Good Dogs and Questionable People: How Animal Companions Facilitate Trust in a World that Does Not Feel Safe

Abstract

The chapter explores both theoretical and research underpinnings of how certain animal companions (e.g., dogs) help those with developmental trauma facilitate trust. Given developmental trauma implies that essential emotional/physical needs were not met in the formative years, learning to trust when the world seems unsafe is a significant issue. Topics that are discussed include how dogs attune to human mood states and behavior. We experience this in the form of somatic awareness, and its impact on emotional regulation. It is argued that this in sync approach within the human-dog dyad may augment the residual of insecure attachment styles. The central notion is a well-placed animal companion offers a healing experience facilitating trust in a difficult world.

1. Introduction

The current chapter addresses the complex dynamics involved in relational safety that allows for an attachment bond to occur. That is, trust is operationally defined within an attachment theory perspective [1]. Secure attachments are based upon the expectation that when in need, those we count upon (i.e., attachment figures) will respond with warmth and attunement. But this is a complex dynamic. The underlying forces affecting trust and attachment are pronounced for those that have experienced developmental trauma. When we consider that on average only 62% of our population experiences a secure emotional attachment with parents [1]. Or, when we look at the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACES) that at least 50–70% of the population experience: events dominated by trauma, poverty, intergenerational dysfunction, etc. [2].

Developmental trauma affects the growth and functioning of one’s psychic processes. It complicates things further, when one considers the various traumas in adulthood (e.g., divorces, loss, war torn military service, contextual limitations due to socio-economic needs, etc.) that are layered upon events from the formative years. We are traumatized through not getting what we need on a chronic level - which includes food, shelter and - above all – a need for a safe connection. Such contextual issues become so ingrained into our personal narrative that they guide us in terms of who, why, and when we trust. In essence, the world does not seem predictable or safe based upon formative and adult experiences when certain essential emotional needs were not met.

It makes sense some look for other viable forms of safety and trust. Some find those experiences with animal companions, those dogs, cats, etc., that are psychologically perceived as close friends or family, offer a way forward for those that have had damaging relational experiences within human dyads. Given so many issues compound the ability to safely connect, some have chosen the bond with animal companions as a more viable alternative for attachment needs. We will discuss concepts and research from a psychoanalytic perspective, especially attachment theory, as a guide for how many of those that experience various forms of trauma find a safe bond with their dogs.

2. Human-animal interaction (HAI) and safety

The following section discusses one of the ways to remediate the adverse impact of mistrust, loneliness, and developmental trauma, especially as it relates to attachment experiences. For instance, how trust and safety can be found in the bond with dogs, especially as it relates to those that have experienced trauma in various ways. We will draw from these more potential relational universals to consider the psychology of the human-animal bond. How it can offer potential corrective emotional experiences facilitating a burgeoning sense of trust. Animal companions may offer a safe attachment experience that facilitates relational healing and growth.

To help outline the approach, we will discuss a series of interrelated topics involving attachment experiences. First, some of the basics of attachment theory and then a look at somatic awareness, from which all attachment experiences begin. Next, we will consider attachment cues that prompt individuals to allow for an emotional bond to occur. Lastly, there is an examination of how the maintenance and growth of attachment occurs. Taken together, these aspects shed light on how human-animal interaction can help augment developmental trauma.

3. A difference of degree and not kind

Between the years 1859 and 1872 Charles Darwin published seminal works that included, On the Origin of the Species and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. In the later, Darwin examined and compared human and animal emotions [3]. Darwin traced emotional expressions across cultures and species. He examined how the facial muscles worked together creating a small set of universal emotions. He concluded that there were certain basic emotions across all mammalian animals expressing them in similar ways through facial expressions. His position was unpopular at the time, linking mankind and animals too closely for many Victorians. It went against religious and cultural beliefs that mankind was unique among all creatures. Suggesting there were shared emotions bumped up against mankind’s special place in the order: dominion over all living creatures. Furthering the point, Darwin suggested that man and other mammalian animals differed “in terms of degree but not kind” emphasizing that there is much overlap within the mammalian species, especially as it applies to basic emotions and how they are expressed [3]. Even more importantly, we extended Darwin’s notion to consider the importance of forming and sustaining attachment bonds between species- humans and dogs.

