PAW-sitive for Whom? Examining the Treatment Acceptability of Prison-Animal Programs

ABSTRACT

Although prison-based animal programs (PAPs) are not routinely available in rehabilitation plans at correctional facilities, they may represent a viable treatment option given the growing evidence showing that interacting with animals develops vocational skills, decreases behavioral infractions, and fosters social skills and psychological wellbeing for prisoners. However, little is known about the general public’s attitudes towards PAPs, especially in relation to other treatment options. Understanding attitudes towards PAPs is relevant because these programs often depend on donations, coordination with non-profit agencies, and adoption fees from animal shelters to operate. This study examines whether individuals consider PAPs an acceptable treatment option for prisoners, and whether those decisions are influenced by prisoner characteristics. Using survey methodology with convenience sampling, 250 participants read vignettes that manipulated the characteristics of the prisoner by gender (male or female), ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, Indigenous/Native American), and crime (misdemeanor, murder, or sexual assault), and then evaluated the treatment acceptability of four treatment options (dog visitation, dog training and vocational programs, psychological counseling, or no treatment). While participants rated counseling most acceptable and no treatment least acceptable, opinions about PAPs varied. We found a gender × crime interaction, whereby participants rated PAPs more acceptable for prisoners who committed minor crimes, especially if they were female. We also found an ethnicity × crime interaction, whereby participants rated PAPs more acceptable for prisoners who committed minor crimes, especially if Indigenous or Caucasian. Our results highlight the presence of implicit bias in participant’s ratings of treatment acceptability. We discuss implications for rehabilitation programs.

KEYWORDS:

• Animal-assisted therapy
• human–animal interaction
• implicit bias
• prison-animal programs

Disclosure Statement

The authors state there are no conflicts of interest.