] and hospital and I always say that if

I didn’t have the dog I would have gone crazy. Because I always used to work

and when you end up, I used to spend a lot of days sitting down, I wouldn’t be

able to move about, at least I used to have her company…but I always say that

dogs give you a sense of calmness and they are understanding. Even the fact

that they put their head on you, she is telling you I’m here, I understand you…

Anna also explained how she experiences their dog as attuned to their mood and

needs. Moreover, a sense of comfort and relaxation is experienced when petting the

dog and through their dog’s constant greetings when her husband returns back home

from work.

Anna: When you pet her. Or else you go to greet her and she greets you for

example when you arrive from work and she greets you. She’s like jumping on

you…and she gives you comfort. Even when you are tired, even her pace I see

it makes a difference…No no she’s very comforting. You relax in her presence.

The sense of comfort experienced by the couples was felt throughout the

interviews by the constant presence their dog provided and also by the excitement

their dog exhibited when re-bonding with them;

  83  

May: She’s company hux, għax she’s company ‘cause when you are at home

she’s next to you, she comes next to you, she begs for food, she snores

(giggling).

Jack: It’s the sort of thing that, since we were always used to have our family

with dogs around…when you walk inside you are always expecting something,

so when you walk into a home and nothing happens, it’s quite em…bland,

there’s nothing exciting about it. But as soon as we open the door, you see this

thing going crazy, with the tail wagging everywhere. That’s what changed the

experience really, the dog.

John also expresses the blast of excitement that their dog transmits when they

return home “like they’ve seen something wonderful”;

John: Even when you arrive, they go crazy, like they’ve seen something

wonderful, [this happens] everyday, everyday because they don’t have moods.

It’s like they have seen something wonderful when they see you. And they wag

their tails and kiss and have fun… sometimes even for example you go out for

just ten minutes, when you get back, they go again…gosh!

The couples interviewed were all fascinated and comforted by their dog’s

consistent greeting under any circumstances every time they left the house and

returned home. The fact that no ‘double binds’ are experienced in the human-animal

relationships offered a sense of consistency to Ray; which he distinguished from

human relationships. Ray described their dog’s behaviour as genuine;

  84  

Ray: You notice, he cries, he pees himself with joy, and it’s genuine joy not

like, that’s it not like a human who is able to smile and then he doesn’t care

for you.

Leah and Ray also emphasized the easily repaired relationship with their dog,

which again taps on the dog’s consistency and authenticity, which creates a secure

relationship;

Leah: It’s true that’s genuity … he gives you more than he gets that why I said

they are genuine sort of not, even if I forget to feed him in the morning,

something that doesn’t happen, still when I get home he’s still going to greet

me happily and he wouldn’t say because she forgot to feed me, or because she

didn’t take me out or whatever.

Ray: Even you notice because even if you argue with him, or he gets your

nerves on and you tell him to go away for example and then you greet him, it’s

like nothing ever happened…(both laughing).

All the couples expressed that their dog’s devoted attachment towards them is

demonstrated by his/her sense of loyalty. The dogs seemed to provide a sense of

exclusivity to the couple. The couples considered such an experience as an enjoyable

and a rewarding one, which they do not always experience by other beings;

  85  

Excerpt 1

Amy: I am very happy with them, and a dog is very loyal, and I like that

because you don’t find it in a lot of humans. But you find it in all dogs.

Because every dog is very loyal to his owner. So I like that a lot. They don’t

betray you with anyone, they don’t choose anyone over you.

Excerpt  2  

Anna: She sort of does everything for us. And let’s put it this way to learn to

give up her instincts of being a dog to obey Mark especially it’s something I

think that shows that the dog loves you eh.

Excerpt 3

Luke: It’s an animal that remains faithful to you eh.

Amy’s following quote reflects the sense of safety and security provided by

her two dogs. Although there is no verbal communication she feels understood and

supported when she is alone in her house;

Amy: Because even though they don’t answer back, I feel that they understand

me, and at least I don’t feel like, I am not alone. I feel that I am not alone and

I feel safer as well. Even before when I got home, I didn’t use to switch on the

outside lights or open the backyard’s door. I was new to the place and when

you are alone it’s different. With them sort of I don’t bother, I switch on the

light and I open the backyard’s door. They get inside and I leave the door

open as if it’s nothing. Sort of I feel safer.

  86  

The above accounts provided a reflection about the intensity of the secure and

comforting relationship created between the couples and their dogs. Some couples

experienced the bond so strongly that it evoked fear about future loss. Leah and Ray

in the following excerpt reflect their anticipation about their future loss. They express

that they would like to bring a dog in the near future, so there would be a process of

continuation rather than replacement of their current dog.

Ray: and one of our fears is that. Obviously it’s like when you have a person,

no one wants that sort of a person…

Leah: No it’s true I sort of went through it two years ago…

Leah: … I do not want to replace him. Obviously I know that sort of he is not

eternal but no one is eternal, but I don’t want to get another dog after because

I feel that he would be a replacement you see. And I think that if you try to

replace you don’t create that bond so once he is settled we will get another

dog so that then there will be continuation.

Luke and Sandra in the following excerpt referred to the challenge they would

experience when dealing with their future loss. In particular, Sandra referred to her

beloved past family dog and the process she had gone through when he passed away.

An aspect that was observed in the couples’ accounts was the assumption that their

dog will die before them. Such an aspect could be related to the fact that, like every

other dog their dog has a relatively short life span. Although the couple raised the

  87  

subject related to their dog’s future loss, they projected the experiences as being too

painful for the couple to think about their dog’s loss and to put it into words. This was

also reflected in how Sandra could not complete the sentence and verbalise her

thinking;

Sandra: To tell you the truth eh if dies, there has to be a time gap to think

about having another dog. One, there is all the commitment, and two

I……(Showing that she would find it very difficult through her non verbals)

Luke: Even for me…

Sandra: I think that was one of the things that kind of because since I already

went through it, since you become so attached and there’s the ‘expiry date’.

Luke:  Which  is  short  unfortunately.  

 

4.4 Pet–dog Promoting Change

All the couples interviewed, perceived their dog as an agent of change. A common

experience for all the participants was related to their change in lifestyle since they adopted

their dog. The couples’ pet-dogs were also considered as active participants in the couples’

dynamics because their dog influenced the couples’ relationship in different ways. The

diverse and similar experiences will be delved into in the following sub-themes ‘dog evoking

change in the couples’ lifestyle’ and ‘Dog’s influence on couples’ dynamics’.

  88  

a) Dog Evoking Change In The Couples’ Lifestyle

All couples’ interviewed expressed that caring for a pet-dog evoked a sense of

responsibility and commitment, which is reflected in their lifestyle. The dog’s

significance for the couple is also signified in the couples’ constant care towards the

well being of their pet-dog. Leah and Ray expressed how their dog’s dependency

introduced a change in their lifestyle;

Leah: It changed in the sense that like now we have something to care for

together that sort of you have that responsibility.

Ray: Yes it’s true responsibility yes.

Ray: It’s something that you bring up, you care for him see. You know that

certain things he depends on you and you can leave him without food, you can

leave him without water, you can [choose] not take him out.

The sense of responsibility was also revealed in how the couples’ constantly

include their dogs in their thinking. The couples’ empathic position towards their

dog’s sense of boredom if not stimulated seemed to influence their choice of outings

as a couple. All the couples tried not to leave their dog at home alone for a long span

of time, while they also tried to include their dog as much as possible in their outings.

Amy and Jack dedicate Sundays to their dogs in order to compensate for when their

dogs are left alone during the week.

  89  

Amy: They would have been a whole week inside alone, sort of we wouldn’t

leave them on Sundays as well. So we always dedicate Sunday a whole day to

take them out frequently to sort of train them.

Similarly, Luke and Sandra expressed that as a couple they did not leave their

house for longer than eight to ten hours since they adopted their dog. Consequently

this influenced their routine as a couple as they made it a point that after work Sandra

would go home to play with their dog.

Luke: Even if you go out and you would spend 8 hours, 10 hours out you say

that at one point you have to go back.

Sandra: For example after work, I used to for example do the shopping, the

first thing I had to change is to go home. I used to go spend some time with

her and then go out. I mean our routine changed obviously.

Leah and Ray also attributed their change in lifestyle to their dog. They

constantly included their dog in their thinking when they went out as a couple as they

would not want to leave their dog waiting for them for too long;

Leah: It’s different! Even our outings are different, the amount of time we

would want to spend at home it’s different, sort of and sometime I start

wondering whether it’s because we grew up…but it’s true it’s because he

came along. And I think I believe it [started] since he came along.

  90  

Ray: no even when we go out, it’s not that he’s on your mind but for example

sort of you know that there is someone waiting for you at home, you see, I

mean if you go out, you have fun and then you say now it’s over, sort of you

wouldn’t want to stay out longer you say I want to go home because there is

the dog sort of…

In the following account John is also reflecting about his shift in lifestyle from

spending his Sundays recovering from hangovers to spending an “ideal” Sunday with

their dogs. In John’s following account it is observed that John’s and Amy’s dogs

seem to be compatible with their current life stage, as through their dogs they are

discovering different ways how to enjoy themselves as a couple whilst going to

different places.

John: Obviously it’s completely different, because before Sunday used to be a

hang over day or to go to the beach on Sunday morning. You change a little

bit. You change a little bit, because it’s not just them, but also your life you

grow older and you change…to tell you the truth my birthday is in two weeks

and she asked me what would you like to do on your birthday. I told her if it’s

a nice day, we would spend a day at the beach with them and we cook there.

Because that became the ideal day for me…it’s the way I can enjoy the day

most.

Jack and May express that they try to include their dogs in their outings and

they also highlight the difference their dog has evoked in their lifestyle;

  91  

Jack: Most of the time we’re together, she’s going to be in between us or on

top of one of us, patting her head wanting attention. So it’s very different.

May: Most of the time we’re not with her, it’s either maybe once in a while we

go out to have a dinner together, but we don’t go much. Or when we’re

together without her, we’re with friends usually, so…cause even if we go out

to dinner we try to find a place where we can take her.

Another change in lifestyle that all the participants expressed is the inclusion

or increase of exercise in their daily routine. All the participants’ experienced the

responsibility to exercise their dog through walking as an enjoyable commitment.

The following accounts reflect such experiences;

Excerpt 1

Amy: even physically I feel much better, I didn’t do any training before

whatsoever. Because sort of I used to say, am I going to go for a walk alone.

Because of them you must go out, even if you don’t feel like it, I go because I

know that I would be training them.. I mean that has helped me.

Excerpt 2

Luke: they give you an opportunity to exercise because you go for a walk.

Excerpt 3

Anna: for example if you are stressed and for example you take her for a walk,

you relax…

  92  

Excerpt 4

Jack: Em…it’s this thing, ok she wakes up in the morning to take her out and

then I come home in my break or she would have a break to take the dog out.

At the end of the day when I do that, my day it’s just restarted again. When

you are just walking the dog, you’re just watching what they’re doing,

relaxed, you go to another zone and then you go back to work all refreshed.

A common element that was also observed in the majority of the couples is

their closeness to nature since they brought their dogs. This was experienced as a

positive change by the couples;

Excerpt 1

Sandra:…if we go for a picnic, if we go for a walk, like we’re saying we go

swimming, you have more contact with nature, in places that you enjoy…

Excerpt 2

Amy: but rather we improve due to the fact that sometimes it would be Sunday

and how many times are you going to eat alone and going here and there sort

of.

John: No that’s for sure

Amy: With them we go to the country side and we go to Dingli…sort of we

spend a whole day out..

  93  

Excerpt 3

Anna: At the same time she makes us go in nature more. Where both of us

enjoy

Excerpt 4

May: Sometimes we go to Buskett, sometimes we go to Golden Bay, we leave

them running. Sundays the same…last Sunday I took them swimming…

b) Dog’s Influence On Couples’ Dynamics

The couples interviewed considered their pet-dog as an active family member.

This final sub-theme elucidated the position that the pet has in the couple dynamics.

The following excerpts reflect how two of the couples experienced their dogs’

presence as influencing their dynamics during arguments;

Ray: when we argue or something he would notice, and his character sort of

changes

Leah: He would stay in the middle for example, he doesn’t go with Ray nor

with me

Ray: You realise that he is not happy

  94  

Ray: It is lessened (referring to argument)…if for example while you are

arguing, you say I am going to spend the whole day like this for example but

when you see him your mood changes.

Ray and Leah’s pet-dog seemed to be an emotional regulator to Ray and Leah

when they argue as they change their mood to a better one when they see their dog.

Their pet-dog also adopted a neutral position with Ray and Leah, which they both

seem to appreciate. Similarly, May expressed how the couples’ arguments were

lessened when their dog was present as they “let lose a bit”;

May: If me and him have a fight about something, we are going to keep on

thinking about it and not deal with it. But with the dog, we let lose a bit and

then when it’s the time we just speak about it.

May shared a sense of lightness that their dog introduced in the couple

dynamics. All the couples mentioned an element of playfulness and humour that was

induced in their couple relationship by their dog’s presence. Their dog seemed to be a

constant entertainer for the couples;

Jack: She makes you laugh. She puts her legs out and she goes flat on the

ground. And I’m like ‘what are you doing?’ (giggling). She’s just entertaining,

she is such a loving dog as well. But I’m…we…when we’re in bed, she sleeps

on the bed with us as well…They bring you happiness as well.

  95  

May: it’s fun to have her around between us, because we start laughing at her,

and laughing at each other…

Similarly in the following quote Anna expressed how their dogs’ character,

their playfulness and their spontaneity was perceived as entertaining;

Amy: They have a character that makes you laugh even from their facial

expression and how they play with you…I think that the dog breed is suitable

for as, because we are both energetic…and they do things that are

spontaneous, you cannot help but miss them because they put their heads out

of the window and then there lips would be rippling sort of and you see them

with a smile on their face sort of when they go out.

Amy’s account highlighted how their dogs’ energetic presence was compatible

with their characteristics as individuals as well as a couple. Amy seemed to be

fascinated by their dogs’ spontaneous behaviour and expressed that it is almost

impossible not to miss their dogs when they are not in their company. John’s

following quote also reflected how their couple dynamics changed when they are not

in their dog’s presence and described their outing with their dogs as a “fun outing”.

The couples expressed that when they went out without their dogs the outing is

“different” as they would go to restaurants. Such places might be viewed as more

formal, whilst the outings with their dogs seemed to evoke the spontaneity and

playfulness of the couple;

  96  

Amy: I think when we go out us four it would be a more fun outing. Not

because I don’t enjoy myself being with him only but when it’s me and him

only I know that we are going for dinner, so it’s something different. I mean I

think it’s different when we are without them.

.

May also observed that when they are not in their dog’s presence the couple

dynamics are different, as they tended to talk “more seriously”;

May: We talk more seriously when we are without her I think. Or serious

issues.

Another factor that was observed in all the couples interviewed was how their

dogs promote a sense of togetherness amongst the couples and how they brought them

closer to each other. The couples expressed that by caring for the dog they spent

more quality time together as a couple;

Excerpt 1

Leah: Yes we take him out in the morning, we take him out for a walk, as much

as possible we take him out together, first of all it also serves for us to have

some time to talk even outside home and outside of everything…and also, it’s

something that gives us how can you say that materializes it, he gives us time

together.

  97  

Excerpt 2

John: But when I don’t have football or something we take them out together.

In the morning I take them out, and in the evening it’s either her or together.

But then on the weekend we obviously take them out together.

Excerpt 3

Anna: She has to go out, and at the same time she makes us go out together as

a couple, you see. As much as possible we try to drag her with us everywhere.

When we go out together, I see her as helping us to go out together and to

talk, at the same time you talk with the dog, you talk about the day, we start

talking on everything and we relax.

Excerpt 4

Jack: Em…I mean, it…she sort of brings us together in a different way. So, we

end up bonding in a different way because we’ll be playing with the dog, she’s

wanting attention, and both of us give her attention.

The couples expressed that by being together with their dogs they managed to

control the amount of time they spent on their personal computer, laptops and mobile

phones. Their dogs’ presence seemed to distract them from the technological world

that is so present in the life of people within the Maltese context;

Ray: even if she would be watching TV and I would still be on the computer

and she would call me, he would come next to me to show you that he wants

you to go, and then I switch off the computer and allright.

  98  

Furthermore, Amy and John in the following conversation were reflecting on

how the time spent with their dog distracted them from technological devices. They

seemed to manage to enjoy and stay in the moment rather than being focused on other

things that would be happening around them through e-mails, social media or phone

calls;

Amy: And there something else when you go out with them there are less

distractions…

John: It’s different eh

Anna: Yes, there is not TV for example

John: There is no mobile, no e-mails…

Anna: because you put the mobile in your pocket, there aren’t e-mails,

computer to distract you. So automatically, you have time to talk. Sometimes

we would just be saying look how cute she is what she’s doing, but it’s

different.

In the following account Sandra reflected on a similar experience;

  99  

Sandra: and then the time we spend with her she gives us the opportunity to

have time outside, no technology…it gives you an opportunity to forget the

other things and be together. We would be doing something together.

Amy’s following experience revealed that their dogs do not only help them to

promote togetherness but also to balance the element of togetherness and separateness

in their relationship. In turn she experienced such balance as enhancing the couple

relationship;

Amy: Before I used to spend something alone and I would tell him stop from

the training because I am getting fed up all the time alone…the fact that I’m

going out, I do something, I am relaxing from stress, sort of I would come here

[home] and then when he arrives I would be ok. Even together we are better.

Amy recounts that although she spent a considerable amount of time on her

own when John attended personal training, unlike before she was managing to fill up

such time in a way that was meaningful to her; with her dogs. Amy highlighted that

such aspect also influenced their relationship positively as she was managing the

separateness with John in a better way. Anna’s following narrative reflected how

their dog helped her to feel independent again after the experience of motherhood.

Anna said that she also managed to relax when she goes out on her own with her dog;

Anna: Obviously a baby takes away your independence, especially in the

beginning he would be all the time clinged to you – with the woman especially.

Sometime he would tell me, you go. When he sees me stressed he tells me you

  100  

go, and I would relax because it’s sort of my time and with Laura, and she

would be so happy because it would have been a while since we did this, and

would feel independent (giggling), as if they gave me the most beautiful thing

in the world.

4.5 Conclusion

This chapter elicited the findings of the study through IPA methodology. Four

superordinate themes emerged from the participants’ accounts which revealed the different

social construct revolving around pet-dogs, the significance of the pet dog to the couple, the

process of forming a special bond through a continuous exchange of interactions and the

change promoted in the couples’ life by the presence of their pet-dog. The findings presented

in this study will be discussed in the following chapter.

  101  

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.0 Introduction

The purpose of this study aimed at understanding the experience of couples’

relationship with their pet dogs, using IPA as a guiding methodology. This chapter will

present a review of the research findings in comparison with other studies, literature and

theories.

5.1 Different Constructed Beliefs Revolving Around Pet-dogs

This study found that couples’ past experiences shaped their constructed beliefs about

pet-dogs. This is consistent with Hart’s (2006) literature, which describes responses to pets as

a ‘highly individual matter’ as such responses depend on the person’s previous experiences

with pets and other factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, social class, age, religion,

nationality, contextual and environmental aspects. Most of the participants who wanted to

adopt a pet-dog experienced a bond with a pet-dog during their childhood years. This finding

is consistent with other research indicating that most of current pet owners had pets during

their childhood (Ramirez, 2006). Two of the participants highlighted that they perceived the

past family pet-dog as an important family member as they experienced their pets as being

constant companions throughout their lives. This highlights the mutual relationship between a

pet-dog and its family members, especially children. Studies (McNicholas & Collis 2001),

have also found that pets can be viewed as confidantes and a source of comfort and support

by children.

  102  

One of the latter mentioned participants said that she believed that children who are

raised with pet-dogs are more caring and empathic; in fact she wanted her daughter to be

exposed to pet-dogs from a very young age. Congruent to her belief, literature reveals that

pets foster positive psychosocial development of children while increasing their empathic

responses (Melson, 2003). The participants’ childhood experiences reflect Blouin’s (2008),

qualitative studies as it was revealed that positive childhood experiences with pets influences

adult relationships and perceptions about pets.

Although perceptions and past experiences in relation to pets were positive for the

majority of participants, experiences differed for one participant who highlighted that he

feared the commitment that pets entail as he was never exposed to pets prior to adopting their

pet-dog. Such fear also stemmed from being raised with a parent who was fearful of dogs.

On the other hand another participant expressed that although he never had a pet-dog he

always loved dogs and wished to adopt a pet-dog. These different social constructs reflect the

self-narratives of the participants and how it influenced their lived experiences in relation to

pet-dogs (Payne, 2006).

It was interesting to note how the couples’ past experiences revolving around pet-

dogs influenced the process of adopting their pet-dog. The process of the couples who shared

their past positive experiences about pet-dogs and mutually agreed to adopt a pet-dog seemed

more willing to embark in this journey together. This was reflected in the couples’

commitment to care for their pet-dog together prior the adoption process. The preparation

process of two of the couples was even reflected by the way they sought dog-friendly

property with the aim to adopt a pet-dog when they move together. One of the couples

highlighted the support they provided to each other through the process of adopting their pet-

  103  

dog. On the other hand, the couple that differed in their perspective, as the husband feared

the commitment that dogs entail, did not commit to care for the dog upon his wife’s decision

to adopt their two pet-dogs. Nevertheless, his constructed belief in relation to pet-dog shifted

when he started to build a bond with their pet-dogs. As a result he also started to contribute in

its care. There has been little research into factors relating to the couples’ experiences

throughout the process of adoption, however empirical studies found how diverse

experiences with pets can influence how people perceive pets and relate to them (Power,

2008). In the latter mentioned situation ‘the fear of the unknown’ might have been

predominant as the participant was never exposed to a pet-dog prior to their own dogs,

however his change of position was influenced by the new lived experience with their dogs.