Differing in degree rather than kind speaks to a potential unique bridge between humans and other non-human animals. It opens the possibility that we are alike enough for the shared emotional expression to be registered between species. That is, in the case of our dogs especially we can learn to recognize some of the basic emotions they express. It also means our animal companions may decipher our emotional expressions. But this may go beyond mere recognition. Any meaningful emotional interaction involves recognition of emotions and then also responses that are in sync with the affect state. So, when we are sad, angry, happy, etc., ‘good listeners’ correctly identify the emotion and then respond in a way that conveys a basic level of acknowledgement. The exchange is the basis for empathy, that basic understanding of what another is feeling. This in turn, being a basic building block for facilitating attachment bonds. While attachment theory originally was derived from the study of both non-human and human dyads, we can see that in recent years the need to understanding of human-animal interaction continues to grow.

4. Attachment theory

A heuristic way to describe the human-human dyads and then human-animal dyads is in the context of attachment theory [1, 4]. An attachment figure is someone to whom a person has formed a unique emotional and often irreplaceable bond that exists over time. Traditionally, attachment styles among human dyads are linked to one’s experience as an infant, though also continue into adulthood. The basic attachment styles and their subsequent iterations (e.g., secure, anxious, avoidant, etc.) are based upon either a secure or insecure attachment experience. Secure attachments are derived through parental interactions characterized by warmth, consistency, and emotional attunement. By contrast, insecure attachments are inconsistent, often rejecting, and unreliable in providing needed care. Implied within insecure attachments is the question – is it safe to trust others? The answer is too often not.

While attachment theory was initially derived to explain parent-child dyads, it was later extended to include adult-adult romantic dyads. Still later, the attachment paradigm was extended to consider human-animal dyads. It has been suggested that animal companions (especially dogs) met the definition of an attachment figure which includes functioning as a safe haven and a secure base [1, 5]. The safe haven function has to do with soothing a person when under duress; the secure base provides a sense of security and support as one ventures into the world and with it, takes on new challenges [1]. The type of psychological notion of having someone back you in personal endeavors challenges the individual to grow in complex ways. There has been a continued accumulation of research regarding dogs at attachment figures in various scenarios [6].

5. Hierarchical structuring of attachment figures

It has been suggested that the bond with an animal companion may play a significant role in helping those across the life span develop relational attitudes and skillsets [1, 7, 8]. Part of the rationale for the generative nature of human-animal interaction [9] is based on the recent focus of individuals having competing attachment models operating within one’s attachment repertoire [10]. That is, instead of a single global attachment orientation (i.e., secure or insecure) we may have a series of competing/divergent person/context-specific ones. That is, one may have insecure attachment orientation with some individuals, but also have more secure exceptions in other contexts. For instance, an individual may view family, friends, in insecure terms, while having a more secure orientation with a partner, therapist, and even one’s animal companion. The phenomenon has been referred to as layering of attachment expectations or hierarchical structuring of attachment figures [11]. This suggests that various “secure others” may represent a new path for attaching, versus an all or nothing attachment experience, of trusting everyone or no one. Therefore, one good attachment experience has the potential to coincide along with more frustrating experiences. This has special implications for dogs as attachment figures.

Attachment findings have additional implications for human-animal interaction. While there has been some support for a generalization of insecure attachment behaviors from human companions to animal companions, [4, 12] it has also been suggested many may find a different or even corrective experience among canine companions [9]. Those with an insecure attachment style among human dyads may find a respite from these conflicts in relationships with animal companions. Newer theory and research focus on whether early and later attachment difficulties can be offset through their bond with animal companions. Discussing the theoretical basis for the uniqueness of the bond is important. The discussion also includes the intersection of trauma informed perspectives within the healing aspects of human-animal attachment.

6. Somatic aspects of attachment

It has been suggested that our ability to attach is informed and influenced by our somatic experience of another. The tactile sense of encountering another can be traced back to the earliest moments with caregivers. As noted, attachment bonds develop in part through our five senses [13]. The culmination of that sensory information along with emotional and mental processes informs us if another is safe. We see the initial process in parent-child dyads. From those early moments, our bodies tell us through heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, etc. that another is safe (or not). As per both an attachment theory and a trauma-informed approach [14], one must be able to register somatic sensations as the basis for emotional experience and expression, to facilitate an attachment bond. To be somatically aware and safely in one’s body, in turn, allows for relating to oneself and others. Sensory experience is one of the cornerstones of working with attachment issues and developmental trauma in therapy, but this is much more complex than just getting in touch with one’s own feelings.

