Impact of Interactions with a Puppy and Handler Versus a Handler Alone on Stress and Vitality in a University Setting: A Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief interactions with a well-behaved dog can enhance wellbeing, but most campus-based dog visitation programs employ adult, trained dogs. There is little research about the impact of puppies on wellbeing or stress in this context. The aim of this study was to examine changes in perceived stress and vitality after interacting with a puppy. Staff and students (N = 32) at an Australian university attended the campus on two occasions, one week apart, as part of a crossover design. Participants were pseudo-randomly allocated to a group whereby they spent 20 min interacting with a handler alone at Visit 1 and interacted with a puppy and handler at Visit 2, or another group which reversed the interaction order. Perceived stress and subjective vitality were measured before and after each interaction. The increase in vitality was greater in the group experiencing the puppy and handler interaction first (significant main effect, F(1,49) = 646.89, p = 0.024, η2p = 1.00), regardless of the visit, possibly due to a social lubricating effect by the puppy, which carried over to the ‘handler alone’ second visit. Reductions in perceived stress were greater after the interaction with the puppy, for both groups (significant interaction effect, F(1,49) = 5.13, p = 0.029, η2p = 0.11), indicating that the puppy’s presence can reduce stress more than the handler alone. This extends the evidence for university-based dog-facilitated wellbeing programs, by showing that interactions with puppies can also be effective. This is important as it may mean that puppies already on campus as part of a socialization/training program can be incorporated into wellbeing programs for staff and students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".