The couple dyad seemed to offer the opportunity to repair the script in relation to pet-dogs of

the latter mentioned participant. This experience demanded a negotiation process, openness

and acceptance of the couples’ different beliefs which helped them to co-create new

narratives in relation to pet-dogs.

Melson and Fine (2006) acknowledge that adaptation to animals does not happen

automatically with everyone. While some people manage to build a bond or feel more

comfortable with dogs, other individuals still do not manage to respond to animals due to fear

or other predominant negative beliefs and experiences connoted with animals.

This study again taps on the complexity of human-pet relations and the uniqueness of

each experience contingent upon an array of social, cultural and interactional aspects (Blouin,

2012). The participants’ experiences were situated also in a larger societal scale, as they had

to process and cope with different social beliefs presented by society revolving around pet-

dogs. While having a large breed dog was not a criteria to participate in this study, a

  104  

common factor that all the couples shared was that of homing large breed dogs. All the

participants predominantly mentioned such a factor, since they particularly experienced

different reactions by people, in relation to raising a large breed dog within a Maltese context.

According to a social constructionist perspective (Kebbe, 2014), meanings are developed

through social interaction and social consensus; and it is no exception for the meanings the

Maltese society develops and underlying assumptions associated with large breed dogs and

dogs in general. There have been developments within the Maltese context in relation to the

inclusion of pet-dogs in public places. For instance there are now 2 dog parks and 14 dog

friendly bays. Nonetheless, this study showed that most of the participants still experienced

certain restrictions and prejudices by Maltese society, connoted with having a large breed

dog. One of the couples expressed that they have experienced societal ‘pressure’ when they

were expecting their child, as people where encouraging them to ‘get rid of the dog’ because

they were expecting a baby. All the couples expressed that notwithstanding they have trained

dogs, they constantly experienced people who express fearful reactions and biases towards

their dogs. Sociologists argue that attitudes towards animals are not always determined upon

direct experiences with animals but are also created, changed and learnt through encounters

with the media and other dominant discourse present within society (Arluke, 2010). Their

shared love for their pet-dog, encouraged them to keep the dog, even though they might have

experienced societal biases. These experiences as presented and recalled by the participants

fortified their relationship as they had a common belief that they both adhered to. Therefore,

the experience of having a pet-dog also following the birth of a child was another means

through which the relationship flourished.

Two of the couples experienced other contexts such as Sicily and Gozo as offering a

more dog-friendly environment when compared to Malta. They particularly felt more

  105  

accepted by how people related to their dog and how they felt welcomed in certain public

places. The two couples mentioned that Maltese society has a different perception about

dogs, which they interpreted as being elicited out of fear of large breed dogs. A study held in

Australia with 137 dog-owners by Wood, Gile-Corti, Bulsara and Bosh (2007), revealed that

dogs increase neighborhood interactions and a sense of community while helping them also

to integrate and feel accepted by the community; however such a process was not

experienced by the participants within the Maltese context. From the study it was revealed

that participants owning a pet-dog yearn for more acceptance and understanding by the

Maltese society. This reflects the need for more education about pet-dogs within the Maltese

contexts. This might offer more awareness about pets and their benefits to humans. More

awareness about pet-dog language and ways how humans can understand the non-verbals of

pet dogs can also support individuals to counteract the negative constructs built through their

experience. Such education can be also incorporated from a very young age through school

programmes promoting positive relationship with the environment and animals.

Despite the empirical evidence reflecting the importance of pets in human lives, the

animal-human bond is unmentioned in Maltese clinical training curricula. Therefore, more

awareness about the human-pet bond needs to be included in training programmes of people

working with dog-owners such as psychotherapists, school counsellors, systemic

psychotherapists, psychologists and social workers (Arkow, 2006). This is important so that

more awareness about animal-assisted therapeutic interventions can be included within the

Maltese context. Particular emphasis is placed within a postmodern therapy to work with

different ages, genders, race classes, cultures and religions for instance. However do

clinicians have the space in their clinical training to reflect about their biases, beliefs and

experiences about pets? Self-reflexivity about pets can be incorporated in studies for

  106  

professionals who work with pet owners. This can be possible through deconstructing their

own beliefs revolving around pet-dogs. This can further support professionals to attend to

people who perceive their pet-dog as a significant being. This is particularly relevant since

benefits of Animal assisted therapy, Animal Facilitated therapy or Animal as co-therapists are

becoming more acknowledged for their effectiveness and results with different client

populations such as in children’s homes, children experiencing learning difficulties, hospitals

and prisons (Abrams, 2009).

5.2 Significance Of The Pet-dog To The Couple

This study showed that all the participants perceived their pet-dog as or similar to

children while assuming a parental role in relation to their pet-dog. The findings are also

consistent with Power’s (2008) qualitative study held with pet-dog owners, which found that

the parental association of dog-owners to their pets reflects the close nature of the bond that

participants reflect with their dog and highlighted the significance of their pet-dogs in their

day–to-day lives. The findings of this study differed from Ramirez’s (2006) qualitative study

that highlighted that women often view themselves as parents, while men view themselves as

friends or partners, but rarely as parents. Another study held by Cohen (2002), also revealed

gender differences, whereby men tended to be less verbally expressive about their bond with

the their pet dog. The gender differences portrayed in Ramirez (2006) and Cohen (2002)

studies were not reflected in this study as during the interviews all the males and females

openly positioned themselves as parents, while they were also able to express their

relationship with their pet during this research.

  107  

All the participants mutually decided to adopt their pet-dog soon after moving in

together and prior to having children. The connotation of their pet-dog to a child reflected a

different personal narrative for all the couples. For instance the experience of one couple

reflected their decision not to have children as they experienced their dog as fulfilling their

parental instinct. This fits with Walsh’s observation (2009a) that couples often choose to

raise a pet before or instead of parenting as it offers the opportunity to provide nurturance and

care towards another living being. This reflects the importance for psychotherapists to be

curious about the meaning that pets can have for couples and families. This can be clinically

useful as pets can provide certain functions of attachments, such as the need for connection,

nurturance and consistency. In addition literature reveals that through examining feelings

about the close bond couples share with a pet, more insight about the attachment experiences

with other relationship can be also revealed (Sable, 2012).

The findings of the study showed that couples experienced their pet-dog as helping to

foster a sense of family. Some of the couples’ narrated experiences showed that they

perceive their pet-dog offering them parental preparation prior to having children. One of the

couples’ accounts reflected how the skills learnt through the positive reinforcement training

offered to their pet dog and the need to constantly communicate as a couple to offer

consistency facilitated the process of parenting their child. Similarly, the other couple who

are now parents of a young child constantly said that they have to communicate and negotiate

as a couple to provide consistency and congruency like they do with their child. This fits with

Grandin and Johnson (2009), observations as they stated that pet-dogs similarly to children

require good parenting, rewards and boundaries.

  108  

A previous study (Turner, 2005) argued that the human–pet bond is dependent upon

the life cycle stage of the couple and tends to be higher among unattached young, adults,

newly married and empty nesters and low among parents with young children, since children

may replace the role of pets. Although this study reflected that the couples’ roles were altered

according to their current life stage and circumstances, the participants reported that the

intensity of the bond did not change; 3 of the couples were newly weds, one of the couples

had recently moved in together and two of the couples were married and raising a young

child. The couples’ experiences’ reflected different roles adopted with their pet-dog. For

instance different roles of the couples were portrayed, such as the easy and strict parent. The

mentioned roles were however fluid according to the circumstances presented; for instance

while one of the couple said that the male was calmer, they both agreed that when health

issues arise the wife takes over the responsibility as he usually panics.

A commonality that was reflected among the couples who have children was that, the

husbands started to take their dogs for their daily walks after they had their child. The couple

expressed that such roles were decided mutually as a couple for the sake of practicality.

However it was highlighted by their wives, that they miss such an opportunity and they

compensate by spending time with their dog when they can. This entailed an adaptation

process by the couple and re-visitation of roles in relation to their pet-dog that at first was not

perceived as a plain sailing process. They had to juggle the different responsibilities

presented in their new life stage. This study reflected that what supported the couple were

the continuous discussions and a constant process of negotiation. Although some studies

(Blouin, 2008), have shown that people who have children, change their attitudes and tend to

have lower regard for, and attachment to their pet, this was not reflected in the reality of the

two couples who have children as they invested in their relationship with their pet-dog in

  109  

order to maintain and cultivate the special bond that they had prior to having children; while

also cherishing the bond that was created amongst the pet-dog and their children. The couples

who have children expressed that their dog also performed a sibling role for their children

while offering them care and constant companionship. The sibling role of the pet-dog to their

daughter was particularly meaningful to one of the couples as they said that since they will

probably not have more children, their daughter is still learning the values of sharing with

others and caring for others through the presence of their pet dog. The reality of pet-dogs

becoming resources to teach values to their children is in keeping with Tannen’s (2004)

qualitative study conducted with families.

The results showed that while the couples acknowledged that having a pet-dog

required more responsibilities, commitments and constant negotiation in order to care for the

dog’s well being, (such as cleaning, going for walks and training their dog) they experienced

a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment in return. The couples also reported that their home

became more alive since they adopted their pet-dog. All the couples experienced a satisfying

relationship prior to adopting their dog, however couples agreed and expressed that their dog

provided something different while complimenting their couple relationship. Congruent to

Hines’s (2003) findings, this study showed that human-animal bond can offer a relationship

in its own right and does not necessarily turn to pets to substitute another failed relationship

such as with a partner.

The experiential element that was felt through the participants’ narratives was

reflected also by how they struggled to find the language to describe the meaning of the

human-pet bond as the bond was perceived as ‘providing something beyond words’. The

results of this study showed that the couples appreciated the ‘silent’ company that their pet-

  110  

dog provides. Consistent with the human-animal bond literature, (Fine, 2006) the couples’

experiences reflected that their relationship with a pet-dog is different from any other

relationship with a human being, which was not always easy to describe, as the responses of

dogs are based on touch, attunement, non-verbal cues and senses. The absence of language

when describing the experience could be also reflected to as a subjugated narrative which

participants do not always find the voice or have the permission to express (Payne, 2006).

Such aspect was reflected also by the participants’ initial cautiousness when describing the

human-pet bond, as the majority of the participants highlighted that they would not share

such experiences with anyone, as not everyone would be open to understand the significant

presence that their pet dog offers to them. The couples’ fear of not being understood elicits

further questions about what would make couples feel understood? What helped them to feel

comfortable to talk about their-pet dogs during the interview? Could it be that they my

curiosity and genuine interest in their relationship with their pet-dog helped them to open up?

These reflections are important to be tapped into when working with couples’ owning pet-

dogs so that psychotherapists can foster a safe environment where couples can elicit their

stories and narratives about their pet-dogs without the fear to be misunderstood or

unacknowledged.

5.3 An Irreplaceable Bond Formed Through A Continuous Exchange Of

Interactions

Another finding that emerged from this study was that the participants managed to

build a special bond with their pet-dog through a continuous exchange of interactions.

Sanders (2003) also recounts that similar to every other relationship, a bond with a pet-dog is

  111  

not built automatically, but through a circular process of caring and sharing frequent positive

interactions. From a systemic perspective, this superordinate theme reflects how the couples’

pet-dog influences the couples’ relationship and in turn, how the couple relationship

influences their pet-dog. This circular pattern can be elicited when a couple invested more in

their pet-dogs’ relationship, including its well being and training. This resulted in the pet-dog

as being more receptive towards the couple’s responses. Consequently, the couple’s bond

with the pet-dog was increased through the positive exchange of interactions, which further

motivated them to invest in the relationship with their pet-dog.

All the participants valued their pet-dog’s well being and highlighted that they wanted

to provide the best possible care to their pet-dog. This was reflected also in the way they

provided the basic necessities to their dogs through exercise, routine checkups to the vet and

training. The presence of the pet-dog supported the couple to share responsibility as they

have a common denominator whom they love and care for. The couples recounted that the

love, care and the obedience training provided to the pet-dog, positively influenced their pet

dog’s behaviour. Studies also suggest that the temperament of dogs is not merely dependent

upon the breed of the dogs, but like people, animals are individuals with unique personalities;

hence they are also influenced by their own environment, experiences, socialization and

training which they have been exposed to (Sanders, 1999).

This study showed that the initial phase of the couples’ and their dogs’ adaptation

process, especially during puppyhood seemed to have been a demanding one for most of the

couples. The experience to practice litter training and obedience training entailed a process

of perseverance, patience and a constant commitment by the couples. Such a process is

normalized by the literature, as dogs also go through a developmental process, which

  112  

characterize and influence the ability to learn new behaviour that might reflect challenges

during the first year (Fine, 2006). In fact one of the couples, intentionally adopted an adult

trained dog, as they were aware that they did not have the time to train and cater for the needs

of a puppy. This may relate to the matching process of animals with the needs of their human

partners highlighted by Julius et al. (2013). For instance calm people may want to associate

with a calm dog, whereas active people may go rather for a lively puppy. Such aspect was

also reflected in another couples’ narrative as they highlighted that they intentionally chose a

‘boxer’ breed, as it is compatible with their active personality. Throughout this study it was

revealed that the couples’ matching process with their pet-dog’s breed facilitated the couples’

adaptation process to their pet-dog. Dog breeds can reflect their level of maintenance and

energy required by the couple. For instance the energy level of a small breed shorthaired

dog is different from that of a large breed and longhaired pet-dog, as the latter requires more

exercise and grooming on a constant basis. Studies have also revealed that the matching the

dog’s personality and level of maintenance to their owners’ lifestyle may predict owners’

satisfaction (Curb, Abramson, Grice, Kenninson, 2013). When couples raise such matters in

the therapeutic context, couples can be given space to talk about such a process in order to

help them reflect about the expectations they have about their pet-dogs and identify what can

support them through the matching process. More collaboration of other professionals

working with pet-dogs such as dog behaviourists, can offer a holistic approach when such

matters arise in the therapy room, as couple can be referred to appropriate support by dog

behaviourists if they need further consultation.

Moreover, this study revealed that through the constant interactions with their human

partners, pet-dogs can develop a specific style of interacting with their environment (Julius et

al. 2013). The current study reflected a continuous exchange of interactions not only with the

  113  

pet-dog, but also amongst the couples, as both partners within each couple were concerned to

provide the best for their pet-dog. Some couples assimilated such a process to a venture that

the couple where doing jointly while helping them to spend more quality time together. This

study found that a process of attunement occurred amongst the couples and pet-dogs. Not

only the couples adapted to their pet-dogs’ needs, but also their pet-dog adapted to the

couples’ lifestyle and routines. The process of training the dog was not a static one which was

held only during the first years of their pet-dog. For instance the two couples that have

children expressed that they implemented training practices to help their dog adapt to their

new family member and lifestyle. While the participants expressed that they provided the

best needs for their pet-dog, their relationship was not solely based upon feeding, exercising

and caring for their dogs’ well-being, but it was also based on genuine care, love and

affection. This can also be understood in terms of Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs; as

after their dogs have had their physiological needs well met, affection and belongingness

needs can then occur amongst the human-pet relationship. The sense of affection, care,

belongingness and commitment of the couples’ towards their pet-dog seemed to enhance the

bond of the couples and help them to connect in a different way as they both appreciated the

level of commitment and care towards their pet-dog.

The couples’ care was also reflected through their empathic responses with the aim to

understand the needs and non-verbal reactions of their pet-dogs. Since their pet-dog’s

relationship is based on non-verbal communication, the dog’s behaviour was continuously

mentioned by the couples; such as the wagging of the tail to show happiness for instance

when re-bonding with the couples, the dog’s search for his ‘toys’ when he wants to play and

the dog’s signals to show them that he/she needs to go out in the yard. The couples’ were all

positively surprised by the their dogs’ responsiveness to learn new behaviour and to

  114  

understand certain key-words posed by them. The dog’s ability to learn was also

demonstrated by studies that show that dogs have complex thinking processes, which makes

them capable to be attuned to the human cues and signals (Udelle and Wynne, 2008).

Consistent with other studies held about the human-animal bond (Sanders, 2003), this

study also revealed that the participants experienced their pet-dog as an empathic presence, in

tune with their emotions and needs. The findings also concurs with literature emphasizing the

development of secure attachments between humans and animals (Julius et al., 2013) as all

the participants talked about the valuable presence that their dog had in their lives. All the

participants expressed that they experienced a sense of comfort, understanding, calmness,

happiness and security when they were in their pet-dog’s presence. The participants’

narratives recounted that such emotions were experienced through their pet-dog’s proximity

seeking and need to connect with them. The results correspond to those observed by Doherty

and Feeney (2004), who found that pet owners related the physical proximity to their dogs

with positive emotions. While all the participants shared similar emotions with their pet-dog,

the participants’ different experiences reflected the uniqueness of every human-animal bond.

One of the participants recounted the support that their pet-dog provided when she was

experiencing health challenges and had to stay at home for 6 weeks. The latter mentioned

participant highlighted how her dog’s constant presence and touch helped her to cope with

her health issues and offered a sense of company, calmness and understanding; especially

when she was on her own during the day. Another participant expressed that their dogs

helped her to feel safe and secure when she returns from work, as she does not feel alone in

their dogs’ presence. This is in up keeping with past studies (Sanders, 2003), as dogs can

promote positive feelings, which promote well-being and security while fostering

opportunities for caregiving.

  115  

Several scientific studies related to human-pet attachment reflect the benefits of being

in the presence of pet-dogs. For instance stroking a pet can reduce stress hormones like

adrenaline and non-adrenaline, while oxytocin, also referred to as a happy hormone

increased. These changes in the brain can provide a reduction of stress, anxiety and pain,

while increasing a sense of relaxation when in the dog’s presence (Barker & Wolen, 2008).

These scientific studies also enlighten the participants’ positive responses in relation to being

in their pet-dog’s presence. Past studies have demonstrated that pet-dogs, similarly to their

owners may also experience a striking of ‘happy hormones’ (Julius et al. 2013). This might

be linked to the narrative of all the couples in relation to a blast of happiness and excitement

exhibited by their dog every time they returned home. Their dogs’ consistency in their

behaviour, greetings and responses also reflected the couples’ need to reconnect with their

pet-dog as the dog offered a consistent and genuine presence which altered their moods into a

positive one even when the couples recall having challenging days. In turn, this also

influenced positively on the couple relationship. The findings of this study where in line with

attachment findings highlighting how dogs can offer attachment related functions, such as

consistency and genuineness (Sable, 2012).

Consistent to Walsh (2009a) observation, the study showed that pet-dogs provided

pleasure, loyalty and consistency during the couples’ changing lives. All the couples

appreciated the element of authenticity, congruency and consistency provided by their pet-

dog. Zilcha – Mano et al. (2011), also found that dogs’ positive attachment to their owners is

conveyed by the unconditional love and consistency provided even at times of distress. This

study showed that the pet-dog provided a unique presence, which in turn supported the

couples’ relationship. The participants’ experiences recounted that the consistency offered

  116  

by their pet-dogs’ presence differentiates their pet-dog from human relationships; such

consistency was characterized by the easily repaired relationship that is also explained by

Myers, (1998) as a relationship which does not pose any double binds like other human-

human relationships.

Although all the couples recounted positive emotions in relation to their pet-dog, two

of the couples, particularly tapped onto the fear of losing the special bond that cannot be

replaced or recreated. Sable (2012), denotes that the attachment theory framework can

facilitate the understanding of the loss of a pet, as pets can also unleash a process of grief and

mourning that is reflected in the loss of attachment relationships. The participants’ recounts

about the fear of loss was precipitated also by getting in touch with the meaning that their pet

has for them and also by the reality that pet-dogs, especially large dogs have short life

expectancy ranging from 8 to 15 years in most dogs (Kurimski, 2014). The participants’

preparation for the loss fits with Sanders’s (2003) observations, as commonly owners may

anticipate and react to the termination of intense emotional bonds formed with their pet-dogs.

Literature shows that such processes can be painful and can get more complicated if the fear

is unacknowledged or trivialized (Werner-Lin & Moro, 2004). Moreover, studies revealed

that pet-owners might benefit from dialogues that would give them the permission to talk

about difficult emotions in relation to fear of losing their pet-dog or following the loss of

their pet-dog (Brown, 2007). Studies reveal that spouses who share a special bond with their

pet-dog may feel more supported when going through the loss together (Duffey, 2015).

Systemic psychotherapists can facilitate the grieving process of pets through the use of

techniques that can support the healing processes of families. For instance, healing rituals

can support families to mourn their loss and honour their pet-dog together (Walsh, 2009a).

The therapeutic context can provide a healing environment for families who lost their

  117  

beloved pet-dog, especially because unresolved grief may lead to long-term emotional pain

and suffering (Brown, 2007).

5.4 Pet-dog Promoting Change

This study showed that couples’ experienced their pet-dog as eliciting change in their

lifestyle and couple dynamics. According to Sanders (2003), since people’s interaction with

pets, usually occur in a family context, pet-dogs are considered active participants in the

family system. The findings of this study indicate that the couples’ sense of commitment and

responsibility towards their dog evoked a change in their lifestyle. This is congruent with the

literature suggesting that a pet-dog inevitably evokes change as from the time a dog is

brought into a human household it becomes entirely dependent on its human caretakers

(Power, 2008). Since all the couples’ wanted to provide the best for the pet-dog, their

narratives revealed that they constantly included their pet-dog in their thinking processes and

discussions. Such a process changed the couples’ routines as they tried not to leave their pet-

dog at home for a long time span and make sure to find time to care for their pet-dog. The

couples also expressed that they always try to include their pet-dogs in their outings

whenever it is possible.