One can trace the impact of developmental trauma on sensory/emotional experiences from two interrelated perspectives. When children are denied the needed emotional safety, attunement, and warmth they do not feel safe being in their sensory experience [15]. As a result, emotions are subsequently unrecognized or misattributed to other events. When a parent does not approach a child in a warm, attuned manner (consistent with a secure attachment), the child is less likely to acquire a sense of what they feel or how to express it. When parental empathic failures are chronic, emotions become even more muddled. Therefore, the child fails to acquire essential relational tools of trusting themselves and others.

Research suggests that children that experience developmental trauma (measured in the form of Adverse Childhood Experiences instruments and clinical report) are impeded from being able to experience and report their emotions [16]. Subsequently, the children do not develop an awareness or a vocabulary for what they are feeling. Instead, they become very limited at registering and reporting their internal processes. In turn, there is very little ability to communicate to others what is being experienced. This becomes a significant impediment in forming and maintaining attachment bonds and, with it, safe and secure relationships.

Likewise, a second interrelated view of developmental trauma makes it psychologically threatening to process somatic experiences and emotions if trauma is chronically present as a child [17]. To a child of abuse or neglect, to register somatic experience and feel means to encounter deep attachment related pain. Adding to this is not feeling safe to state wants, needs, and possible disappointment to a parent. It may not be safe to do so, things being bad enough as they are. Children are easily overwhelmed by these prospects, especially if there is not another person available to assist them. If children are left with a prevailing negative emotional valence from events occurring within the home, school, and with caregivers, a child protects themselves by simply not feeling at all [17]. Coping skills that are instead put in place might include distraction, a busyness that does not allow uncomfortable feelings to land, numbness, emotional withdrawal from the environment, substance use, and aggression to funnel all that is not felt elsewhere. By comparison, the key for progress to occur resides in developing the basic skillset of being able to register sensations, emotions, and later experience and processing them with a safe other. This is where the presence of an animal companion can be very helpful.

7. Interoception and attachment corrections

Psychoanalyst Ronald Fairbairn [18] was among the first psychoanalytic object relations (i.e., “people relations”) writers emphasizing a hardwired need to make lasting connections. Object relations predated Attachment Theory but developed roughly within the same period, speaking to the quality of interactions between parent and child. The two theories can be seen as complement to each other in terms of assessing the long-term effects of the dyads from formative years that are neither safe and nor trustworthy. So important are these bonds that children that grow up in less than minimal care environments will attempt to adapt in sometimes rather dramatic ways. Fairbairn suggests that when caregivers chronically fail the needs of a child, the child is left with the option of seeing the world as only filled with unsatisfying others. Or the child can distort reality in a way that attempts to preserve hope that more available others will one day appear. The distortion employed is a type of mental gymnastics that reverses the responsibility for dire familial circumstances. Instead of blaming parents, the child will take on the burden of responsibility. The child perceives themselves as unworthy of love. But having identified a way to frame the problem, albeit in a distorted manner, allows hope to be preserved. The child imagines they can one day earn their way to loving relationships, one day when they are good enough. It makes the current powerless situation more easily placed in the control of the child. In the illusionary way, a child feels some sense of say about obtaining love.

The type of distortion described above can be viewed as both the residual of developmental trauma as well as a coping skill. Part of the toll for the semi-adaptive technique is to enter adulthood continuing to enact old mental processes. Others are viable attachment figures and willing to care if only we can make ourselves worthy of their love. To disentangle the early distortion means reassessing the foundation upon which one’s relational world is built- no small feat. Per the research above, those with developmental trauma have smaller vocabularies for describing their inner world of feelings and descriptions of self. Again, the approach is both residual and a type of coping.

The argument made above is based upon a type of mind-body interaction. In part it can refer to our ability to accurately recognize what’s happening inside our bodies. What is called interoception [19]. Information is plentiful and can include heartbeat, breathing, sensing, and responding to the flow of internal events, and what our intuitive gut reaction is telling us in the moment. There is a myriad of inputs/sensations being processed at any given moment. They are too numerous to all be tracked but sometimes we can find a unifying narrative to account for them. Such as identifying a feeling or perspective that attempts to make sense of our experience. This certainly can include – is it safe to trust another? But due to various forms of trauma, interoception can lead to distorted information and the potential for false conclusions. A person with PTSD hears a car backfire and believes it is a gun like one heard in war. Or other types of anxiety disorders can often over attend to one’s heartbeat as a signal of danger. Or the person with an eating disorder may perceive themselves as full or bloated but has not eaten for some time. Most in context with this chapter is when one has a history of attachment related trauma and cannot accurately discern if another is safe or not. In essence misperceived interoception can make it difficult to discern if another is trustworthy.