All the participants’ expressed that their pet-dog promoted exercising through their

daily walks. In addition, the participants experienced the responsibility to exercise their dog

through walking as an enjoyable commitment as it helped them to calm down and ease stress.

This fits with Ham and Epping’s findings (2006), as walking with dogs might have a direct

positive influence of psychological and physical health of dog owners since they are more

likely to get a 30 minutes of exercise per day. This influenced the couples’ relationship

  118  

positively as the couples reported a sense of relaxation evoked through regular exercising that

fostered a calmer and more relaxed atmosphere between them. The opportunity to exercise

and care for their dog as a couple as well as individually helped them to balance a sense of

separateness and togetherness in the couple relationship. This is in keeping with Gottman and

Levenson’s (2000), study that revealed that a right balance between connecting through

common activities and spending time together, whilst maintaining individuality and space for

differentiation can support the couple relationship.

Past studies have found that couples can experience a possible element of

triangulation in relation to their pet-dogs especially in cases when a partner seeks more

connection with their pet-dog than in the couple relationship (Cain, 1983). Contrasting to

Cain’s study (1983), the findings of this study did not reveal such dynamics. Through this

study it was observed that the couples’ mutual positive emotions in relation to their pet-dogs

was also supported by their approach and how they view their pet-dog. All the couples

considered their pet-dog as a living being, perceived as ‘their child’ whom they had to care

for together even when they had to juggle several other commitments. Therefore, the couples’

approach was stemmed by their genuine interest and care towards their pet-dog. This aspect

supported the couples not to create a possible imbalance within the couples’ relationship

derived by one spouse being extremely invested in their pet-dog more than the other (Cline,

2010). A factor that could have contributed to the couples’ positive dynamics in relation to

their pet-dog was the positive relationship the couple experienced also prior to homing their

pet-dog. All the couples perceived their relationship as a strong one prior to adopting their

pet-dog, yet they experienced their pet-dog as enhancing and strengthening their couple

relationship. This is in congruent with Allen’s (1995) qualitative studies held with couples

  119  

who owned a pet-dog as it was found that couples relating to their pet-dog in addition to their

spouse offered greater marital satisfaction.

The pet-dog’s positive influence on the couple relationship could be also related to

various factors that were introduced upon their pet-dogs arrival. This study revealed that the

couples started to venture different places since they brought their pet-dog. The narrative of

the participants’ showed that the couples discovered new ways how to enjoy themselves

through their dogs’ presence. A change that was elicited by all the couples upon homing

their pet-dog was that they felt more in touch with nature, as they tended to go to places

where they could take their dogs with them such as the countryside, fields and dog friendly

beaches. Power (2008) also highlights that what distinguishes a pet-dog from other pets is

their ability to be included in outings by their family members. All the couples perceived

such outings as fun outings, as their pet-dog promoted a sense of togetherness and

playfulness amongst all the family members. Previous literature (Smolkovic et al., 2012;

Cain, 1983) also connote pets to an increase in family cohesion as pets can act as social

facilitators and increase time couples spend with each other. The participants’ perceived their

pet-dogs as constant entertainers; in fact they expressed that when they go out as a couple

they tend to talk about more serious issues while when they are in their dog’s presence a

sense of humour, playfulness and spontaneity is inevitably present. The dog’s entertaining

presence also evoked the playfulness and humour within the couple relationship. The

narratives of the participants’ included an element of laughter also during the interviews

when recalling their dog’s funny and spontaneous behaviour.

The findings of this study showed that the couples’ appreciated how the presence of

their pet-dog helped them to bond in a different way whilst distracting them from

  120  

technological devices such as television, computers, laptops and mobile phones. Recent

studies (McDaniel, 2015), revealed that technological devices frequently interrupt leisure

time within couple relationships. During the latter mentioned study it was also suggested that

couples who set ‘block out time’ from their technological devices helps them to focus on

each other and what is ‘happening in the moment’. This could be also linked to the findings

of this study, which indicated that, the absence of technological devices when the couple goes

out with their pet-dog promoted more quality time as a family and a feeling of relaxation.

This study showed that since pet-dogs are active participants in the couples’ life they

also influence the couple dynamics in various ways. For instance some of the couples

expressed that their pet-dog influences their dynamics during and after arguments, as the

presence of their pet-dog alters their negative emotions to more positive ones. All the couples

expressed that their pet-dogs help them to alter their mood to a positive one even after a

stressful day at work. Throughout this study it was observed that the pet-dog could act as an

emotional regulator for the couples in times of distress. This study fits with the findings of

Tannen’s (2004) qualitative study held with families owning a pet dog as it was revealed that

pet-dogs can act as interactional resources in family discourse by offering the opportunity to

introduce humour, buffer criticism, and reframe negative interactions.

5.5 Links And Patterns That Connect The Findings Of This Study

The above-mentioned themes reflect a systemic interrelation that shows how humans

and their pet-dogs influence each other in a circular and systemic pattern. This is reflected in

how the couples’ constructed beliefs about pet-dogs influence the significance that the pet-

dog has for the couples. Consequently, the significant presence that the pet-dog has for the

couple further motivates them to invest in their relationship with their pet-dog. This creates a

  121  

continuous exchange of interactions amongst the couple and the pet-dog, as the more the

couple invests in their pet-dog the more responsive their pet-dog becomes. In turn this

promotes a change in the couples’ lifestyle and dynamics, as they constantly include their

pet-dog in their thinking processes and day-to-day lives. The positive change in the couples’

relationship and lifestyle created through the presence of their pet-dog continues to shape the

couples’ experiences and constructs. The circular pattern reflecting the connections of the

themes is demonstrated in the below diagram.

A special bond formed

through a continuous exchange of interactions

Different Constructed

beliefs revolving

around pet-dog

Pet-dog promoting

change

Significance of the pet dog to

the couple

  122  

Moreover, a pattern, which was reflected in all the above-themes, was how the couple’s

relationship with their pet-dog is continuously shaped by a dynamic interplay, which

constantly influences each other’s responses and adaptation process. This study further

reflects the need for Systemic therapists not to turn a blind eye to the human-pet bond,

especially within couple and family relationships. The importance to include a bio-

psychosocial systemic perspective is imperative when working with human-pet relationships,

as it considers the circular chain of influence between humans and their pet. Therefore, this

study emphasizes the importance to adopt a holistic perspective when working with human-

pet relationships (Walsh, 2011).

5.6 Conclusion

The concluding chapter will tap into the limitations of the present study while

highlighting the salient findings. Areas for future research as well as practice and policy

implications from the findings will also be presented.

  123  

Chapter 6: Conclusion

The main findings were discussed in the previous chapter. This chapter will start by

outlining the limitations of the study. Following this, the clinical implications are discussed

and the proposal for policy and recommendation for future research are also brought forward.

Finally, a conclusion, which will sum up this research project, will be presented.

6.0 Limitations Of This Study

The methodology chosen for this study fitted with the aims of the research, resulting

in a rich, account about the experience of couples’ relationship with their pet-dog. IPA is an

idiographic approach, and therefore this study is not generalizable to all the couples’ owning

a pet-dog. However this study reflected some commonality with previous research that could

provide further insight and a systemic understanding about the experiences of couples in

relation to their pet-dog.

Face-to-face interviewing poses the risk to depress reports of socially undesirable

behaviour since the attitude of an interviewer can bias responses (Cresswell, 2009). Yet, in

order to diminish such a risk, it was ensured that leading questions were not asked and an

interview guide was used to minimise the social desirability bias. Given that I already work

in the therapeutic field, it was important to acknowledge and be aware of the therapeutic role

that I usually adopt with clients. For instance I had to reflect before the interviews in order

disentangle myself from the therapeutic questions that facilitate therapy, while replacing such

interventions with prompts and explorative questions related to this study. Finlay, as cited in

Clarke (2009), argues that reflexivity is an integral part of IPA so as to ensure that the

  124  

researcher remains in touch with how his or her personal experiences might be influencing

the data analysis. Therefore, my reflexive process and awareness were crucial and were given

high importance, so that my possible biases and previous experience with couples and pets

would not impinge the outcome of the study. A curious position supported me not only

during the interviews, but also during the analysis and writing process of this study.

Since the interviews were held jointly with the couple I had to attend to two realities

concurrently. Therefore I wanted to make sure to provide the opportunity for both

participants’ to reflect their experience and reality. In such circumstances, my training in

systemic psychotherapy proved to be a resource as it supported me to be in touch with the

dynamics occurring in the room while trying to attend to both realities and include the

couples’ perspectives. Interviewing couples together allowed the personal stories of couples

to be intertwined, forming a shared social construct. The couples’ past stories and

experiences seemed to have mutual influence on each other, which offered the opportunity to

create new narratives and stories in relation to pet-dogs. While interviews held jointly with

couples can allow participants to relax into their usual interpersonal dynamics, at times the

presence of other family members might also be a limiting factor as it might restrict certain

narratives that might have been generated in the absence of the other partner.

The participants were voluntarily recruited through the Malta dog training services

and an animal awareness group on Facebook. Such contexts and forums might be more

prone to attract people who care about animals and who have more positive regards towards

animals. While this offered more homogeneity amongst the sample, which is valuable when

holding an IPA study, it could have influenced the recruitment of other lived experiences in

relation to pet-dogs.

  125  

6.1 Clinical Implications

This study provides more insight about the experiences and the meaning that pet-dogs

can have within couple relationships. The results of this study revealed the past experience

and social constructs revolving around pet dogs and how these can influence people’s

perception in relation to pet-dogs. Congruent with the social constructionists notions applied

in systemic family therapy, it is important that therapists are aware of their own attitudes and

beliefs in relation to animals in order to be attuned to the feelings and meanings that clients’

attribute to the bond with their pet. Such aspect is deemed important as this study showed that

participants do not always feel comfortable to talk about their pet-dogs as they might be

afraid that others would not understand the special bond that they have with their pet-dog.

Their cautiousness to talk about their pet-dog was derived by their past experiences that

seemed to pose a taboo when talking about pets and how much they are meaningful to the

participants. The context of therapy could also offer a space where to process broader

cultural influences and cope with unhelpful responses by people and society in general.

Therapists’ element of curiosity about different relationships needs to be also applied

in relation to pet-dogs as this might offer more understanding when assessing and working

with meaningful relationships and different dynamics present within the family system.

Therapists’ curiosity about pet-dogs can allow the emergence of new stories and perhaps

subjugated narratives that clients never had the opportunity to talk about. Congruent to other

studies (Sanders’s, 2003) this study reveals the sense of anticipation of couples’ experience in

relation to their pet-dog’s loss. This study showed that couples might find it difficult to talk

about the future loss of their pet dog and other painful emotions derived from the experience

of having a pet-dog. However, Systemic psychotherapists can facilitate such a process by

  126  

offering a safe context, where the couple could express about painful emotions and the fear of

losing their dog. The importance to validate and normalize such emotions is important within

the therapeutic context, especially because such processes can be more painful for the couple

if the fear is unacknowledged or trivialized (Werner-Lin & Moro, 2004). Systemic

psychotherapists can facilitate the grieving process of couples that are mourning their pet-

dog, especially because pet-dogs can have a meaningful role in the couple and family

relationships.

This study revealed the influence that pet-dogs can have in couples’ communication

patterns. The pet-dog was considered as a very influential presence upon couples’ lives. It

influenced couples’ life styles and their ways of relating when experiencing conflict and

distress. The pet-dog seemed to act as an emotional regulator for the couple as it supported

the couple to emotionally connect through the presence of their dog’s entertaining and

soothing presence. This echoes past empirical studies (sable, 2012), which reflect the

attachment bonds that pets can form with humans. This study showed that pet-dogs can offer

attachment related functions for couples as it elicits feelings of pleasure, eases stress, offers

consistency and reduces feelings of fear and danger (Olmerm 2009). This study showed the

importance that pets can have in the couple dyad. Therefore congruent to Imber-black (2009)

suggestions, this study also reflects the importance to include pets in systemic assessments

and interventions as they can be a valuable resource that enriches the therapeutic work with

couples and families.

Pet-dogs can be included in systemic assessments and interventions also by inviting

owners to bring their pet-dog for sessions. When psychotherapists invite couples together

with their pet-dog the process of engagement can be facilitated, as through such an

  127  

intervention, the couples’ special bond and love for their pet-dog is acknowledged and valued

by their psychotherapist. The presence of a pet-dog might also facilitate therapeutic processes

as research shows that pet-dog owners might feel safer and more secure in the presence of

their pet-dog when talking about challenging issues (Zilcha-Manoa, et al., 2014). The

efficacy of Animal Assisted Therapy, demonstrates how positive experiences with animals

can facilitate the process of building secure interpersonal attachments (Fine, 2006). Recent

findings from neuroscience, confirms the process of pet attachment through the change in

brain activity; for instance, just staring at a dog or when establishing physical touch, the level

of oxytocin (a hormone which elicits feelings of pleasure and eases stress and reduces

feelings of fear and danger rises. Therefore, congruent to other studies (Zilcha-Manoa, et al.,

2014), this implies that inviting couples with their pet-dog for therapy can be very beneficial;

as pets can facilitate interactions in challenging therapeutic context while yielding important

information about the relational dynamics of couples with their pets. Past literature shows

that pets can also be included in the therapeutic context even when they cannot be physically

present in the room (McGoldrick et al., 2008). Pets can be included through the use of family

genogram and through the use of circular questioning. Such interventions can further reveal

the meaning and significance of bonds with pets in the therapeutic context. Systemic

psychotherapists can also co-create a dialogue with pet-owners in relation to aspects that

might be important for them to address such as concerns, conflict about a pet, pet illness or

pet loss, pet’s role in couple and family relationships. Pets can also be introduced within the

therapeutic context through metaphorical discussions that can facilitate the expression of

difficult emotions. (McGoldrick, et al., 2008).

Systemic psychotherapists perceive collaboration with other professionals as very

important when working with their clients in order to offer a holistic and systemic approach.

  128  

This study implies that such collaboration can be also valuable when working with clients

owning pet-dogs, as collaboration with professionals such as vets and dog training specialist

can be beneficial to the family and pet-dogs when required.

6.2 Proposals For Policy

Only recently are dogs in Malta being trained to be therapy dogs, autism therapy

dogs, hearing impaired dogs, medical response dogs, seizure response dog and mobility

assistance dogs (Service dogs Malta, 2015). Hence, dogs are now having another vital

function in the Maltese society. While this is a great improvement within the Maltese context,

more awareness and education about pet-dogs to society in general would support society to

be more knowledgeable about dog behaviour and appreciate the different roles that dogs can

have within the Maltese families.

More education and awareness can support people owning a pet-dog to feel more

accepted by Maltese society. Such awareness needs to be also incorporated in education

programmes from a young age. In addition, professionals working with people, such

psychotherapists, social workers and psychologists can benefit from training on how pet-dogs

and therapy dogs can be incorporated in therapy. More involvement of animals within the

psychotherapy realm can promote the introduction of animal assisted therapy programmes

and techniques with individuals and families.

From the participants’ experiences it was revealed that they still feel limited and

restricted when going certain public places. More inclusion of pet-dogs in society is needed

so that dog-friendly policies can offer more inclusion of pet-dogs and their owners within

  129  

public places.

6.3 Recommendations For Future Research

The findings of the study have demonstrated the meaningful presence that pet-dogs

might have within couple relationships. It would be interesting to hold more systemic studies

that would delve into other dynamics and experiences present within the family system; such

as the role of pet-dogs with children and the role of pets in sibling relationships. Such studies

would support professionals working with families to understand further the roles that pet-

dogs might have within families.

More inclusion of statistical research within the Maltese context would support

researchers, policy makers and other professionals working with pet-dogs to understand the

role of pets within Maltese society. Such statistical research could be incorporated within the

Maltese census by including questions about pet-dogs that would aim to provide more

understanding about the roles of pets within Maltese households.

This study included experiences of people who perceive their pet-dog as an important

family member. It would be interesting to do further research that would include a different

cohort from the one presented in this study; for instance further qualitative studies might

include experiences of people that view their pet-dog presence as influencing their family

dynamics negatively rather than positively. Such studies would provide further

understanding about the different realities that Maltese families might experience in relation

to their pet-dog and provide more knowledge to professionals about factors that may produce

stress in dog ownership amongst the couple relationship. Such studies could also help to

  130  

reveal the different roles that pet-dogs might have and also unleash expectations that dog-

owners have in relation to pets.

Further quantitative and qualitative research in relation to Maltese social constructs

about pet-dogs could provide more understanding about the Maltese biases in relation to pet-

dogs. Such studies could provide more information when designing educational and

awareness programmes that could offer more understanding about the pet-dogs to Maltese

society.

6.4 Conclusion

This study offered new insights about couples experiences in relation to their pet-dog

within a Maltese context. Using IPA has allowed the development of a rich account about

the experience of couples’ interviewed. Although some of the results were found to be

consistent with existing theory and literature, other results offer new perspectives and

experiences elicited through the clients’ lived realities. Since past literature about human-pet

bond has been predominantly individually focused this study added knowledge about the pet-

dog’s meaningful role within couple relationships.

The key findings of this study reflected the possible different social constructs

revolving around pet-dogs and how these influence the couples’ and societal perception in

relation to pet-dogs. This study has also shown the meaningful and significant presence that

couples can attribute to their pet-dog. A sense of fulfillment and satisfaction was reflected

by the couples’ experience in relation to their pet-dog, which they also perceived as being

‘their child’. The narratives of the participants elicited the couples’ delicate process of

  131  

building a special bond and a form of attachment with their pet-dog. This entailed an

adaptation process by the couple as well as by their pet-dogs. Such narratives revealed the

uniqueness of every bond, which was reflected in the couples’ relationship with their pet-dog.

The pet-dog was an active participant in the couples’ relationship that influenced their

lifestyle and dynamics. The findings of this study have indeed demonstrated the couples’

appreciation towards their pet-dogs’ entertaining and soothing presence in their day-to-day

lives. Finally this study attempted to introduce new insights about the possible different roles

and complex dynamics that a pet-dog can have within couples’ relationships, which can be

clinically useful when working with couples owning pet-dogs.

  132  

References

Abrams, L. (2009). Four – legged Therapist: My dog is my co-therapist. Retrieved from

www.guidancefacilitators.com

Allen, K. (1995). Coping with life changes and transitions: The role of pets. Interactions,

13(3), 5–8.

Anderson,W. P., Reid, C. M., & Jennings, G. L. (1992). Pet ownership and risk factors for

cardiovascular disease. Medical Journal of Australia, 157, 298-301.

Animal Welfare Act of 2002, Cap 439. Retrieved form

http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlt29325.pdf

Animal Welfare (Amendment) Act of 2014, Cap 439 (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=26

088&l=1

Arkow, P. (2006). “Old wine in a new bottle”: new strategies for humane education. In A.H.

Fine (Ed.) Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and

guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 425-451). San Diego: Academic Press.

Arluke, A. (2010). ‘Our Animals, Ourselves.’ Contexts 9: 34–9.

Altschiller, D. (2011). Animal-Assisted Therapy: Health and Medical Issues Today. USA:

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Barker, S. B., & Wolen, A. R. (2008). The benefits of human-companion animal interaction:

a review. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 35, 487-495.

  133  

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Dutton.

Batson, A. (2008). Global Companion Animal Ownership and Trade: Project Summary.

WSPA. Retrieved from http://www.wspa-international.org.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin

Books.

Biggerstaff, D. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology, Psychology retrieved

from http://www.intechopen.com/books/psychology-selected-papers/qualitative-

research-methods-in-psychology

Blazina, C., Boyraz, G., & Shen-Miller, D. S. (2011). The psychology of the human-animal

bond: A resource for clinicians and researchers. New York: Springer.

Blouin, D. B. (2008). ‘All in the Family? Understanding the Meaning of Dogs and Cats in the

Lives of American Pet Owners.’ Dissertation completed at Indiana University,

Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/33/30/3330815.html.

Blouin, D. B. (2012). Understanding Relations between People and their Pets. Sociology

compass , 6 (11), 856-869.

Bokkers, E. (2006). Effects of interactions between humans and domesticated animals. In J.

Hassink, & M. V. Dijk, Farming for health: Green-care farming across Europe

and the United States of America (pp. 31-42). Netherlands: Springer.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.

Bowlby, J. (1969). “Attachment.” Basic Books, New York.

Brown, S.. E. (2007). Companion animals as self-objects. Anthrozoos, 20(4), 329–343.

  134  

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed). USA: Oxford University press.

Cain, A. (1983). A study of pets in the family system. In A. Katcher & A. Beck (Eds.), New

perspectives on our lives with companion animals (pp. 72–81). Philadelphia, PA:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Chard, A. (2014 ). Orientations: Systemic Approaches to Research Practice. In G. Simon, &

A. Chard, Systemic Inquiry: Innovations in reflexive practice research (pp. 30-

59). UK: Everything is connected press.

Clarke, C. (2009). An introduction to interpretative phenomenological analysis: a useful

approach for occupational therapy research. British Journal of Occupational

Therapy, 72(1), 37-39.

Cline, K. M. C. (2010). Psychological Effects of Dog Ownership: Role Strain, Role

Enhancement, and Depression. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 117-131.

Cohen, S. P. (2002). Can pets function as family members? Western Journal of Nursing

Research, 24, 621–638.

Control of dogs regulations of 2001, S.L.312.01 (2007). Retrieved from

http://www.caninemalta.com/downloads/ControlOfDogs.pdf

Curb, L. A., Abramson, I. C., Grice, W. J,m & Kenninson, M. S. (2013). The relationship

between personality match and pet satisfaction among dog owners. Anthrozoos,

26, 395 - 404

Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Reseaerch Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed). USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  135  

Dallos, R., & Draper, R. (2005) An introduction to family therapy: Systemic theory and

practice (2nd ed). New York: Open University Press

Dallos, R., & Vetere, A. (2009). Systemic therapy and attachment narratives : applications in

a range of clinical setings. USA: Routledge.

Doherty, N. A., & Feenay, J.A. (2004). The composition of attachment networks throughout

the adult years. Personal relationships, 11, 469 – 488.

Duffey, T. (2015). Divorce and other loss issues in Family Therapy. In D. Capuzzi, & M. D.

Stauffer, Foundations of couples, marriage and family counseling (pp. 449 -

478). New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Electronic Identification of Dogs Regulations of 2011, S.L.437.101 (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=1

1664&l=1

Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Our Selves in Research

London: Okica Lingsley.

Etough, V., & Smith, J. A. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In G.S.

Breakwell, S. Hammond, F.C. Schaw & J. A. Smith. (Eds.), research methods in

psychology (pp. 322 – 340). London: Sage Publications.

Fine, A. H. (2006). Incorporating Animal-Assisted Therapy into psychotherapy: Guidelines

and suggestions for therapists. In A.H. Fine (Ed.), Animal-assisted therapy:

Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 167–206). San

Diego: Academic Press.

  136  

Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S.A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support, and one-year survival

after acute myocardial infarction in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial.

American Journal of Cardiology, 76, 1213–1217.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American

Psychologist 40, 255- 275

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. CA: Sage.

Goldenberg, H., & Goldenberg, I. (2008). Family Therapy: An overview (7th Ed). USA:

Matrix productions

Gottman, J., & Levenson, R.W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will

divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 737-745.

Grandin, T., & Johnson, C. (2009). Animals make us human. New York: Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt.

Grier, K. C. (2006). Pets in America: A history. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North

Carolina Press.

Ham, S. A., & Epping, J. (2006). Dog walking and physical activity in the United States.

Preventing Chronic Disease, 3, 1–7.

Hansen, P. (2013). Urban Japan's “Fuzzy” New Families: Affect and Embodiment in Dog–

Human Relationship. Asian Anthropology , 12 (2), 83-103.

  137  

Hart, L. A (1995). The role of pets in enhancing human well-being:Effects for older people.

In A.T.B. Edney (Ed). The Waltham Book of HumanAnimal Interactions: Benefits

and Responsibilities (PP. 19 – 31). Great Britain: Library of Congress Cataloging

In Publication Data.

Hart, L. A. (2006) Understanding animal behavior, species, and temperament as applied to

interactions with specific populations. In A.H. Fine (Ed.), Animal-assisted

therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 81-96).

San Diego: Academic Press.

Headley, B., & Grabka, M. (2007). Pets and human health in Germany and Australia:

National longitudinal results. Social Indicators Research, 80(2), 297–311.

Hertlein, K. M., Lambert-Shute, J., & Benson, K. (2004). Postmodern Influence in Family

Therapy Research: Reflections of Graduate Students. Qualitative Report, 9(3),

538-561.

Hines, L. M. (2003). Historical perspectives on the human-animal bond. American

Behavioral Scientist, 47, 7-15.

Hosey, G., & Melfi, V. (2014). Human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds: a review

and analysis of the literature. International Journal of Comparative Psychology,

(27(1)), 117-142.

ICM research (2013). Pets considered part of the family, Consensus shows. Retrieved from

http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/press/a-third-prefer-pets-to-family

Imber-Black, E. (2009). Snuggles, My Cotherapist, and Other Animal Tales in Life and

Therapy. Family Processes, 48 (4), 459 – 461.

  138  

Julius, H., Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D., Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2013). Attachment to

Pets – An Integrative View of Human-Animal Relationships with Implications for

Therapeutic Practice. New York: Hogrefe

Kebbe, L. (2014). Writing essays as diological inquiry. In G. Simon, & A. Chard, Systemic

Inquiry: Innovations in reflecive practice reserch (pp. 193-205). UK: Everything

is connected press.

Kruger, K., McCune, S., & Merrill, R. (2012). Waltham pocket book of human-animal

interactions. In J. Serpell, & S. McCune. Retrieved from

http://www.waltham.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/waltham-booklets/Human-

AnimalInteractionsBookletElectronicversion.pdf

Kurimski, K. (2014). Life Expectancy of Dogs: How Long Will My Dog Live? . Retrieved

from http://www.caninejournal.com/life-expectancy-of-dogs/

Laliberte-Bailey, T. (2009). The dog and family therapy. Reflections , pp. 85-89.

Liamputton, P. (2010). Performing Qualitative Research. Cambridge: Cambridge

University press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96

McDaniel, B. (2015). Technoference: How technology can hurt relationships. Retrieved from

http://family-studies.org/technoference-how-technology-can-hurt-relationships/

McGoldrick, M., Carter, B., & Garcia –Preto, N. (2010). The expanded life cycle: Individual,

family and social perspectives. (4th ed.). Needham Heights: MA: Allyn & Bacon

  139  

McGoldrick, M., Gerson, R., & Petry, S. (2008). Genograms: Assessment and intervention

(3rd ed.). New York: Norton.

McNicholas, J., and G. Collis. (2001). Children’s representations of pets in their social

networks. Child Care Health Dev. 27, 279–29

Melson, G. F. (2003). Child development and the human-companion animal bond. Animal

Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 31–39.

Melson, G. F., & Fine, A. H. (2006). Animals in the lives of children. In A.H. Fine (Ed.),

Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice

(2nd ed., pp. 207–226). San Diego: Academic Press

Milan, C. (2006). Cesar’s way. New York: Harmony House: Random.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Myers, G. (1998). Children and animals: Social development and our connections to other

species. Boulder, CO: Western Press

Newhill, E. N. (2004). Client Violence in Social Work Practice: Prevention, Intervention,

and Research. UK : The Guilford Press

Payne, M. (2006). Narrative therapy: An introduction for counsellors. (2nd ed.). London:

SAGE Publications

Pet partners (2012). What are pre-requisites for registering with pet partners? Retrieved from

http://www.petpartners.org/team_prerequisites

  140  

Power, E. (2008). ‘Furry Families: Making a Human-Dog Family Through Home.’ Social &

Cultural Geography. 9: 535–55.

Protection of animals offered in pet shops (Minimum Standards) Regulations of 2013,

S.L.439.16 (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=1

2084&l=1

Quindlen, A. (2007). Good dog, Stay!. New York: Random House.

Ramirez, M. (2006) ‘My Dog’s Just Like Me’: Dog Ownership as a Gender Display.’

Symbolic Interaction 29, 373–91.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2007). Essential research methods for social work. Belmont, CA:

Thompson Brooks/cole.

Sable, P. (2012). The pet connection: An Attachment perspective. Clinical Social Work

Journal 41, 93 – 99.

Sanders, C. (1999). Understanding dogs: Living and working with canine companions.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Sanders, C. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: close relationships between humans

and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction 26, 405-26

Serpell, J. A. (2002). Guardian spirits or demonic pets: The concept of the witch’s familiar in

early modern England. In A.N.H. Creager & W.C Jordan (Eds.) . The

Animal/Human Boundary (pp. 157 – 190). Rochester: University of Rochester

Press.

  141  

Serpell, J.A. (2011). Historical and cultural perspectives on human-pet interactions. In P.

McCardle, S. McCune, J. Griffin, L. Esposito & L. Freund (Eds.), Animals in Our

Lives: Human-Animal Interaction in Family Community, & Therapeutic Settings

(pp. 11-22). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing

Serpell., J.A., Coppinger., R., Fine., A.H. (2006) Welfare considerations in therapy and

assistance animals. . In A.H. Fine (Ed.), Animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical

foundations and guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 453-474). San Diego:

Academic Press.

Service Dogs Malta Foundation (2015). Retrieved from http://www.servicedogsmalta.org/

Shaw, R. L. (2001). Why use interpretative phenomenological analysis in Health

Psychology? Health Psychology Update, 10, 48-52.

Simon, G. (2014). Systemic inquiry as a form of qualitative inquiry. In G. Simon, & A. Chard

, Systemic Inquiry: Innovations in reflexive practice research (pp. 3-29). UK :

Everything is connected press.

Smith, J. A. (2010) Interpretative phenomenological analysis: a reply to Amedeo Giorgi.

Existential Analysis, 21, 186-192.

Smith, J., & Bekker, H. (2011). Qualitative research, framework analysis, parents

experiences, hydrocephalus. Nurse Researcher, 18, 2

Smith, J.A , Flowers. P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis:

Theory, Method and Research. Sage publications: London.

Smith, J.A., & Osborn, M. (2007) Pain as an assault on the self: an interpretative

phenomenological analysis. Psychology & Health, 22, 517-34

  142  

Smolkovic, I., Fajfar, M., & Mlinaric, V. (2012). Attachment to pets and interpersonal

relationships. Journal of European Psychology Students, 3, 15-23

Steier, F. (1991). Reflexivity and methodology: An ecological Constructionism. In F. Steier,

(Ed.), Research and Reflexivity (pp.1-11). California: Sage Publications.

Storch, J., & Solso, K. (2014). Reporting from inside the emerging process of becoming

research consultants. In G. Simon, A. Chard, & A. Chard, Systemic Inquiry:

Innovations in reflexive practice research (pp. 174-192). UK: Everything is

connected press.

Tannen, D. (2004) Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family

discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 399-420, doi:

10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_1

Turner, W. G. (2005). The Role of Companion Animals Throughout the Family Life Cycle.

Journal of Family Social Work , 9 (4), 11-21. doi:10.1300/J039v09n04_02

Udelle, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2008). A review of domestic dogs’ human-like

behaviors: Or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 247-261.

Walker, J. (2014). Parenthood, parenting and family life. In A. Abela, & J. Walker,

Contemporary issues in family studies: Globar perspectives on partnerships,

parenting and support in a changing world (pp. 115-136). Malaysia: Ho printing

Walsh, F. (2009a). Human-Animal Bonds I: The relational significance of companion

animals. Family Process, 48, 462–480.

  143  

Walsh, F. (2009b). Human-Animal Bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family

therapy. Family Process, 48, 481–499.

Walsh, F. (2011). Family therapy: Systemic approaches to practice . In J. R. Brandell, Theory

and practice in clinical social work (2nd ed) (pp. 153-178). USA : Sage

Publications, Inc.

Werner-Lin, A., & Moro, T. (2004). Unacknowledged and stigmatized losses. In F. Walsh &

M. McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss: Death in the family (2nd ed., pp. 247–

272). New York: Norton.

Wood, L. J., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, K. M., & Bosch, K. M (2007). More than a furry

companion: The ripple effect of companion animals on neighborhood

interactions and sense of community. Society and Animals, 15, 43-56.

Wood, C., Giles, G., & Percy, C. (2009). Project Handbook: Becoming a researcher.

England: Pearsons Education Limited.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. USA: The Guilford press.

Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R.(2011): Pet in the therapy room: An

attachment perspective on Animal-Assisted Therapy, Attachment & Human

Development, 13:6, 541-561. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2011.608987

  144  

Appendices

Appendix 1: Recruiting Advert

  145  

Appendix 2: Letter of Approval from the Ethics Board

51, Maggie Moran Street, Paola

29th January 2015

To Whom it May Concern

Re-Submission for Ethics approval of research proposal

Title of Dissertation Submitted: Understanding The Experience Of Couples’ Relationship

With Their Pet-dogs

Author: Ms. Mandy Vella

This is to confirm that the above Research Proposal is being approved unconditionally. It

complies with all the ethical standards and takes particular care of the participants’

confidentiality and safety. The research question being proposed is also appropriate to ask to

participants. No vulnerable populations are involved in the research project and the risks of

interviewing have been taken into consideration and accounted for.

Regards

___________________________

Dr. Charlie Azzopardi

Systemic Family Psychotherapist

Course Coordinator

  146  

Appendix 3: An Example Of The Process Of Eliciting Themes From

Interviews

The following excerpt will demonstrate an example of the how emergent themes were

elicited from the interviews, which followed smith et al. (2009) recommended procedure

involving repeated reading of transcripts while taking notes related to key phrases and

processes of the interview from each transcript. Within each transcript, these notes

were summarised in order to produce emergent themes from the interviews.

In the following excerpt the fictitious names Leah, Ray and Toffee are also

applied. However they are abbreviated to I - Interviewer, L – Leah, R- Ray and T –

Toffee.

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

Couple attributing an identity to their dog (4)

Positioning of parents with their dog (7)

1. I: Tinteressani kif tiddiskrivu ir-relazzjoni tagħkom mal-kelb tagħkom? Kelb jew kelba?

2. L and R: Kelb, kelb…

3. I: X’jismu?

4. L: T jismu uffiċjalment…

5. R: Imma għandu ħafna laqmijiet

imbgħad…

6. I: ok…

7. L: Jiena naħseb in summary qisu t-tifel tagħna…

Emphasis on being a male – kelb, kelb

Officially – T -He has a lot of nicknames – They provided an identity to the dog

Adopt Position of parents - both agreeing that he is like their child

  147  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

Couple experiencing the dog as a constant presence (9) Couple experiencing a sense of loyalty by their dog (9)

Dog as a consistent presence (11)

Communication with dog (13)

8. I: ok…

9. R: Hekk, hekk inqisuh aħna, fis-sens…ifhimni hekk hi għax il-ħin kollu speċi magħna. L-unika ħin li ma inkunux flimkien x’ħin inkunu x-xogħol jew hekk…il-bqija anke hu x’ħin jarana jinsa kollox u kull fejn inkunu jiġi speċi…

10. I: U meta tgħidu iqattgħa ħafna ħin magħkom, kif tiddiskrivuwha ġurnata tipika ma T?

11. L: Ara jiena basically naħdem mid-dar, jiġifieri, jiena u hu, jerġgħa inqattgħu ħafna ħin flimkien, speċjalment these last 4 months, kemm ilna nigħxu flimkien, għax jiena qabel kont inqattgħa ħafna ħin għand R, pero issa kemm ilna li mmovjajna u T ġie magħna, naħdem mid-dar ħafna mil-ġranet…u speċi meta nigħħdlek il-ħin kollu il-ħin kollu miegħi, qed naħdem fuq il-komjuter, rieqed u imiss miegħi, inqum u jekk jinduna li pereżempju mhux just qomt mhux just toilet, qomt nagħmel xi ħaga tarah ġej…

12. R: Il-fatt li ma mortx lura ħdejh…(agreeing to L).

13. L: qisek tibni, speċjalment jien f’dawn l-għerba xhur bnejt forma ta’ komunikazzjoni litteralment miegħu.

Connectedness with their dog – il-ħin kollu magħna

Presence of their dog Dog’s focus on the couple – x’ħin jarana jinsa Connectedness with dog – she works from home – spends a considerable amount of time with dog Increase of connectedness with dog Emphasizing – “il- hin kollu”, “il-hin kollu” – presence Dog serving as company Emphasis on the dog’s need to touch Dog being a consistent presence - rieqed u imis mieghi

Building a relationship and communication – human -animal communication

  148  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

Couple in tune with dog’s needs (15) Couple adopting an empathic position (16)

Couple adopting an empathic position (17) Dog’s responsiveness to the couple (17) Couple’s communication with dog (17) Dog providing an element of playfulness (17)

Dog being a vital presence (18)

Caring for the dog is not an option (20) Caring for the dog providing quality time for

14. I: x’tip ta’ komunikazzjoni?...

15. L: Jien naf, min xi ħaġa sempliċi bħal, meta mmuvjajna, veru R? (R agreeing). Pereżempju anke toilet sakemm dera l-post u hekk..

16. R: Kien qisu naqra imħawwad..

17. L: Kien jagħmel ġewwa, kien disoriented. Issa aħna konna anke kellimna behavioural therapist qabel ma immuvjajna biex naraw how best to move, ease him into it. hemm…kien jagħmel toilet ġewwa, u illum il-ġurnata jiġifieri, dan qed ngħidu in 4 months, mhux perijodu daqshekk twil, tarah imur quddiem il-bieb tal-bitħa, bħalissa ix-xitwa, ikun magħluq, jinbaħ u immur niftaħlu. Hemm…logħob, eżempju, speċjalment ma R, x’hin jiddeċiedi li irid jilgħab, jibda jaqla t-toys kollha tiegħu, jiġi jogħllilek idejk, speċjalment jekk tkun fuq il-kompjuter…

18. R: Jiġi jiġbidlek l-attenzjoni speċi ta’. Le imma speċi, ma nimmaġinanhiex mingħajru speċi għax il-ħin kollu jivvinta xi ħaġa…

19. I: ok…

20. L: Ehe noħorġuh filgħodu,

noħorguh mixja, as much as possible noħorguh flimkien, hemm l-ewwel ħaġa anke isservi

Empathizing with dog Empathizing with dog and with his needs – sens of attunment Commitment - taking the situation seriously and including a dog behaviourist Considering the needs of the dog Responsiveness of the dog when teaching him - consistency and commitment of couple Playful “parent” – R Couple and dog – building mutual communication - jinbaħ u mmur niftaħlu - The couples’ commitment and patience - Playfulness of dog with R Dog keeping them company and providing a sense of fulfillment – wouldn't imagine his life without him

Commiment – dog included in their daily routine - walking Caring for dog - walking increasing couple quality time

  149  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

the couple (20)

A continuous exchange of responses (21)

A continuous exchange of responses (22) Dog offering company (23) Dog being a constant presence (23) Dog seeking proximity (23) A consistent presence (23)

Dog seeking proximity (24) Dog calmer and happier in the couples’ presence (24)

lilna ikollna naqra ħin titkellem anke barra mid-dar barra min kollox…

21. R: Minimun darbtejn jiġifieri , għax ġieli anke ħriġnieh tlieta, jiddependi, anke hu meta nigħdulu li ħa noħorġuk jew hekk jinduna, jibda idawwar rasu

22. L: Tibda tara rasu tiġġenneb

laġenba, tinduna anke l-ħarsa ta’ għajnejh li ikun qed jifhem…

23. R: Li sejjer x’imkien

barra…hemm jiġifieri anke fih kumpanija, mhux jiġifieri tkun x’imkien u jitlaq jorqod jew hekk…imur jorqod imma basta viċin tiegħek speċi u jew fl-istess area jew hekk fhimt. Eżempju jekk nitla naħdem fuq il-bejt ma jibqax isfel, jitla fuq il-bejt u ħalli jorqod x’imkien f’xi rokna fuq il-bejt. Ikun preżenti il-ħin kollu. Anke biex jorqod ikun irid imiss miegħi, ma T, jew mat-tnejn. (L agreeing in the background as well – “eżatt, eżatt il-ħin kollu).

24. L: Dan jorqod magħna fis-sodda jiġifieri f’nosfna, kelb 40 kilos qed nitkellmu ta’…imma again, anke filgħaxija inkunu qed naraw it-televixin u niddeċiedi nidħol norqod daqqa jibqa ftit ma R, u imbad jiġi ħdejja, jew jiġi ħdejja mal-ewwel, imma kif taqbad tigħd qisu, once li inkunu t-tnejn hemm anke l-ħarsa ta’ wiċċu tinduna li ikun relaxed, kuntent…

Dog’s responsiveness when they tell them they will take him out – mutual response and communication Couple in tune with their dog – a continuous relationship and exchange of communication - noticing his head movement

Dog offering company, bond and a stable presence to R Dog’s importance to be connected and in R and the couples’ presence Dog’s loyalty – following him everywhere R percieving their dog as constantly present presence Connectedness with the couple – touching them Again emphasizing the dog’s presence in their lives – “il-ħin kollu”, “il-ħin kollu” - a 40 kilos dog sharing their bed Sleeping with them – connectedness and touch - Dog providing attention to R and L - Couple percieving dog as being relaxed and calmer when they are together– encouraging unity amongst the couple

  150  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

An experience beyond words (27) Attunement to the couple (27) Experiencing a consistent greeting (27)

Expecting the dog’s greetings (31)

25. I: Kif inhi meta tkunu

waħedkom ma T, min meta tkunu flimkien?

26. L: Naħseb meta inkunu flimkien,

ikun iktar kuntent, kif taqbad tgħid…

27. R: Ma nafx kif ħa nispjegaha,

pero li naf li meta jiena inkun hemmhekk, li naf hija meta jiena inun waħdi miegħu imbad tiġi L u vice versa, pereżempju kont jien miegħu u ġiet L, jitlaq lili u imur jifraħ bijha u imbad jitlaqni fis-sens imur jifraħ bija mhux għax kien ġurnata miegħi speċi…jiġifieri hu jaf li hemm xi ħadd nieqes għax speċi meta tiġi l-persuna l-oħra, imur jifraħ bijha, anke bil-kontra, hemm, jiġifier as such ma nafx ikun kuntent jew hekk ħa nigħdu hekk imma jiġifieri jaf li hemm xi hadd nieqes..fhimt fis-sens hemm persuna oħra nieqsa għax eermm tipo jurik hu anke il-mod illi kif jifraħ u hekk mhux qisu mhux għax kien ma L komdu u ġejt jien ma jagħtix kas jew hekk…

28. L: Le jiġi, jiġi…

29. I: U kif tarawha din…li meta

ikun hemm xi ħadd nieqes u tiġi il-persuna l-oħra u jieħu pjaċir?