How do we determine if someone is a potential candidate for safe attachment? If trauma is present, one may not always trust what our raw interoception is telling regarding who is safe and who is not. In these instances, developmental issues bias the uniform notions of accurate perception. It has been suggested that third wave Cognitive Behavioral Therapies approaches such as mindfulness and mediation can help discern clearer interoception [19]. However, beyond techniques, relational encounters can be argued as the most helpful clarifying agent. Discovering what it really is like to experience moments of trusting another can lead to a deeper trust in our own interoception. Those exchanges act as a cornerstone for what a trusting relationship can be. They offer the potential to cut through the noise, recalibrating the input we are receiving. In order to reduce the relational noise of the past it helps to have a trusted other to check our potential for misperception. This is where a friend, family member, and therapist can be of aid. They can help identify when attachment fears are clouding the inputs we are receiving via interoception. Patterns can be identified and potential updated in our relational context being on the lookout for when prior trauma appears and clouds judgment.

One of the notions argued here is animal companions offer a unique experience that can facilitate clearer understanding of interoception leading to attachment. Freud observed a relational clarity with dogs. Behaviors and inferred motives may be clearer [6]. There is less guesswork than within our human-human dyads. Instead, what we see with dogs is largely what we get. Moments of this type of clear interaction can become an anchoring point for those prone to have prior trauma clouding one’s judgment with attachment fears. It reduces the relational noise we may hear and may make it easier to discern our process and that of another.

8. Social lubricate theory and beyond

Animal companions have been viewed as a form of social lubricate [20]. That is, the presence of an animal helps people that are anxious/traumatized interact and possibly emotionally connect with others. The approach goes back to child psychologist Boris Levinson who accidentally discovered the therapeutic effects of human-animal interactions while working with a reticent male child client. Levinson’s dog, Jingles, was often present in his office. He stepped out of the office for a moment and when he returned, he noted that the once silent child had begun to interact in a more open way with his dog. As a result of this spontaneous interaction, the openness and alliance that the child formed with Jingles was transferred to Levinson, which allowed for a deeper therapeutic rapport and acceleration of the therapeutic process [21].

The social lubricant theory is a valid therapeutic notion, but it has special meaning when considering a trauma-informed approach in the context of the human-animal bond. The axiom of sensory safety leading to emotional awareness and eventually emotional processing is fully at work. Research suggests that safe physical touch with a dog (it can be one’s own dog or another dog) leads to certain neurochemical changes in the body such as the increase of oxytocin – the bonding hormone [22]. Oxytocin is a vital neurochemical basis for love bonds, especially that of the mother-newborn child bond. The mother is flooded with oxytocin when giving birth and this helps her to attend to the needs of the infant. This hormone bonding is apparent in animals of different species, human and non-human alike. Research on oxytocin, sometimes referred to as the “bonding-hormone,” has been shown to increase significantly in various scenarios that involve the interaction between dogs and people [22, 23, 24, 25]. Research supports the idea that blood pressure, heartbeat, and cortisol (stress hormone) levels decrease when petting and stroking animal’s fur [26, 27, 28]. The soothing tactile experience that psychological can be translated to relaxation and with it, safety of being close to another [29]. A trauma informed perspective views these above findings as telling the person in somatic language that the hyperarousal of past developmental trauma is not warranted. Instead, emotional grounding allows for a clarity of perception.

The issues of being safely within one’s own sensory experience are often taken for granted by those with normative developmental childhood, where at least a minimal prerequisite of emotional needs has been met. But for those that have experienced developmental trauma, sensory safety can be a confusing concept. If we accept the attachment theory notion, that we are hardwired to make emotional bonds with others, then part of the challenge is removing potential barriers for what comes naturally to our attachment system to occur. In this case, the presence of animal companions helps facilitate a grounding into one’s sensory/emotional experience, if only for a short time. It is within this timeframe that an openness to attach to animals and possibly to people may occur.