30. L: xi ħaġa sabiħa ħafna

31. R: nieħu gost hux anke jiena li

Couple percieving dog to be more happy in when they are together “kif taqbad tigħd” Does not know how to explain it – at times the experience might be beyond words? Loyal to both L and R Attunment to both – managing the relationship with the couple – when being in R’s presence and L comes he greets her and vice versa Dog being a neutral presence to the couple Dog greeting them and providing consistency regardless the context or situation

Experiencing his constant greetings as something pleasant

Expecting the dog’s greetings after work – R enjoys it

  151  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

Couple having an exclusive relationship with their dog (32) Loyalty towards the couple (32)

A special bond (33, 34, 35)

A special bond (35)

Fear to lose the special bond (36) Having a special bond in any context (36)

Overexcitement of dog when greeting couple (37, 38)

niġi mix-xogħol speċjalment inkun qed nistennih illi jiġi…

32. L: Pereżempju jiena li ngħid

għalija illi hu kien jgħix ma R qabel allura relatively speaking kien iqattgħa, ħafna mil-ħin ma R u l-familja tiegħu, min dejjem lil T konna noħorġuh aħna, noħduh għand il-Vet aħna…jiġifieri jiena u R konna nieħdu ħsiebu. Anke eżempju ġieli kont ninżel għand R u R, il-kamra tiegħu kienet fuq u pereżempju ikollu bżonn joħroġ, ħdejja joqgħod, mhux jiġifieri jinżel fejn il-familja tiegħu jew hekk, dejjem magħna…

33. R: Eżatt, jiġifieri il-bond dejjem

magħna kien..

34. L: Dejjem magħna ehe.. 35. R: jiġifieri, anke meta kont

għand ommi, konna naslu jew jiena jew L, kien jitlaq lil kulħadd u jiġi magħna.

36. L: Pero xorta jiena dejjem kelli qabel ma immuvjajna dil-biża’ speċi ta’ once li inkun waħdi miegħu ħa jkunu l-istess l-affarijiet bħal meta ikun waħdu ma R jew once li jkun waħdu ma R, ha jkunu l-istess l-affarijiet x’ħin jiġi jiena, ħa jifraħ bija b’dan il-mod, pero iva jagħmila…

37. I: kif jurik li qed jifraħ bik?

38. L: isemma triq sħiħa, jibki,

Dog loyal and responsive to his carers – R and L The dog’s consistency and loyalty to his carers regardless the context Dog Favouring L and R presence The dog’s bond is exclusive with R and L – both agreeing Dog Favouring L and R over other relationships – a special bond

L’s Fear that Toffee’s bond might not be the same – Fear to lose this special bond when they move house Fear that the dog might behave different in a different context Fear of not having the same bond with T

Now reassured that the dog would still be responsive to her

  152  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

Experiencing a daily blast of excitement (40)

A consistent relationship with dog (41)

Comparison to parenthood (43) Perceiving the dog as uniting the couple (43) Priority of dog’s well-being (43) Comparison to parenthood (43)

Caring for a living being (44)

litteralment.

39. R: Anke mil-karozza jgħarfek jiġifieri…

40. L: le, le jinduna, jistennik wara

l-bieb u litteralment, għax jien ġieli qas jemnuna, dawn il-videos li jaraw ta’ meta ikunu ilhom ma jaraw l-owners tagħhom…hekk jagħmel, every single day. Jiġifieri jarana x’ħin jarana dan, ferħ enormi ikollu.

41. R: anke jiġifieri jekk noħorġu mid-dar u niġu iktar min-darba, kull darba jifraħ bina jiġifieri

42. I: U kif tgħixuwha bħala koppja din?

43. L: jiena ma nafx, imma naħseb

bħal meta koppja ikolla t-tfal, qisa xi ħaġa li taqqgħad il-koppja, eżempju jien naf ġieli ikollna xi ngħidu u jekk għall- argument inzertat ġurnata li rridu nieħdu lil T għand il-vet, dak il-ħin li inkunu għand il-vet, addio li kellna xi nigħdu, ħalli imbad nerġgħu inkompluwha wara, imma dak il-ħin, speċi, taf kif hu il-focus, għalekk fil-bidu għedtlek, it-tifel tagħna, ma nafx qisni kif ħa nispjegaha mod ieħor….

44. R: Hekk hu speċi, kif naqbad nigħdlek, qisu xi ħaga li qed tieħu ħsiebha, fis-sens, imma jiġifieri anke hu jiġifieri meta ikollna xi nigħdu jew hekk jinduna fhimt, il-karattru tiegħu

in different contexts – consistency - reassurance - Dog greeting them - Being attuned

- People find it difficult to believe to dog’s reaction of his extreme happiness - Dog’s extreme happiness when he sees them on a daily basis (both smiling) Dog’s consistency – dog always reveals that he is happy with his owners no matter for how long they have been away.

- 2nd time – comparing the experience of having a dog to parenthood - Percieving their dog as uniting couples Dog’s positive influence on couple’s arguments - Considering their dog’s needs not only their needs - Dog’s presence serving as an emotional regulator - Dog’s well being given priority over couple issues - 3rd time comparing him to their child – L doesn't know how else to explain it (R agreeing)

Caring for a living being – (providing meaning and motivation?) Dog responsive to the couple’s arguments – dog is more happy

  153  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

Dog sensitive to arguments (44)

Dog’s position of neutrality during couples’ arguments (46)

Dog’s uneasiness during arguments (47)

Dog being an emotional regulator during arguments (50) Dog behaviour influencing couple dynamics (50, 51) Dog maintaining a position of neutrality (51) Couple in touch with Dog’s reaction to arguments (51)

qisu jinbidel (L nodding and agreeing to R..)

45. I: Kif jurik li jinduna?

46. L: jintefa fin-nofs pereżempju, la

imur ma R u lanqas jiġi miegħi..

47. R: tinduna li qisu ma jkunx happy..

48. I: u dak il-ħin x’jiġri

bejnietkom?

49. L: Pereżempju jekk jiena u hu inkunu qed nillatikaw, inkunu illatikajna…

50. R: Tnaqqas, tnaqqas jiġifieri…jien naf jekk eżempju waqt li tkun qed tillatika, tgħid għandi xi ġurnata eżempju sejjer hekk imma kif tara lilu hekk qisu tibdillek il-burdata eżempju..

51. L: U għax kif iġib ruħu hu, jien naf qed nigħdlek, R mar f’kamra u jien bqajt fil-kċina ghal-argument, dal-kelb la imur fil-kamra fejn ikun R u lanqas jiġi ħdejja, joqgħod fin-nofs, imbgħad pereżempju, jien ninzerta lil R, aħna għandna il-kamra tal-kompjuter ta’ R hawn, il-kitchen hawn wara, u hawnhekk il-bathroom, allura T ikun qiegħed fin-nofs bejn iż-żewġt ikmamar u jekk R joħrog mil-kamra tiegħu biex imur għat-toilet tarah iferfer denbu imma x’ħin jinduna li mhux ser

in calm and happy context then in heightened emotions

- Dog reaction to arguments - distracting couple when conflicts occur – dog maintainin a position of neutrality - Dog uneasiness when arguments in the couple relationship arise- sensing their uneasiness

Dog’s reaction to arguments influence couple’s position – arguments lessened Dog serving as an emotional regulator – shifting couple’s emotions Couple’s arguments influenced by dog’s behaviour R perceives that arguments are milded through their dog Dog maintaining a position of neutrality towards the couple – loyal to both Couple attuned to dog’s body language – wagging his tail Dog reacts according to couple’s unusual behaviour – stop waggin his tail when couple do not repair their argument – when

  154  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

Dog’s position of neutrality (52) Dog reacting to different couple dynamics (52)

Adopting a different lifestyle (54) Attributing the change of lifestyle to the dog (54)

Couple taking a position of responsibility and commitment (55) Couple including their dog in their thinking and planning (55) Looking forward to go

jidħol ħdejja fil-kċina imma sejjer f’kamra oħra jieqaf…

52. R: Qisu ma ikunx jaf hu kif ħa

jgib ruħu fis-sens qisu jaf li hemm xi ħaġa ħażina, imma issa x’ser jiġri speċi fhimt? Qisu jurik li qiegħed in between qisu ma jafx…jinduna li hemm xi ħaġa ħażina żgur jiġifieri imma, anke hu jinduna min kif jiena u L inġibu ruħna flimkien normalment u meta inkunu miġġieldin jinduna hu li hemm xi ħaġa ħażina speċi

53. I: U qed ngħid ukoll, qisu bħala koppja qabel ma ġie T kif inhi simili jew differenti r-relazzjoni tagħkom?

54. L: differenti! Anke l-ħruġ li

noħorġu differenti, l-ammont ta’ ħin li inkunu irridu inqattgħu id-dar differenti, speċi hekk u kultant nibda ngħid għax kbirna aħna jew?...imma veru għax ġie hu. U naħseb nasal nemmen li min meta ġie hu..

55. R: le anke meta noħorġu u hekk, mhux tkun moħħok fih ta’ imma eżempju qisek imma taf speċi li hemm xi ħadd jistennik id-dar, qed tifhem, jiġifieri ħriġt tgħid eżempju ħadt gost issa u daqshekk, qisu ma tkunx trid tibqa iktar tgħid issa ħa mmur lura d-dar għax issa hemm il-kelb speċi…

56. L: U anke l-konverżazzjonijiet tagħna, jiġifieri inkunu barra kif

they go in separate rooms

Couple notice the dog’s neutrality and uneasiness when arguments arise Emphasis on the word – żgur – they are sure that reacts to their different couple dynamics – he shows you he is “in between” – dog does not side Dog reacts to positive and to diverse emotions – when they are not in good terms – couple perceive their dog as knowing something is not ok L and R adopting a different lifestyle since they brought their dog - different type of outings, spending more time at home L – reflecting about their change in lifestyle and attributing it to their dog L percieving their dog as bringing change

R percieving their dog as a stable presence at home – when they go out – they still think about their dog – as they know he is waiting for them -they enjoy their time together as a couple – but they are responsible towards their role as carers - Taking a position of responsibility and commitment – thinking about the dog - Couple sharing conversations about T when they want to return home (both smiling and enjoying

  155  

Emergent Themes Original  Transcript   Exploratory Comments

back home (56)

qisu jaqbes ċertu ħin nibda ninduna, nibdew nitkellmu fuqu u nibdew nigħdu ara

it) - The couple looking forward to go back to

Table A3-1 Eliciting Themes From Interview

The next stage involved clustering the emerged themes from every interview in order

to create a list of emergent themes representing each interview. An exerpt from the emergent

themes is presented below. The themes were labeled with the number in order to reflect the

participants’ quotes. When this process was repeated with each transcript, the resulting set of

initial themes were examined to identify recurrent patterns across the transcripts, producing a

final set of super-ordinate themes.

A meaningful bond for the couple

An experience beyond words (144)

An experience beyond words (27)

No need for verbal language (146)

In tune with the dog’s body language (121)

Couple seeing beyond the behaviour of the dog (120)

Attributing behaviour of the dog to the context (121)

In tune with the dog’s patterns of behaviour (135)

  156  

Positioning of parents with their dog (7)

Comparison to parenthood (43)

Comparison to parenthood (43)

Comparison to a parent –child relationship (143)

Parental fullfilment obtained throught the dog (182)

Couple attributing an identity to their dog (4)

Unique bond created with dogs percieving it as not ready to have children (197)

Dog considered part of the system (142)

Relationship offering a secure base for dog and couple

Couple experiencing the dog as a constant presence (9)

Dog as a consistent presence (11)

Dog being a constant presence (23)

Dog seeking proximity (23)

A consistent presence (23)

Dog seeking proximity (23)

A consistent relationship with dog (41)

Bond is enhanced (89)

A secure and consistent relationship (154)

Dog seeking proximity (151)

Couple having an exclusive relationship with their dog (32)

Attunement to the couple (27)

A special bond (33, 34, 35)

  157  

Dog’s bond formed through a consistent and healthy exchange of interactions (116)

Couple experiencing a sense of loyalty by their dog (9)

Communication with dog (13)

Couple in tune with dog’s needs(15)

Couple adopting an empathic position (16)

Couple adopting an empathic position (17)

Dog’s responsiveness to the couple (17)

Couple’s communication with dog (17)

A continuous exchange of responses (21)

A continuous exchange of responses (22)

Comparing dog’s presence to a human presence (89)

Sense of responsibility towards something you love (89)

A mutual relationship (149)

A mutual relationship (150)

A mutual relationship (147)

A mutual relationship (166)

A mutual relationship (221)

A relationship build throughout constant interactions (226)

Couples’ fears revolving around their relationship with their pet

An experience evoking emotions (170)

An experience evoking emotions (192)

Fear of losing the dog (174)

Fear of losing the dog (176)

Fear to lose the special bond (36)

  158  

Fear that people will not understand the dog’s behaviour (122)

Couple feeling tense in other peoples’ presence (130)

Not inviting people out of fear (124)

Influence of dog on the couples’ life

Positive aspects

Dog providing an element of playfulness(17)

Dog being a vital presence (18)

Caring for the dog providing quality time for the couple (20)

Dog offering company (23)

Perceiving the dog as uniting the couple (43)

The dog helped the couple to settle in their new home (139)

Couple percieving dog as an entertainer (249)

Dog perceived as an amusing presence (243, 244, 245)

Evoking humour in the couple relationship (245, 246, 247)

Dog helping couple detach from work (248)

Experiencing a daily blast of excitement (40)

Couple looking forward to go back home

Experiencing a consistent greeting (27)

Expecting the dog’s greetings (31)

Overexcitement of dog when greeting couple (37, 38)

Looking forward to go back home (57)

Looking forward to go back home near the dog (59, 60, 61)

  159  

A constant welcoming presence at home (209)

A constant welcoming presence at home (211

Dog’s influence on couple dynamics

Dog promoting togetherness (208)

Dog behaviour influencing couple dynamics (50, 51)

Dog being an emotional regulator during arguments (50)

Dog sensitive to arguments (44)

Dog’s position of neutrality during couples’ arguments (46)

Dog’s uneasiness during arguments (47)

Dog maintaining a position of neutrality (51)

Couple in touch with Dog’s reaction to arguments (51)

Dog’s positition of neutrality (52)

Dog reacting to different couple dynamics (52)

Dog’s positive response towards the couple (57)

Dog’s positive interactions providing satisfaction (62)

Change in dog’s behaviour during arguments (82)

Couple agreeing not to have children (187)

Dog bringing change in life style

Adopting a different lifestyle (54)

Attributing the change of lifestyle to the dog (54)

Couple taking a position of responsibility and commitment (55)

Caring for something together (78)

Couple including their dog in their thinking and planning (55)

  160  

Feeling guilty when leaving dog alone (63)

Responsibility and commitment of the couple (64)

Couple feeling responsible (79)

Including the dog in their thinking (86)

Priority of dog’s well-being (43)

Caring for a living being (44)

Feeling of responsibility (86)

Couples’ care and commitment towards their dog (143)

Caring for the dog is not an option (20)

Dog’s needs taking priorty (66)

Genuine interest in dog’s well-being (160)

Couples’ loyalty towards their dog (61)

Couple dopting a position of responsibility(160)

  161  

Appendix 4: Consent Forms (In English and Maltese)

Consent form

I am a fourth year student following a Masters training in Systemic Psychotherapy at

the Institute of Family Therapy Malta. I am holding this research under the supervision of Dr.

Charlie Azzopardi. Pets can form part of a family system. There has been limited research in

relation to the bonds couples might build with their pet dog. The aim of this study is to

acquire deeper understanding of the couple’s experience of having a pet dog.

The study also aims to:

• Understand the role that pets have within the couple’s relationship.

• Understand the meaning attached to own a dog by the couple.

• Help professionals working with couples or dogs understand the different bonds that

couples might create with their pet.

• Create more awareness about the possible inclusion of pets as valuable resources in

Family Therapy assessments and interventions as it can inform and enrich therapeutic

work with couples and families.

For this reason, I am inviting you and other couples who own a pet dog, to support

this study by taking part in this research. Should you accept to participate in this study; a

face-to-face interview will be held that will last around 1 hour. Quotations from the

interview might be used in the final write up of the study. However anonymity will always

  162  

be maintained when writing quotes. I would like to assure you that no names or other

personal details that would make the person recognizable will be mentioned in this research.

All information given will be analyzed and presented in a collective way.

I would be very grateful should you consent to allow me to record the interviews, as

this would simplify my research. Such recordings shall be destroyed once the research is

complete.

Once you agree to participate in this study, you will not be compelled to answer any

of the research questions if you feel uncomfortable to do so. You will also have the right to

withdraw from the study at any point.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your co-operation. Please do not

hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. Should you have any

further queries you would like to clarify with my research supervisor, Dr. Charlie Azzopardi,

you can contact him on mob no - 79663265.

Kind regards,

Mandy Deguara

Family therapy student

Contact number - 99871732

  163  

This declaration confirms that you received enough information about this research and

that you are aware about the rights you have as a participant. It also confirms that you want

to participate in this research.

1. I was informed about the aims of the study

2. I was provided enough information in order to decide whether to participate in this

study.

3. I understand that I have the right to refuse to answer any question.

4. I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any point in time without

providing reasons.

5. I understand that all the information provided during this research will be

confidential, unless the information I will provide will place any risk of danger to

me other people or animals. This is done for my own benefit and that of others

6. I give permission to the researcher to record the interview. I understand that the

most important themes will be drawn up from the study. I understand that my

identity will remain anonymous throughout the research. The interviews and

recorded data will be destroyed after the research is completed.

7. I confirm that quotations from the interview can be used in the final write up of the

study. I also understand that anonymity will always be maintained when writing

these quotations. Pseudo names will replace the names of the participants

throughout the write up of the study to ensure confidentiality.

8. I agree to participate in this study.

I declare that I accept to take part of this study and also agree with the above-mentioned

statements.

  164  

Name ________________ Signature: ________________

________________ ________________

Tel number/ mobile number: ____________/ _____________

Name of researcher: ________________ Signature ______________

Date: ____________

  165  

Formola ta’ Kunsens

Jiena studenta tar-raba sena, ġewwa l-‘Institute of Family Therapy Malta’ u qeda

nagħmel kors ta’ Masters fit-Terapija għall-Familja fejn qed nagħmel din ir-riċerka taħt is-

superviżjoni ta’ Dr. Charlie Azzopardi. Ghalkemm il-pets jistgħu jiffurmaw parti mis-

sistema familjari, ir-ricċerka fuq ir-rabta li koppja tista tibni mal-pet tagħhom hija limitata. L-

għan ta’ dan l-istudju se jkun biex nifhmu iktar l-esperjenzi li koppji jkollhom mal-kelb

tagħhom.

Għanijiet oħra ta’ dan l-istudju:

• Biex nifhem x’inhu ir-rwol tal-pet ġewwa relazzjoni bejn koppja.

• Biex nifhem x’ifisser il-kelb għal-koppja.

• Biex il-professjonisti li jaħdmu ma’ koppji u klieb jifhmu aħjar ir-rabtiet differernti li

jistgħu jinbnew bejn koppji u l-klieb tagħhom.

• Biex tinħoloq kuxjenza fuq il-possibilita li il-pet jiġi inkluż bħala riżors għal

interventi fit-Terapija għall-Familja”, biex b’hekk narrikkixxu ix-xogħol terapewtiku

bejn koppji u familji.

Għal dawn ir-raġunijiet qed nistedinkom u lil-koppji oħra li għandhom kelb, biex

tgħinu f’dan l-istudju billi tieħdu sehem f’din ir-riċerka. Għal dawk li jixtiequ jieħdu sehem,

se jkun hemm intervista diretta ta’ madwar siegħa.. Kwotazzjonijiet mil-intervista jistgħu

imbad jiġu użati b’mod anonimu ġewwa il-pubblikazzjoni finali ta’ l-istudju. Nassigurakom

li l-ebda’ tip ta’ dettalji jew informazzjoni personali li tista twassal għal identifikazzjoni tal-

  166  

parteċipanti m’hi ser tigi ippublikata f’dan l-istudju. Kull tip ta’ informazzjoni miġbura se tiġi

analizzata u ippreżentata b’mod kollettiv.

Napprezza jekk niġi konsentita li nirreġistra l-intervista, il’għaliex b’hekk inkun nista

nissemplifika ix-xogħol. La darba ir-ricerka tkun kompluta dawn ir-reġistrazzjonijiet se jiġu

meqruda..

Avolja taċċettaw li tieħdu sehem f’da ̱̱n l-istudju, waqt l-intervista, jekk tħossukom

skomdi li twieġbu kwalinkwa mistoqsija tistgħu tirrifjutaw li tagħmlu dan. Kif ukoll intkom

għandkom id-dritt li twaqqfu il-parteċipazzjoni tagħkom fi kwalinkwa punt ta’ dan l-istudju

Nixtieq nirringrazzjakom tal-koperazzjoni tagħkom. Jekk jogħġobkom tiddejqux

tikkuntatjawni jekk ikollkom xi mistoqsijiet dwar dan l-imsemmi. Kif ukoll jekk ikolkom

bżonn tiċċaraw iktar dettalji tistgħu tikkuntatjaw lis-superviżur tar-riċerka, Dr. Charlie

Azzopardi, fuq in-numru cellulari 79663265.

Dejjem Tagħkom

Mandy Deguara

Studenta tal-“Family therapy”

Numru Ċellulari - 99871732

B’din id-dikjarazzjoni tikkonferma li inti rċevejt biżżejjed informazzjoni dwar din ir-

riċerka u

  167  

li inti taf dwar id-drittijiet tiegħek bħala parteċipant. Permezz ta’ din id-dikjarazzjoni, inti qed

tikkonferma li tixtieq tippateċipa f’dan l-istudju.

Jiena ġejt marraf/marfa dwar l-għanijiet ta’ dan l-istudju.

Jiena kelli biżżejjed informazzjoni sabiex niddeċiedi jekk ma nipparteċipax f’dan l-istudju.

Jiena nifhem li għandi dritt li nirrifjuta milli nwieġeb mistoqsijiet jekk ma nħossniex

komdu/komda li nwieġibhom.

Jiena nifhem li għandi d-dritt li nwaqqaf il-parteċipazzjoni tiegħi mill-istudju meta rrid u

mingħajr m’għandi għalfejn niprovdi raġuni għad-deċiżjoni tiegħi.

Jiena nifhem li l-informazzjoni li se niprovi, se tinżamm kunfidenzjali, sakemm din l-

informazzjoni ma tkunx qed tpoġġi lili innifsi, lil ħaddieħor jew annimali f’xi riskju ta’

periklu. Jiena nifhem li dan isir għal benefiċju tiegħi u ta’ ħaddieħor.

Jiena qed nagħti il-kunsens tiegħi biex l-intervista tiġi rrekordjata. Jiena nifhem li se jinħarġu

l-iktar temi importanti minn dan l-istudju. Jiena qed nifhem li l-identita` tiegħi ser tinżamm

kunfidenzjali matul l-istadji kollha ta’ din ir-riċerka. L-intervisti rrekordjati ser jinqerdu wara

li r-riċerka tkun kompluta.

Jiena nikkonferma li xi kwottazjonijiet li jintqalu fl-intervisti jistgħu jiġu użati firrapport

finali ta’ din ir-riċerka. Jiena nifhem li l-anonimita` ser tibqa’ tinżamm anki f’dawn il-

kwotazzjonijiet.

Jiena nikkonferma li nixtieq nipparteċipa f’dan l-istudju. qed nagħti kunsess li ssir ma’

ibni/binti.

  168  

Jiena hawnhekk niddikjara li aċċettajt li nieħu sehem f’din ir-riċerka u li naqbel mal-

punti msemmija

Isem ________________ Firma: ________________

________________ ________________

Tel / mob: ____________/ _____________

Isem ir-riċerkatriċi: ________________ Firma ______________

Data: ____________

  169  

Appendix 5: Interview Guide (In English and Maltese)

Interview Guide

Demographic Data

Age –

Work -

How long have you been together?

How long have you been living together?

How long have you had your dog?

Are there any other members residing in the household?

Interview guide

1. How would you describe the experience of having a pet dog?

-­‐ What does your pet dog mean to you?

-­‐ How do you describe your relationship with your dog?

2. Please could you tell me more about how you decided to bring a dog?

-­‐ How did you decide as a couple?

-­‐ How was your relationship similar or different after you brought your dog?

3. Could you describe a typical day with your pet dog?

4. How do your relate to your dog when you are on your own and when you are in each

other’s company?

  170  

-­‐ Can you tell me what place the dog has in your couple relationship?

5. How do you think your dog experience you as a couple?

Possible probes

Why?

How?

Can you tell me more about that?

What do you mean?

How did that make you feel?

How did you experience this?

  171  

Gwida Ta’ l-intervista

Data Demografika

Eta’ –

Xogħol –

Kemm ilkom flimkien?

Kemm ilkom tigħxu flimkien?

Kemm ilu għankom il-kelb?

Hemm membri oħra jigħxu fid-dar magħkom?

Intervista

1. Kif tiddiskrivu l-esperjenza li ikollok kelb bħala pet?

-­‐ X’ifisser għalikom il-kelb?

-­‐ Kif tiddiskrivu ir-relazzjoni tagħkom mal-kelb?

2. Tistgħu tispjegawli kif iddeċidejtu li ġġibu kelb?

-­‐ Kif iddeċidejtu bħala koppja?

-­‐ Kif inhi differenti jew simili ir-relazzjoni tagħkom wara li ġibtu l-kelb?

3. Tistgħu tiddiskrivu ġurnata tipika mal-kelb tagħkom?

4. Kif iġġibu ruħkom mal-kelb tagħkom meta tkunu flimkien, u meta tkunu waħedkom

miegħu?

- X’post għandu l-kelb fir-relazzjoni tagħkom bħala koppja?

  172  

5. Kif taħsbu li il-kelb jesperjenzakom bħala koppja?

‘Probes’

Għalxiex?

Kif?

Tista tispjegali aħjar?

Kif ħassejtek?

Kif għexta/għextuwa?

  173  

Appendix 6: Results – Maltese Excerpts

Presentation Of Results

A6.0 Introduction

Throughout this chapter, a detailed presentation of the results of the research

conducted will be provided. An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the transcribed

data yielded four superordinate themes:

- Different Constructed beliefs revolving around pet-dogs

- Significance of the pet-dog to the couple

- A special bond formed through a continuous exchange of interactions

- Pet-dog promoting change: A change in the couples’ lifestyle and dynamics.

Exploration of these master themes and their constituent superordinate themes will

form the basis of this chapter, with each theme illustrated by verbatim extracts from the

interviews (as presented in 4.1 below). The accounts highlight the couples’ experience in

relation to their pet-dog and the significance that the pet-dog has for them. As the themes are

discussed, the narratives of the participants’ reflection on the unique bond created with their

pet-dog will be delved into.

In presenting the verbatim extracts some minor changes have been made to improve

redability. Missing material is indicated by three dotted lines (…), and where material has

been added to add further clarification or to explain what participants are referring to, it is

presented within brackets. All identifying information has been removed or changed, and the

pseudo names of the participants and their dogs presented in the Method chapter have been

maintained to protect the anonymity of participants.

  174  

Superordinate Themes Sub-Themes

1. Different Constructed beliefs

revolving around pet-dogs

c) Couples’ experiences shaping

their constructed beliefs about

pet-dogs

a) Couples’ interpretation of social

beliefs around pet-dogs

2. Significance of the pet dog to the

couple

a) “He is like a child to us”

b) Dog providing a sense of

fulfillment and satisfaction

c) “An experience beyond words”

3. A special bond formed through a

continuous exchange of interactions

a) Couple and their pet-dog in a

continuous process of adaptation

a) Couple and dog experiencing a

secure and consistent relationship

4. Pet – dog promoting change

a) Dog evoking change in the

couples’ lifestyle

b) Dog’s influence on couples’

dynamics

Table A6.2 Superordinate and sub-themes

  175  

A6.1 Different Constructed Beliefs Revolving Around Pet-dogs

This superordinate theme highlights the diverse social constructs revolving around pet

dogs generated by the couples and the people surrounding them. The different experiences

that the couples have gone through and their narratives revolving around pets will be

elucidated in the sub-theme ‘couples’ beliefs and experiences revolving around pet-dogs’.

The second sub-theme captures the couples’ interpretation and reactions to people’s different

beliefs revolving around pet-dogs.

a) Couples’ beliefs and experiences shaping their constructs about pet-dogs

The couples’ past experience influenced their current constructed belief about

pet-dogs. May and Jack perceived their childhood experiences with their pet-dogs as

positive. This influenced their construct about the significant role that a pet-dog has

in their home. The following excerpt also reflects how this belief influenced Jack and

May’s decision to adopt a pet-dog.

Jack: Ehe…our first home that we moved into, someone got home sick.

May: It was only because of the dog. We spent two months without a dog.

May: I was brought up with dogs.

Jack: I also, we always had a dog, so it was just so strange moving into a

house without one!

  176  

May: I’m an only child... I always grew up with dogs, if you see my photos as

a new born baby, there’s a dog running after me or sitting down and playing

with my barbies everything. For me it was a sense of security. I never had, I

was very close to relatives, cousins etc, but for me I used kind of think of my

dog as a brother or sister. You would tell me ‘bis-serjeta?’

May’s experience signifies the meaningful presence that the family pet-dog

provided through her childhood years. May started her account by highlighting that

she is an only child and how she experienced her family dog as a constant companion.

May perceived her family dog as a sibling and a playmate that offered her a sense of

security. Due to their positive experiences and beliefs in relation to pet-dogs May

and Jack both agreed to bring a dog prior to moving in together. Such decision is also

reflected in the preparation process also when they were looking for property;

May: In fact when we were looking for property, we went to see a couple of

flats, the first thing we would ask them is ‘are animals allowed?’ If they say

‘no dogs allowed’ we would go away. Cause we knew we would get an

animal.

Leah also expressed that they both had past experience of pet dogs.

Leah: Kellna pero ija ehe jiena id-dar għand il-mummy dejjem bil-klieb u Ray

dejjem bil-klieb.

  177  

Ray and Leah’s experiences influenced their perceptions and constructs about

their pet-dog. Since Ray’s ‘family dog’, was an energetic, large breed dog, his family

could not keep him any longer. Ray and Leah also express how their beliefs in

relation to their pet-dog Toffee differed from that of other family members. They

express that such a journey enhanced their bond with their dog even further as they

united as a couple, and keep their pet-dog. Ray also expressed that through such an

experience his love for his dog grew stronger.

Ray: Eħe ommi ġabitha, ma ġabitx il-kelb bil-ħsieb li ħa noħodha jiena imma

kellu jibqa hemmhekk.

Leah: Imbagħad għaddejna minn perijodu fejn qisu kulħadd ried ineħħieh

barra aħna u naħseb dik, dak punt fejn iffurmajna bond veru kbira mal-kelb

għax tiġi kontra kulħadd biex lil dan il-kelb iżżommu…

Ray:, …jigifieri ġara li ġara iktar qisek issir thobbu bis-sahha…

Anna and Mark also expressed that they both had past experience of pet dogs.

However, their constructed beliefs influenced their different positions prior to

adopting their pet-dog as Anna was convinced that she wanted a pet-dog whilst Mark

was more cautious about it. Mark expressed that his cautiousness was stemmed from

the awareness he had about the responsibilities it entailed. Although Anna and Mark

were both exposed to past experiences with pet-dogs, they distinguish their past

experiences from their current experience with their pet-dog as they are now the main

carers;

  178  

Anna: Jiena ridt kelb bis-sahha, hu dam jahsiba…

Mark: Jien xtaqt ħafna kelb, xtaqtu daqs kemm xtaqtu int kelb, imma kont naf

bir-responsabbiltajiet li iġib miegħu hux. Illum ma jiddispjaċini xejn jiġifieri.

Interviewer: U t-tnejn kellkom klieb?

Anna: Jiena mhux dejjem, jiġi u jitlaq, dan kellu kelb.

Mark: Aħna kellna, mhux l-istess ħaġa bħal m’għandna issa imma kellna.

Anna: Speċi li irid jgħid mhux bħal ma ikun tiegħek, trabbih kif trid inti.

Whilst the above three couples were all exposed to pet-dogs before adopting

their dog, Amy and John had diverse experiences with pet-dogs, which influenced

their constructed beliefs prior adopting their pet-dog. Whereas Amy expressed that

she was raised with dogs, on the other hand John said that he was never exposed to

pet-dogs and he was raised in a family that ‘fear’ dogs. John expresses that he was

also very fearful of dogs and what the commitment of caring for a pet-dog entails.

The following excerpt reflects John’s adaptation process and the shift in John’s and

his mother’s position in relation to dogs;

John : Iva qatt ma kellna. U mhux talli ma kellnix talli ommi tibża biżgħa

minnom tal-idimunjati. Minn dawn ma tibżax għax rathom daqs naqra u

  179  

drathom. Imma fil-bidu, bdejt nibża, bdejt nibża mil-commitment għax jiena

ma kontx naf x’tinvolvi, ma kellhiex idea..Kont għidtilha isma’ jekk ħa

ġġibom, ġibom, pero’ jiena mhu ser ngħamel xejn. Kollox f’idejk, ikel f’idejk,

trid toħroġhom inti. Lanqas ċans jiġu imbagħad. X’ħin rajthom daqshekk hux,

qbadt nilgħab magħhom, intihom jieklu.

Sandra and Luke also had diverse experiences of pet-dogs; Sandra was raised

with dogs, while Luke never had a pet-dog. Luke loved dogs and his wish to

experience the bond with a pet-dog facilitated the process of the couple’s decision.

Sandra and Luke both had agreed to adopt a pet-dog prior to buying their house. In

fact they were searching for dog-friendly property;

Sandra: Minn mindu kont żgħira dejjem kellna l-klieb aħna d-dar. Ifhimni

jiena minn mindu kont żgħira…ħuti ikbar minni, imma ma tantx kelli ma’ min

nilgħab. Allura dejjem kien ikolli dan il-kelb ma saqajja taf int. L-aħħar

wieħed li kellna kelli 5 years sa 15, jiġifieri kiber miegħi, jiġifieri kelli

esperjenza sew mal-klieb. Ir-raġel tiegħi le. Minn dejjem xtaq kelb. Infatti

meta konna infittxu post, konna infttux b’bitħa kbira biex ngħidu hawnhekk

nistgħu inżommu il-kelb. Dejjem kien fil-ħsieb li inġibu kelb. Ifhimni jiena I

know the benefits li ikollok kelb.

Luke: Iva kif qaltlek. Jiena qatt ma kelli esperjenza ta’ kelb, imma

xtaqt…għalkemm qatt ma kelli, dejjem kont inħobbhom, u jogħġbuni.

  180  

In her account Sandra also relates to her childhood experience and the benefits

of having a pet-dog. She had someone to play and to relate to. Sandra’s experience

was so positive that she also wanted to expose her child to the human-animal bond.

Anna also expressed her belief that children who are raised with animals tend to be

more caring and empathic;

Sandra: Jiena kont ngħid nixtieq li t-tfal tiegħi ikollom l-istess esperjenza

tiegħi ma’ kelb…jiena naħseb li t-tfal li jitrabbew mal-annimali ikollhom iktar

empathy, ikunu iktar caring.

a) Couples’ Interpretation Of Social Beliefs Revolving Around Pet-dogs

A prominent theme in most of the couples’ accounts was how they interpret,

process and cope with different social constructs revolving around pet-dogs. All the

couples interviewed had large breed dogs. This factor was mentioned across all the

couples as most of the couples experienced diverse beliefs in relation to raising a

large breed dog in a Maltese context. For instance Sandra and Luke pinpoint how

they experienced restrictions in the Maltese context whereas they experience Gozo as

providing a more dog-friendly environment;

Luke: Hawn Malta ghadna lura.

Sandra: Aħna ninkeddu li eżempju bħala familja ma nistgħux noħorġu

eżempju jien naf jekk tmur bandli forget it. U noħorġu allright bħala familja

imma restricted…eżempju għamlu żmien Ta’ Qali ma tistax tmur bil-kelb

imma issa allright.

  181  

Moreover in the following excerpt Sandra highlights that in Gozo they tend to

experience a friendlier environment;  

Sandra: In Malta we are more close-minded… (in) Gozo, “do you want a

bowl with water for the dog?” before they ask whether you want a high chair.

(Laughing). And there are more places to take them for walks.

Jack’s and Amy’s following account echoes Sandra and Luke’s experience as

when they went to Sicily with their dog and Amy’s family dog they experienced a

more dog friendly context;

May: Abroad, in Sicily they accept dogs much more than here…Shops,

restaurant, you know? They go out of their way, because if you have a dog

they put you in a section alone and they actually welcome you and they see if

they want to eat as well. They prepare something special for the dog.

Jack: The education is very different.

May: Very different.

Jack: If you are walking around, let’s say just walking down the road, you’ve

got shops around there’s a lot of other people. Over here you see people

staring, taking a step back, keep them away, keep them on a chain.

  182  

The above conversation also reflects Couples’ interpretation of social believes

revolving around pet-dogs. They perceived other environments as more accepting to

dogs than Malta.. The following account by Anna and Mark also reflects their

reactions to different people’s beliefs in relation to their dog Laura when Anna was

pregnant;

Anna: Tiskanta in-nies mhux kulħadd jaħsibha l-istess, eżempju meta konna

noħorġu nimxu, jiena kont pregnant u kienu jarawni b’Laura, kienu jgħidulna,

keċċuha, biex inkeċċu l-kelba bil-pulit…

Mark: Kienu jistaqsuna, x’ser tagħmlu biha l-kelba? Jew, u l-kelba? Issa l-

kelba? Ħa iżżommuha l-kelba?...Iktar pruvaw jgħamlulna pressure, milli aħna

għamilna pressure lilna infusna…

Interviewer: Min kienu dawn in-nies?

Mark: Anke nies ma nafuhomx, jarawha pregnant hekk..

Anna: Anke kienu nies li nafuhom, nies bħal ħbieb tagħna li iħobbuhom imma

hemm limit speċi ta’. Konna nafu li ser tkun challenge, imma…

Mark: Jiena noħoda personali ħafna. Għax aħna peres li għalina it-tifla

tagħna qisek qed tgħidli “ħa tkeċċi it-tifla?” Il-familja qatt ma tkeċċiha jew

twarrabha hux!

  183  

Anna: in-nies jitfawlek ħafna pressure – “irid ikollok ħafna d-dar nadifa

minħabba l-baby”. Eżempju ħadd ma’ isemmi speċi ta’ kemm il-baby tagħna

qatt ma’ marad u waħda mir-raġunijiet apparti il-breastfeeding hija hi.

In the above narratives, Anna and Mark, felt a lot of tension and pressure

imposed by societal constructs and expectations revolving around dogs and children.

They experienced such a phase as a challenging one as they found it hard to

understand how people could encourage them to get rid of their beloved pet-dog.

They also had to deal with all the societal excpectations revolving around children

while upholding their beliefs. The pain and disappointment was still felt through their

narrative. They felt that people were creating a problem when they did not view it as

such;

Mark: Dawn il-ħafna ċuċati żgħar hux għax iktar kemm tagħmel pressure

fuqek innifsek, u tħalli in-nies jagħmlulek, iktar ħa tirdopja u titriplaha il-ħaġa

meta problema m’hemmx hux! Problema m’hemmx!

Anna: Problema m’hemmx hux imma tagħmila l-persuna

Although Leah and Ray did not express their experiences in relation to society

in general, after having gone through the experience of their dog’s not being accepted

by Ray’s family they tended to feel tense when they invited other people in their

house. As a result they said that they felt more comfortable to stay exclusively in

their dog’s presence;

  184  

Leah: Le aħna inkunu tense, aħna inkunu tense…

Ray: Imma inkunu tense għal fatt li fis-sens illi nafu li n-nies li stedinna ma

jafuhx il-kelb fhimt qisek trid toqgħod tgħidilhom u tigwidahom kif għandhom

ikellmuh, mhux kif ikellmuh fis-sens…nipreferu ma nistednux nies biex

noqgħodu komdi aħna u hu jiġifieri.

A6-2 Significance Of The Pet-dog To The Couple

This superordinate theme reflects the couples’ significance of their pet–dog. The

significance is reflected by the couples’ comparison to the experience of having a child and

through the fulfillment and satisfaction that the dog provides to the couple. Whilst the

couples were verbalising their experience and the meaning of the bond that they have with

their pet-dog a pertinent theme that was reflected at some point during all the interviews was

the challenge to verbalise the bond created, as it is “an experience beyond words”.

a) Couple Adopting Position Of Parents - “Like a child to us”

All the participants started the interview by comparing the experience of

having of having a pet-dog to the experience of having a child. All the couples were

going through different life stages as two of the couples were newly weds and just

moved house, one of the couples just moved into their house together and two other

couples were raising young children. However the comparison to having a child was

consistent in all the couples. The couples might have also used the word child to

emphasize their pet-dog’s importance to them and their relationship as a parent-child

  185  

bond as such a bond reflects one of the most meaningful bonds socially constructed

amongst society. The position of parents also reflects a sense of care and

responsibility. The following accounts reflect the couples’ positioning of parents.

Excerpt 1

May: She’s like a child, she’s like a child. If my mum goes out and has a

wedding, the other one usually comes to me. (giggling). If we both have an

event then, we go to a doggy sitter. We refer to her as our daughter. It’s

funny. Well she is like a kid in reality. We’re not going to leave a kid alone at

home, you know.

Excerpt 2

Luke: Għalija parti mill-familja, jiġifieri ma tantx hemm x’tara. Ifhimni

nitratta daqs li kieku qisa t-tifla tiegħi. Parti mill-familja għalija.

Excerpt 3

John: Ifhem aħna għalina qisom it-tfal tagħna jiġifieri, huma qishom it-tfal

tagħna (referring to their two dogs)

Leah added that she felt that their dog fulfilled her maternal instinct whilst

Ray expressed that he felt more comfortable to relate with dogs than with children.

Therefore through their accounts it was reflected their mutual decision not to have

children for the time being. While they seemed comfortable and open to discuss their

position, when Ray was saying that he felt more comfortable with dogs then with

children, Leah was agreeing with him while laughing. However at one point although

  186  

Leah was still laughing, she silenced Ray as she might have felt conscious about how

I, as an outsider, might perceive his statement;

Leah: Jiena naħseb in summary qisu t-tifel tagħna

Leah: jien u Ray naħseb bħalissa nipreferu li ikollna kelb jew klieb milli speċi

tfal. Għalhekk x’ħin staqsejtna għidnielek it-tifel tagħna.

Leah: Qisu minn meta ġie Toffee, jiena nammetti qatt ma kont waħda li inħoss

bżonn kbir li ikolli it-tfal imma naħseb il-ftit zgħir maternal instinct li għandi,

mal-kelb noħorġu

Ray: Anke l-fatt jekk eżempju tqedli mhux baby speċi ta’...

Leah: shhh

Ray: Anke jekk immur f’dar u ikun hemm tifla jew tifel u kelb, jiena inħossni

iktar naf inġib ruħi mal-kelb, milli eżempju ma’ nimmaġinax ikun hemm tifla u

noqgħod ngħidila speċi kif inti u hekk fhimt. Iktar inħossni komdu mal-kelb.

Mark and Anna’s account also reflected the couples’ significance of their pet-

dog to their family system by not only referring to their dog as a child, but also

referring to their dog as their son’s sister;

Interviewer: U kieku ikollkom tiddeskrivu xi tfisser għalikom Lora?

  187  

Anna: Qisha t-tifla tagħna..

Mark: Għalija t-tifla tagħna.

Anna: Infatti, it-tifel tagħna ngħidulhu oħtok il-kbira

The couples expressed that the position of parents are reflected also in their

different “parenting roles” adopted with their pet dog. This concept reoccurred

thematically throughout participants’ narratives and it reflects the different dynamics

that might be created amongst the couple and their pet-dog. For instance Anna

expressed the different positions that the couple adopted with their pet–dog and how

this reflected the behaviour of their dog when relating to them;

Anna: Mingħand wieħed tibża’ ħafna iktar u mingħandi mhux tgħamel bija li

trid ħa ngħid hekk, imma iktar “easy”

Similarly May also reflects the different roles adopted with their pet-dog;

May: think he’s more fun then me in reality... ‘Cause he plays a little rough,

he plays games with her which for me are too much. Like with the lead when

she keeps on pulling and jumping (giggling). But with me, she starts pulling

me and jumping on me.

  188  

Leah highlights the different roles that the couple adopts in different contexts

for instance when dealing with different circumstances related to their pet-dog;

Sandra (or Leah?): Ifhem hu iktar kalm, imma imbagħad fejn jidħol

sitwazzjoni ta’ saħħa jippanikja. Ċertu sitwazzjonijiet mediċi fejn għandu

x’jaqsam ma’ sptar u tobba jien iktar kalma fihom. Għandna roles differenti.

While John highlighted the different roles that they had as a couple, he also

reflected about how their current position might also influence their parenting styles

when they would have children;

John: Ifhem l-istil qisu diġa ħareġ. Ma nistax ngħid meta ikolli t-tfal kif ser

ikun, pero nimmaġina li tkun hekk is-sitwazzjoni ukoll, li jiena inkun iktar

il-fun parent u inti iktar iddixplinata.

The two couples that have children highlighted the importance to agree about

common rules as parents in order to provide consistency when teaching and training

their dog;

Anna: bħal meta ikollok it-tfal l-istess. Dejjem hekk niddeskrivijha għax

trid tara kif ħa trabbijom…Allura eżempju ngħidlu “tgħamilliex hekk,

tgħidiliex sit, għidila hekk”. Irridu naraw li naqblu. Allura irridu

nifthemu, ħalli naraw li t-tgħalim tagħha ikun qiegħed l-istess, u aħna

inkunu qed ngħidulha l-istess affarijiet biex ngħalmuha l-istess…

  189  

Sandra also highlights the importance of providing consistency and

setting common boundaries as a couple;

Sandra: ridna naqblu fuq set ta’ rules, għax forsi għal Luke ma kienx jien naf

forsi għalih ċertu affarijiet jgħaddu, u għalija le, jew bil-kontra

In the following account Sandra also expresses how the training provided to

their dog supported her when parenting their daughter;

Sandra: Għax ma min ngħidha, miegħek nista’ ngħidha, imma ma ngħidhiex

ma’ nies oħra għax jgħidu ee? Jiena (Laughing), it-training tat-tifla, kien

naqra qisu bħat-training tal-kelba. Għax you reinforce the positives biex

jagħmlu iktar minnu…Meta imbagħad kelli t-tifla u bdejna naqraw u taf int,

tibda tiġi it-tantrums u kif tiddealja magħhom, simili tal-klieb, għax jekk

tgħajjat magħhom m’inti ser tikseb xejn ħlief biża’ u rabja. Mhux dejjem faċli

e.

Whilst Sandra and her husband started the interview by saying that she

considers her dog as their child, an element of cautiousness, similar to the one

experienced with Leah and Ray, was felt when comparing the training provided to

their dog to the experience provided to their child. This is reflected by Sandra’s

statement “ I would not say this with other people”. Jack’s following statement

reflects the lack of understanding that his partner May and him might experience by

other people;

  190  

Jack: It’s hard for a lot of people to understand because they don’t see a pet

the same way we do.

Interviewer: What is hard to understand?

Jack: that we love our dog as much as they love their kids. If they understand

that, then that’s enough.

b) “An experience beyond words”

The struggle of several participants to find words to describe the significance

of their pet-dog and the bond created, at some point during the interview, might

reflect the experiential aspect that might not always be easy to verbally articulate;

Sandra: Jiena nibqa’ ngħid li hemm xi ħaġa indeskrivibbli, li ma tistgħax

tpoġġi fi kliem, is-sensazzjoni li ituk. Ituk ċertu imħabba, ċertu attenzjoni, ituk

ċertu serenita. Ma tkun qed tagħmel xejn speċjali, imma jiena ma nimmaġinax

ħajti mingħajrha.

Sandra’s narrative reflects that the sensation felt cannot be described in words.

Sandra’s significance of the bond is reflected in the paradox, which transpired in the

simplicity of the relationship “she would not be doing anything special” but also in

the intensity and significance of the relationship “I would not imagine my life without

her”. This element might not be always easy to explain and to express verbally.

Leah, John and May also found it a struggle to explain the significance of the bond

with their pet-dog, especially because it is “something that you have to experience”;

  191  

Excerpt 1

Leah: Ifhem, qed niprova nara kif ħa nispjegaha ta’ għax xi ħaġa li trid

tesperjenzaha mhux xi ħaġa…xi ħaġa li [tibniha] fuq tul ta’ żmien, mhux jien

naf tgħid jiġi għada tgħid ħa ġġib ruħek b’ċertu mod u automatically ikollok

il-bond.

Excerpt 2

John: Qas naf kif ser naqbad niddiskrivija.

Excerpt 3

May: I don’t really know how to express it.

The absence of verbal language is also reflected in the bond that is created

with the pet-dog as it was expressed by the couples’ numerous accounts that their pet-

dog offers a significant presence through non-verbal language. May, Anna and

Mark’s accounts reflect the support that a dog can provide through non-verbal

language and through the dog’s attunement to their needs, which Luke refers to as a

“silent company”.

Excerpt 1.

Luke: Huma kumpanija hux. Fl-aħħar mil-aħħar huma kumpanija kwieta

Excerpt 2

  192  

May:. If you’re in a good mood, if you are in a bad mood, she’s not going to

stay wagging her tail and jumping. She’s going to sit, lie down, lick me and

that’s it. And that’s a sense of security. You know, it’s just fun to have a dog.

You know friends sometimes they give you good advice they give you bad

advice, but dogs [give] you just relief, they don’t say anything and that’s

good.

Excerpt 3

Anna: anke bil-lejl hux kieku tkun waħdek…

Mark: Għandek support mingħajr kliem…

Anna: Eżatt…

Mark: Hi dejjem tissaportjak hux f’kollox. Anke dan l-aħħar meta kien qed

ikun muġgħuh (who was in pain?), kienet tigi hi (referering to their dog

Laura)…

Ray also expresses how the dog’s response when relating to him through play

is revealed through his non-verbal language. His experience similarly to the other

narratives highlight that their dog does not need verbal language to communicate with

him;

Ray: Jien li nista ngħid li meta jiġi biex nilgħab miegħu u hekk u nibda

nilgħab miegħu narah jieħu gost. Kważi kważi qas għandu għalfejn jitkellem.

  193  

c) Dog providing a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment

All participants experience a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction by caring,

teaching and relating with their pet-dog. Through the following accounts it was

revealed that although the pet-dog increases the level of work and commitment of the

couples, is it still considered as a satisfying experience;

Excerpt 1

Luke: Hija xi ħaġa li ttik sodisfazzjon lura… Il-kelb qed tgħallmu, qed

jitgħallem u qed tara daqxejn ta’ progress fih, u li għandek xi ħaġa to take

care of speċi

Excerpt 2

Mark: inħoss li il-kelba timlilna ħajjitna, ħafna xogħol x’tgħamel magħha

imma sodisfacenti ħafna…

Excerpt 3

Amy: Ifhem suf, naħsel il-lożor iktar ta’ spiss. Hemm naqra iktar xogħol.

Pero’ at the end ma jiddispjaċinix speċi li ngħamel dan l-affarijiet.

I: U għalxiex ma jiddispjacikx?

John: Għax ir-reward tagħha sabiħa wisq ux.

  194  

Sandra expressed that by caring for their pet-dog, she experienced a sense of

distraction from her daily routine whilst Ray and Leah highlighted the satisfaction felt

by the reaction of their dog when they return back home. It is like the couples’

feeling of acknowledgement made the experience of having a dog as a worthwhile

one;

Excerpt 1

Sandra: Anke li ikollok lil xi ħadd qed tieħu ħsiebu, itik xi ħaġa oħra fuq xhiex

taħseb mil-ħajja normali li ikollok

Excerpt 2

Leah: Jagħmlek ferħana…

Ray: Eħe dak it-tip fhimt…qisek itik is-sodisfazzjon, tgħid ara mela veru kien

qed jistennieni, fhimt qed jieħu gost bina li ġejna..

A sense of fulfillment was described through the narratives of the participants.

The couples highlighted that their pet-dog fulfills something that no other being can

fulfill. The couples interviewed also emphasized that they considered their couple

relationship as a strong one also before having a dog. They also added that however

their pet-dog offers something different while complimenting their couple

relationship. The couples were all very open and secure to talk about such aspect in

front of each other, as it was something that they both understood and shared through

their experience with their pet dog;

  195  

Ray: Qisu hemm xi ħaġa oħra li hu jgħatihielek fhimt

Although May and Jack also agreed that they have a good couple relationship,

Jack expresses how their dog fulfills a need that no other relationship can provide;

May: well as a couple obviously I mean, we have a good relationship, because

most of the time we are happy, happy together, we are obviously sort things

out together.

Jack: There’s a lot of things were you need your brother or your father, you

need your mother your girlfriend, but there are some times when you need

your dog.

Similarly Sandra explains how different relationships fulfill different needs.

Sandra beautifully describes how she believes that if people would have a comforting

dog like their dog they would not feel lonely or sad;

Sandra: F’dawk is-snin jimlewlek jimlewlek parti mil-ħajja li m’hemmx xi

ħaġa oħra li tista’ timlihielek. Ifhimni ikollok it-tfal u r-raġel sabih, imma kelb

Ray: Kif naqbad ngħidlek qisu itik xi ħaġa li jgħamlek kuntent hu inħossu li

jgħatihielna speċi fhimt.. tgħidli speċi Leah ma tagħmlekx kuntent?

Leah: Imma differenti, tip ta’ kuntentezza u ta’ imħabba differenti

  196  

huwa differenti…Jiena eżempju dejjem kont ngħidha li meta kont ma niflaħx,

il-fatt li kienet tiġi, ittini dak il-wens, nibda ngħid min hu waħdu f’din id-dinja

u ikollu kelb bħal ma hi Mina, ma ikunx daqshekk imdejjaq. Ma iħossx li

huwa waħdu f’din id-dinja.

The following accounts describe a different type of fulfillment; a presence that

completes their house. Jack expresses how he felt that their “house that became a

home” when they brought their dog;

Jack: Since we moved in, it completely changed the…the…let’s say we move

into a house that became a home when we got the dog.

May: She filled up the empty spaces.

John’s following passage, reflected his comparison before and after he brought

their pet-dogs. He explained that retrospectively he felt that their house was empty

before they brought their pet–dog whilst after that their house seemed more complete;

John: d-dar tħossha iktar mimlija bihom. Illum il-ġurnata, dak iż-żmien ma

kontx naraha vojta d-dar għax ma kontx naf x’jiġifieri, imma illum il-ġurnata

meta inqabbel dak iż-żmien ngħid id-dar kienet vojta mingħajrhom.

  197  

A6.3 An Irreplaceable Bond Formed Through A Continuous Exchange Of

Interactions

This superordinate theme exemplifies the couples’ process to build a special

bond with their pet-dog. Across all accounts, the bond created through a continuous

exchange of interactions was given importance by the couples. The first subtheme reflects

how the dog is perceived as a receptive and responsive being whilst the second subtheme

unpacks the secure and consistent relationship experienced by the couples as well as by

their dog

a) Couples And Their Pet-dog In A Continuous Process Of Adaptation

All the couples interviewed experienced their dog as a receptive and

responsive being. The build up of the couples’ relationship with their dogs was

created through a constant exchange of interactions over time. The process of

adaptation experienced by the couples and their dogs was discussed throughout the

interviews.

The initial phase of the couples’ and their dogs’ adaptation process seemed to

have been a demanding one for most of the couples. However the couples

interviewed still managed to surpass such a phase as they all invested in their dogs’

relationship and valued dog obedience training. In the following account, Sandra

explains her reaction during the initial period of adaptation;

  198  

Sandra: Sakemm x’ħin nidħol u l-ewwel ħaġa li inxomm kienet tkun il-pipi,

hemmekk kont ngħid ‘leee erġajna’. Jiena għedtlu ħudha lura! (Laughing).

Luke: Eżatt u jiena inħokk rasi…

Sandra: u inzertat fi żmien fejn ehh, naqra stress tax-xogħol…Naqra ta’

sagrifiċċju, sagrifiċċju mhux as such sagrifiċċju, imma taf int poġġejt moħħni

hemm u għidt le għidt irrid nidraha din il-bicca tax-xogħol. Imbagħad imma

ma damitx. Konna noħorġu barra u kont noqgħod nilgħab.

Whilst Sandra’s initial reaction was that to return her dog, through her

perseverance and determination she managed to train their dog and adapt to the

situation. Similarly, Leah’s following narrative reflected a process of adaptation by

the couple and the dog. Leah and Ray expressed that they sought professional help by

a behavioural therapist in order to help their dog adapt to his new environment.

Leah’s and Ray’s exerpt elucidated the circular process that is created in human-

animal relationships as the more the couple invested in their dog’, the more the dog

was responsive and consequently the more responsive their dog was, the more the

couple invested in the dog’s relationship.

Leah: Kien jagħmel ġewwa, kien disoriented. Issa aħna konna anke kellimna

behavioural therapist qabel ma immuvjajna biex naraw how best to move,

ease him into it…kien jagħmel toilet ġewwa, u illum il-ġurnata jiġifieri, dan

qed ngħidu in 4 months, mhux perijodu daqshekk twil, tarah imur quddiem il-

bieb tal-bitħa, bħalissa ix-xitwa, ikun magħluq, jinbaħ u immur

  199  

niftaħlu…logħob, eżempju, speċjalment ma’ Ray, x’ħin jiddeċiedi li irid

jilgħab, jibda jaqla’ t-toys kollha tiegħu, jiġi jogħllilek idejk, speċjalment

jekk tkun fuq il-kompjuter…

The process of adaptation was described by Amy’s and John’s conversation as

they highlight that the older their dogs grow the more responsive and receptive they

have become;

John: Għax dik hi s-sabiħ tagħhom x’ħin jikbru, huma jidraw lilek, imma inti

tidra lilom ukoll.

Amy: Żgħar ħelwin, sa ċertu punt ħelwin, pero ikunu għadom ma jifmhukx

daqsekk fhimt… imma imbagħad meta jikbru u jibdew jifmhuk differenti.

John: U jitgħalmu, mhux ser taqbad u tiġi titfalek pipi fuq il-kċina eżempju

din. Taf, tintefa quddiem il-bieb, u jekk tarah imbexxaq tifthu b'rasa u toħrog

u jekk le qisha tikbilek tnejn, speċi ejja iftah ħa ngħamel. Ċertu key words

jidrahom.

Although May and Jack also had to go through an adaptation process,

conversely to the other couples, they did not adopt a puppy but a three year old

trained dog. The couple intentionally adopted a three-year-old dog trained dog so that

their dog would be compatible with their lifestyle;

  200  

May: She’s..ehe…the Labrador is very well trained, probably more than kids.

Hux? (May and Jack both giggling). She doesn’t bite, even in our house, she

never ate anything, doesn’t…we adopted her when she was 3 years old.

Jack: But she had training.

May: She was very well trained. We did not as a puppy, because puppies are a

lot of work.

Jack: And because we are both working.

Although they still had to adapt to the initial challenges to living with a large

breed dog in their house, they described such a process as a flowing one as after her

first night their dog adapted easily;

May: I think the only night she didn’t sleep well was her first night when she

was at us. She was unsettled. [Otherwise], it’s like she never had another

home. And when she sees her [previous] owner she’ll be happy but she comes

back to me.

Anna and Mark do not only talk about the initial adaptation process of having

a dog, but also about the adaptation process of the dog with their newborn baby.

They expressed that the dog responded positively to such a change after having

prepared her in order to facilitate the adaptation process;

  201  

Anna: Meta tkun mat-tifel nieħu pjaċir ħafna. It-tifel nitfgħu fuqha, u hi

tilgħaqu. Hu ifittxa, joħroġ idu biex ifissida għalkemm għandu sitt xhur biss.

U hekk hux mat-tifel veru ibbondjat sabiħ. Konna hekk ma nafux kif ser itkun

ir-reazzjoni. Pjanajnha għalija ta’, għax konna inxommulha in-

nappies…Preparajna, u ħriġna il-puschair ukoll biex ma tibżax minnha ħalli

ma tinħasadx. U tipo lilu saret tħobbu mal-ewwel lit-tifel.

a) Couple And Dog Experiencing A Secure And Comforting Relationship

Through a process of constant interactions, all the interviewed couples

experienced a comforting and secure relationship with their dog. The participants

reflected about how their dogs’ behaviour and interaction provides comfort, security

and consistency to them.

Ray percieved their dog’s constant proximity seeking as a way to connect with

them and showing them that he wants to be in their presence;

Ray: Għax anke meta eżempju inkunu fuq is-salott … għax hu iħobb joqgħod

dawra u ikun qed imiss miegħek u eżempju nersaqlu naqra hawn jara kif

jgħamel, iqum jerġa jersaq u jerġa jigi imiss. Minn dak it-tip qed jgħidlek

isma irridu immis miegħek …ikun irid il-kuntatt. B’hekk inti tkun taf li ikun

iridek il-kelb, jurik, għalkemm ma jitkellimx ma jgħidlekx isma’ jiena irrid,

imma l-fatt li inti ersaqt, qam reġa resaq u reġa ġie imissek jurik illi iridek…

Amy and Jack explain that being in their dog’s presence during the night and

when they wake up provides a sense of comfort. The reconnection and rebond that

  202  

happens during their morning ritual, seems to be experienced as a very positive one.

Amy and Jack also distinguish the different type of comfort that the dogs provide

from the one experienced in the couple relationship;

Amy: X’ħin ġew kienu jorqdu fis-sodda tagħhom, imma imbagħad, imbagħad

bdew ilaħqu mas-sodda, inqumu u insibuhom ħdejna filgħodu. Imbagħad la

tħallihom darba darbtejn u issibom komdi ħdejk ma tkunx trid tneħħihom min

ħdejk.

Jack: Lanqas nimmaġinani issa.

Interviewer: Kif inhi l-esperjenza li ikunu magħkom bil-lejl?.

Jack: Sabiħa uu. Fis-sens tħossok hekk hemm wens istra speci.

Amy: Mhux għax b’xulxin ma ikollokx imma differenti.

Sandra refered to an experience she went through when she was facing health

challenges and highlighted how her dog’s constant presence and touch offered a sense

of company, calmness and understanding;

Sandra: Għamilt 6 weeks bejn hawnhekk u l-isptar u dejjem ngħid imnalla

kienet il-kelba għax kieku kont niġġennen. Għax jiena minn dejjem kont

naħdem u allura meta tispiċċa, kont ngħaddi ħafna mill-ġranet bilqgħeda, ma

nistax niċċaqlaq l’hemm u l’hawn, allinqas kien ikolli il-kumpanija tagħha …

imma jiena dejjem ngħid li il-klieb ituk dik is-sens ta’ kalma u ikunu qed

  203  

jifmhuk. Anke il-fatt li ipoġġu rashom fuqek, qed tgħidlek qegħda hawnhekk

ta’, nifmhek jiena…

Anna also explained how she experiences their dog as attuned to their mood

and needs. Moreover, a sense of comfort and relaxation is experienced when petting

the dog and through their dog’s constant greetings when her husband returns back

home from work.

Anna: Meta tmellisa. Jekk inkella tmur tifraħ biha u tifraħ bik bħal per

ezempju tasal mix-xogħol u tifraħ bik. Hekk tiġi taqbeż miegħek... U ttik

comfort. Anke meta tkun għajjiena, anke l-pass tagħha jien narah jgħamel

differenza... Le le ħafna comforting. Tirrilassa biha.

The sense of comfort experienced by the couples was felt throughout the

interviews by the constant presence their dog provided and also by the excitement

their dog exhibited when re-bonding with them;

May: She’s company hux, għax she’s company ‘cause when you are at home

she’s next to you, she comes next to you, she begs for food, she snores

(giggling).

Jack: It’s the sort of thing that, since we were always used to have our family

with dogs around…when you walk inside you are always expecting something,

so when you walk into a home and nothing happens, it’s quite em…bland,

there’s nothing exciting about it. But as soon as we open the door, you see this

  204  

thing going crazy, with the tail wagging everywhere. That’s what changed the

experience really, the dog.

John also expresses the blast of excitement that their dog transmits when they

return home “like they’ve seen something wonderful”;

John: Anke x’ħin tiġi, jiġġennu, qishom raw id-dinja, kuljum, kuljum

m’għandhomx burdati huma. Qishom raw id-dinja x’ħin jarawk. U jferfru u

ibusu u jieħdu gost... Gieli anke eżempju toħroġ għaxar minuti, x’ħin tiġi,

jerġgħu…Il-marelli!

The couples interviewed were all fascinated and comforted by their dog’s

consistent greeting under any circumstances every time they left the house and

returned home. The fact that no ‘double binds’ are experienced in the human-animal

relationships offered a sense of consistency to Ray; which he distinguished from

human relationships. Ray described their dog’s behaviour as genuine;

Ray: Tinduna, jibki, jaqagħlu l-pipi bil-ferħ, u ferħ veru ġenwin mhux bħal,

dik hi mhux bħal bniedem li kapaċi jidħaqlek u imbagħad ma jgħatix kasek.

Leah and Ray also emphasized the easily repaired relationship with their dog,

which again taps on the dog’s consistency and authenticity, creates a secure

relationship;

  205  

Leah: Veru dik hi l-ġenwinita’ … jgħati ħafna iktar milli jieħu u għalekk

għidtlek ġenwin speċi mhux, anke jekk ninsa’ intih jiekol figħlodu li ma tiġrix,

xorta x’ħin niġi ħa jifraħ bija u mhux ħa jgħidli għax din insiet ittini niekol,

jew ma ħarġitniex illum jew whatever.

Ray: Anke tinduna għax anke tiġġieled miegħu, jew ġieli iqabbiżhomlok u

tgħidlu itlaq l’hemm eżempju u terġa tifrah bih, qisu qatt ma kien xejn

jerġa…(Both laughing).

All the couples expressed that their dog’s devoted attachment towards them is

demonstrated by his/her sense of loyalty. The dogs seemed to provide a sense of

exclusivity to the couple. The couples considered such an experience as an enjoyable

and a rewarding one, which they do not always experience by other beings;

Excerpt 1

Amy: Jiena bihom kuntenta, u kelb huwa leali ħafna, u dik toġgħobni, għax

ħafna mil-bnedmin ma ssibhiex. Imma ssibha f’kull kelb. Għax kull kelb loyal

ħafna lejn sidu. Allura dik veru toġgħobni. Ma ibidluk ma ħadd, ma ħadd ma

ibiddluk.

Excerpt 2

Anna: Qisha tagħmel kollox għalina. U ħa ngħidu hekk biex tagħlmet ċċedi l-

istint tagħha ta’ kelb biex tobdi lil Mark speċjalment hija naħseb xi ħaġa li

vera l-kelb jurik li iħobbok hux.

  206  

Excerpt 3

Luke: Huwa annimal li jibqa’ fidil lejk hux.

Amy’s following quote reflects the sense of safety and security provided by

her two dogs. Although there is no verbal communication she feels understood and

supported when she is alone in her house;

Amy: Għax għalkemm ma ikellmuniex lura, inħoss li qed jifmhuni, u at least

ma inħossnix qisni, ma nkunx waħdi. Inħoss li m’inhix waħdi anke inħossni

iktar safe. Anke qabel x’ħin nidħol, la kont nixgħel id-dawl ta’ barra la kont

niftaħ il-bieb tal-bitħa, kont qisni nibża’. Kont ġdida il-post u tkun waħdek

differenti. Bihom speċi qas nagħti kas, nixgħel id-dawl u niftħilhom il-bieb

tal-bitħa. Jidħlu u inħalli il-bieb miftuħ, qisu xejn mhu xejn. Speċi inħossni

iktar safe. Highlighted part can be removed jekk ghandek bzonn tqassar.

The above accounts provided a reflection about the intensity of the secure and

comforting relationship created between the couples and their dogs. Some couples

experienced the bond so strongly that it evoked fear about future loss. Leah and Ray in the

following excerpt reflect their anticipation about their future loss. They express that they

would like to bring a dog in the near future, so there would be a process of continuation

rather than replacement of their current dog.

Ray: U waħda mil-biża’ tagħna din illi. Ovvjament qisek għandek persuna,

ħadd ma ikun irid li speċi xi persuna…

  207  

Leah: Le hekk hu jien speċi għaddejt minnha sentejn ilu…

Leah: … I do not want to replace him. Ovvja naf li speċi mhux etern imma

ħadd m’hu etern, imma ma rridx li inġibu kelb ieħor wara għax inħoss li ħa

ikun hemm replacement qed tifhem. U naħseb li jekk tiprova tirriplejsja ma

terġax tikreja dak il-bond allura once li jissetilja inġibu kelb ieħor biex

imbagħad ikun hemm continuation.

Luke and Sandra in the following exerpt referred to the challenge they would

experience when dealing with their future loss. In particular, Sandra referred to her

beloved past family dog and the process she had gone through when he passed away.

An aspect that was observed in the couples’ accounts was the assumption that their

dog will die before them. Such an aspect could be related to the fact that, like every

other dog their dog has a relatively short life span. Although the couple raised the

subject related to their dog’s future loss, they projected their experience as too painful

for the couple to think about their dog’s loss and to put it into words. This was also

reflected in how Sandra could not complete the sentence and verbalise her thinking;

Sandra: Ngħid id-dritt eh tiġi nieqsa, jgħaddi ż-żmien biex nerġa naħseb li

ikollna kelb. One, għandek commitment kollu, u 2 jiena…(Showing that she

would find it very difficult through her non verbals)

Luke: Anke jiena…

  208  

Sandra: Naħseb dik kienet waħda mil x’jgħidulu għax peress li diġa għaddejt

minnha, dik il-ħaġa li torbot qalbek ma’ xi ħaġa u għandek ‘the expiry date’.

Luke: Li hija qasira sfortunatament.

A6.4. Pet–dog Promoting Change

All the couples interviewed, perceived their dog as an agent of change. A common

experience for all the participants was related to their change in lifestyle since they adopted

their dog. The couples’ pet-dogs were also considered as active participants in the couples’

dynamics because their dog influenced the couples’ relationship in different ways. The

diverse and similar experiences will be delved into in the following sub-themes ‘dog evoking

change in the couples’ lifestyle’ and ‘Dog’s influence on couples’ dynamics’.

a) Dog evoking change in the couples’ lifestyle

All couples’ interviewed expressed that caring for a pet-dog evoked a sense

of responsibility and commitment, which is reflected in their lifestyle. The dog’s

significance for the couple is also signified in the couples’ constant care towards the

well being of their pet-dog. Leah and Ray expressed how their dog’s dependency

introduced a change in their lifestyle;

Leah: Inbidlet fis-sens li qisu issa għandna xi ħaġa li rridu nieħdu ħsieb

flimkien li speċi hekk għandek dik ir-risponsabilta’.

Ray: Eħe veru risponsabilta’ iva

  209  

Ray: Qisek xi ħaġa illi trabbiħ inti, tieħu ħsiebu inti fhimt. Taf illi ċertu

affarijiet jiddependi fuqek fhimt qisu jiġifieri tista’ tħallih mingħajr ikel, tista’

tħallih mingħajr xorb, tista’ ma toħorġux.

The sense of responsibility was also revealed in how the couples’ constantly

include their dogs in their thinking. The couples’ empathic position towards their

dog’s sense of boredom if not stimulated seemed to influence their choice of outings

as a couple. All the couples tried not to leave their dog at home alone for a long span

of time, while they also tried to include their dog as much as possible in their outings.

Amy and Jack dedicate Sundays to their dogs in order to compensate for when their

dogs are left alone during the week.

Amy: Ilhom ġimgħa ġewwa speċi waħedhom, speċi ħa inħalluhom il-Ħadd

ukoll. Allura dejjem niddedikaw il-Ħadd ġurnata sħiħa noħorġuhom ta’ spiss

biex speċi nitrenjahom.

Similarly, Luke and Sandra expressed that as a couple they did not leave their

house for longer than eight to ten hours since they adopted their dog. Consequently

this influenced their routine as a couple as they made it a point that after work Sandra

would go home to play with their dog.

Luke: anke jekk toħroġ u tkun ħa tagħmel 8 siegħat, 10 siegħat barra tgħid f’xi

ħin trid tmur lura.

  210  

Sandra: Jiena eżempju wara x-xogħol, qabel kont imdorrija eżempju nagħmel

is-shopping, l-ewwel ħaġa li kelli nibdel hi li niġi d-dar. Kont ngħaddi naqra

ħin magħha, imbagħad noħroġ. Jigifieri ir-rutina tagħna inbidlet hux

ovvjament.

Leah and Ray also attributed their change in lifestyle to their dog. They

constantly included their dog in their thinking when they went out as a couple as they

would not want to leave their dog waiting for them for too long;

Leah: differenti! Anke l-ħruġ li noħorġu differenti, l-ammont ta’ ħin li inkunu

irridu inqattgħu id-dar differenti, speċi hekk u kultant nibda ngħid għax

kbirna aħna jew?...imma veru għax ġie hu. U naħseb nasal nemmen li minn

meta ġie hu..

Ray: le anke meta noħorġu u hekk, mhux tkun moħħok fih ta’ imma eżempju

qisek imma taf speċi li hemm xi ħadd jistennik id-dar, qed tifhem, jiġifieri ħriġt

tgħid eżempju ħadt gost issa u daqshekk, qisu ma tkunx trid tibqa’ iktar tgħid

issa ħa mmur lura d-dar għax issa hemm il-kelb speċi…

In the following account John is also reflecting about his shift in lifestyle from

spending his Sundays recovering from hangovers to spending an “ideal” Sunday with

their dogs. In John’s following account it is observed that John’s and Amy’s dogs

seem to be compatible with their current life stage, as through their dogs they are

  211  

discovering different ways how to enjoy themselves as a couple whilst going to

different places.

John: Ovvjament kompletament differenti, għax qabel il-Ħadd kien ikun il-

hang over day u mhux immorru l-baħar il-Ħadd filgħodu. Qisu tinbidel ħarira.

Tinbidel ħarira, mhux għax just huma, imma anke ħajtek qed tikber u

tinbidel…ngħidlek il-verita’ il-birthday tiegħi xi ġimgħatejn oħra u qaltli xi

trid tgħamel fil-birthday? Għidtila jekk tkun ġurnata sabiħa, immorru

ġurnata l-baħar bihom, insajru hemm u ngħamlu ġurnata hekk. Għax dik

saret il-ġurnata ideali tiegħi…Il-mod kif nista’ ingawdi l-ġurnata l-iktar huwa

hekk.

Jack and May express that they try to include their dogs in their outings and

they also highlight the difference their dog has evoked in their lifestyle;

Jack: Most of the time we’re together, she’s going to be in between us or on

top of one of us, patting her head wanting attention. So it’s very different.

May: Most of the time we’re not with her, it’s either maybe once in a while we

go out to have a dinner together, but we don’t go much. Or when we’re

together without her, we’re with friends usually, so…cause even if we go out

to dinner we try to find a place where we can take her.

Another change in lifestyle that all the participants expressed is the inclusion

or increase of exercise in their daily routine. All the participants’ experienced the

  212  

responsibility to exercise their dog through walking as an enjoyable commitment.

The following accounts reflect such experiences;

Excerpt 1

Amy: anke fiżikament inħossni ħafna aħjar, qabel ma kont nagħmel training

ta’ xejn. Għax speċi kont ngħid, jiena ħa nogħqod immur nimxi waħdi.

Bihom, żgur trid toħroġ, trid u ma tridx anke jekk m’għandiex aptit, ħa noħroġ

għax naf li rrid nitrenja lilhom.. Jiġifieri dik għenitni min-naħa tiegħi. You can

remove the highlighted parts

Excerpt 2

Luke: Ifhimni ittik opportunita’ ta’ exersice għax toħroġ timxi.

Excerpt 3

Anna: per eżempju jekk tkun stressjat per eżempju u tmur timxi magħha

tirrilexjak…

Excerpt 4

Jack: Em…it’s this thing, ok she wakes up in the morning to take her out and

then I come home in my break or she would have a break to take the dog out.

At the end of the day when I do that, my day it’s just restarted again. When

you are just walking the dog, you’re just watching what they’re doing,

relaxed, you go to another zone and then you go back to work all refreshed.

  213  

A common element that was also observed in the majority of the couples is

their closeness to nature since they brought their dogs. This was experienced as a

positive change by the couples;

Excerpt 1

Sandra: … jekk morna picnic, jekk morna mixja, kif qed ngħidu morna

ngħumu, għandek iktar kuntatt man-natura, postijiet fejn nieħdu gost…

Excerpt 2

Amy: Ifhem imma pjuttost morna għal l-aħjar għal raġuni li ġieli kien jiġi l-

Ħadd u kemm ħa ddum tmur tiekol inti hu jew tmur l’hemm u l’hawn speċi.

John: Le dik żgur…

Amy: Bihom tmur fir-raba’ u immoru Ħad-Dingli… speċi ngħamlu ġurnata

barra..

Excerpt 3

Anna: fl-istess ħin iġġgħalna immorru iktar fin-natura. Li aħna it-tnejn nieħdu

pjacir…

Excerpt 4

May: Sometimes we go to Buskett, sometimes we go to Golden Bay, we leave

them running. Sundays the same…last Sunday I took them swimming…

  214  

b) Dog’s influence on couples’ dynamics

The couples interviewed considered their pet-dog as an active family member.

This final sub-theme elucidated the role that the pet has in the couple dynamics. The

following excerpts reflect how two of the couples experienced their dogs’ presence as

influencing their dynamics during arguments.

Ray: meta ikollna xi ngħidu jew hekk jinduna fhimt, il-karattru tiegħu qisu

jinbidel

Leah: jintefa fin-nofs per eżempju, la imur ma’ Ray u lanqas jiġi miegħi..

Ray: tinduna li qisu ma ikunx happy..

Ray: Tnaqqas, tnaqqas jiġifieri… jekk eżempju waqt li tkun qed tillatika, tgħid

għandi xi ġurnata eżempju sejjer hekk imma kif tara lilu hekk qisu tibdillek il-

burdata eżempju..

Ray and Leah’s pet-dog seemed to be an emotional regulator to Ray and Leah

when they argue as they change their mood to a better one when they see their dog.

Their pet-dog also adopted a neutral position with Ray and Leah, which they both

seem to appreciate. Similarly, May expressed how the couples’ arguments were

lessened when their dog was present as they “let lose a bit”;

  215  

May: If me and him have a fight about something, we are going to keep on

thinking about it and not deal with it. But with the dog, we let lose a bit and

then when it’s the time we just speak about it.

May shared a sense of lightness that their dog introduced in the couple

dynamics. All the couples mentioned an element of playfulness and humour that was

induced in their couple relationship by their dog’s presence. Their dog seemed to be a

constant entertainer for the couples;

Jack: She makes you laugh. She puts her legs out and she goes flat on the

ground. And I’m like ‘what are you doing?’ (giggling). She’s just entertaining,

she is such a loving dog as well. But I’m…we…when we’re in bed, she sleeps

on the bed with us as well…They bring you happiness as well.

May: it’s fun to have her around between us, because we start laughing at her,

and laughing at each other…

Similarly in the following quote Anna expressed how their dogs’ character,

their playfulness and their spontaneity was perceived as entertaining;

Amy: Għandhom karattru idaħħkuk anke mil-espressjoni ta’ wiċċhom u kif

jilgħabu miegħek…naħseb ir-razza ta’ klieb hija tajba għalina, għax aħna it-

tnejn li aħna qisna naqra enerġetiċi allura…u jgħamlu affarijiet li huma

spontanji, ma tistax ma timmisjahomx għax hekk li joħorġu rashom mit-tieqa

  216  

imbagħad tara xuftejja iperpru hekk u qisek tarahom qisom ikollom daħqa fuq

wiċċhom kultant meta joħorġu.

Amy’s account highlighted how their dogs’ energetic presence was

compatable with their characteristics as individuals as well as a couple. Amy seemed

to be fascinated by their dogs’ spontaneous behaviour and expressed that it is almost

impossible not to miss their dogs when they are not in their company. John’s

following quote also reflected how their couple dynamics changed when they are not

in their dog’s presence and described their outing with their dogs as a “fun outing”.

The couples expressed that when they went out without their dogs the outing is

“different” as they would go to restaurants. Such places might be viewed as more

formal, whilst the outings with their dogs seemed to evoke the spontaneity and

playfulness of the couple;

Amy: Naħseb meta inkunu aħna l-erbgħa f’daqqa tkun iktar a fun outing.

Mhux għax ma nieħux pjaċir meta inkun miegħu biss imma meta inkunu jiena

u hu biss naf li ħa mmorru nieklu, allura hija xi ħaġa differenti fhimt.

Jiġifieri naħseb tkun differenti meta inkunu mingħajrhom.

May also observed that when they are not in their dog’s presence the couple

dynamics are different as they tended to talk “more seriously”;

May: We talk more seriously when we are without her I think. Or serious

issues.

  217  

Another factor that was observed in all the couples interviewed was how their

dogs promote a sense of togetherness amongst the couples and how they brought them

closer to each other. The couples expressed that by caring for the dog they spent

more quality time together as a couple;

Excerpt 1

Leah: Eħe noħorġuh filgħodu, noħorġuh mixja, as much as possible noħorġuh

flimkien, hemm l-ewwel ħaġa anke isservi lilna ikollna naqra ħin titkellem

anke barra mid-dar barra minn kollox… U anke, xi ħaġa li ittina u kif taqbad

tgħid li tista’ timmaterjalizzaha, hu itina ħin flimkien.

Excerpt 2

John: Pero’ meta ma ikolliex football jew hekk noħorguhom flimkien.

Filgħodu noħroġhom jien, u filgħaxija jew hi jew flimkien. Imma imbagħad fil-

weekend ovvjament flimkien ux

Excerpt 3

Anna: Hi trid toħroġ, u fl-istess ħin iġgħalna noħorġu flimkien bħala koppja,

qed tifhem. Aħna nipruvaw fejn nistgħu, il-kelba dejjem inġorruwa kullimkien.

Meta noħorġu flimkien, naraha li qed tgħinek toħrog flimkien u titkellem int u

hu, fl-istess ħin titkellem mal-kelba, titkellem fuq il-ġurnata tax-xogħol,

nibdew nitkellmu fuq kollox, nirilexjaw.

Excerpt 4

  218  

Jack: Em…I mean, it…she sort of brings us together in a different way. So, we

end up bonding in a different way because we’ll be playing with the dog, she’s

wanting attention, and both of us give her attention.

The couples expressed that by being together with their dogs they managed to

control the amount of time they spent on their personal computer, laptops and mobile

phones. Their dogs’ presence seemed to distract them from the technological world

that is so present in the lifes of people within the Maltese context;

Ray: Anke li tintefa tara t-televixin u jiena inkun għadni fuq il-kompjuter u

tibda tgħajjatli, jiġi hu ħdejja tipo jurik li iridek tmur, imbagħad nitfi l-

kompjuter u dak u allright.

Furthermore, Amy and John in the following conversation were reflecting on

how the time spent with their dog distracted them from technological devices. They

seemed to manage to enjoy and stay in the moment rather than being focused on other

things that would be happening around them through e-mails, social media or phone

calls;

Amy: U ohra meta toħroġ bihom qegħda barra u għandek inqas

distractions…

John: Differenti hux…

Anna: Eħe, m’hemmx televixin eżempju…

  219  

John: M’hemmx mobile eżempju, m’hemmx e-mails…

Anna: Għax il-mobile titfgħu fil-but, m’hemmx e-mails, computer x’itellfek.

Allura awtomatikament, għandek ħin li qisek titkellem. Issa ħalli forsi xi

kulant noqgħodu sejrin ara kemm hi ħelwa x’inhi tagħmel, imma differenti.

In the following account Sandra reflected on a similar experience;

Sandra: imbagħad il-ħin magħha ittina opportunita’ li ikollna ħinijiet barra

mid-dar, no technology…Ittik l-oppurtunita’ li tinsa l-affarijiet l-oħra u

noqogħdu flimkien. Qed nagħmlu xi ħaġa flimkien.

Amy’s following experience revealed that their dogs do not only help them to

promote togetherness but also to balance the element of togetherness and separateness

in their relationship. In turn she experienced such balance as enhancing the couple

relationship;

Amy: Qabel kont nagħmel xi ħin waħdi kont ngħidlu istra issa ieqaf mit-

training ta’ għax qed niddejjaq dejjem waħdi, imma … li qed noħroġ nagħmel

xi ħaġa, qed nirrileasja l-istress, speċi qed niġi hawnhekk, imbagħad x’ħin jiġi

inkunu allright għalija fhimt. Anke aħna flimkien aħjar.

  220  

Amy recounts that although she spent a considerable amount of time on her

own when John attended personal training, unlike before she was managing to fill up

such time in a way that was meaningful to her; with her dogs. Amy highlighted that

such aspect also influenced their relationship positively as she was managing the

separateness with John in a better way. Anna’s following narrative reflected how

their dog helped her to feel independent again after the experience of motherhood.

Anna said that she also managed to relax when she goes out on her own with her dog;

Anna: Ovvjament baby ineħħilek l-indipendenza, speċjalment fil-bidu il-ħin

kollu imqabbad miegħek – għal mara specjalment. Ġieli qalli mur inti, Meta

jarani stressjata jgħidli mur inti, u ser nirrilexja għax qisu ikun il-ħin tiegħi u

m’ Laura, u hi tgħidx kemm tkun happy għax inkunu ilna ma ngħamluha, u

jiena inħossni qisni indipendenti hekk (giggling), qishom tawni l-isbaħ ħaġa

tad-dinja.

A6.5 Conclusion

This chapter elicited the findings of the study through IPA methodlogy. Four

superordinate themes emerged from the participants’ accounts which revealed the

different social construct revolving around pet-dogs, the signigicance of the pet dog to

the couple, the process of forming a special bond through a continuous exchange of

interactions and the change promoted in the couples’ life by the presence of their pet-

dog. The findings presented in this study will be discussed in the following chapter.

  221