Research is exploring how long the boost of somatic/emotional attachment security lasts. Some findings suggest an effect lasting a few minutes, hours or even days [28]. It is likely that there is a dosing effect present in more long-term interaction with “safe” (known) animal companions [1, 8]. The attachment process may transition from a state-like experience of attachment safety being recharacterized as long-term experience of attachment security. The more you are with your safe animal companion that acts as a trustworthy attachment figure, the more benefits you may garner over time [1, 8, 29]. The safety found in the human-animal bond may possibly be an attachment model generalized to other moments and relationships of safety with humans. The issue is of importance for those with developmental trauma since they may struggle with maintaining lasting emotional bonds.

9. Attachment cues

Consistent with the above discussion of somatic safety, it has also been theorized that one may look for attachment cues [8] within human-animal interactions that help individuals determine the viability of attachment safety. In other words, human-animal interaction can signal the viability of trusting even for those that may have experienced various forms of trauma. The attachment cues indicate that the other human or the animal companion is a viable and safe attachment figure, allowing the person to move closer and engage with another. The aforementioned cues may include physiological changes (e.g., increase of oxytocin, decrease of cortisol levels with HAI interaction) and sensations (when petting fur, the tactile sense of connecting), relational cues (sensing empathy and attunement to mood states). It is suggested that attachment cues become a ready and predicable way one discerns safety within any relationship- whether momentary or long-term.

A secure attachment bond with an animal companion also has direct relevance for those that may have experienced various contextual traumas. Situation-specific examples of trauma include those experienced by military personnel serving in war-torn areas, those with developmental trauma, or attachment disruptions. The potential to include a component of attachment-oriented treatment in the form of animal-assisted interventions has shown promise both for youth and for adult prison populations as a part of adjudicated rehabilitation. In these cases, training dogs allows for a stark contrast to the often toxic and limiting atmosphere of incarceration [30].

10. Emotion regulation

An additional topic of interest includes how human-animal interaction can promote emotional regulation. From a trauma informed perspective those that have endured developmental trauma are at risk to be emotionally dysregulated under triggering circumstances. That is, the intensity of emotions may not match the circumstances resulting in pushing others away or even sabotaging important relationships. The result can be an overly critical self-evaluation that perpetuates further social isolation. These “big responses” can impact work and love relationships in significant ways.

A clinical way of considering the work of emotional dysregulation/emotional regulation is learning to appropriately match one’s emotional intensity with the situation. It may seem to an outsider as only an over or under response to a situation can be better understood as a survival response in need of fine-tunning. Whereas for the triggered individual, it can seem life and death situations are at play. To offset such encounters, one learns to access and engage triggered moments in different ways. Develop a series of coping skills allowing for emotional grounding and re-regulation. One learns to regulate emotions consistent with the reality of the situation.

Emotion regulation can occur either through an intrinsic (intrapersonal) or an extrinsic (interpersonal) means [1]. That is, we regulate our emotional states through our own internal skillsets and/or we can rely upon another to assist with process. In either case, a person monitors, evaluates, and modifies emotional reactions to accomplish specific goals such as having one emotional intensity match the appropriateness of the situation [31]. Emotion regulation is considered a key aspect of processing trauma and moving into posttraumatic growth [32, 33]. It involves working with triggers that may cause intense reactions. Such reactions can be detrimental in various scenarios involving work, family, and relationships.

Developmental trauma is viewed as a chronic situation where one misses out on some of the essential emotional needs as one grows up. The absence of a secure attachment figure can encapsulate not only attachment issues but also emotional regulation. In terms of emotional regulation, a secure attachment figure acts as one who helps co-regulate another’s emotions. A parent may help sooth and metabolize a child’s intense emotions. As an adult, one may turn to a partner for help with the intensity of the situation. We never outgrow the need for someone to co-regulate in our difficult moments. However, with the help of another we can also gain more of a sense of mastery of that the function that can be performed by oneself or through the presence of an animal companion. Crossman [34] assessed the impact of interaction with animals on human psychological distress. It was argued that an expansion of the concept of interpersonal emotion regulation to include various formal and informal human-animal interventions.

11. Attachment bond - maintenance and growth

While opening oneself to a new attachment bond is important, initial trust is simply only one part of the bonding experience. One can obviously bond with a person or animal companion, only to later find yourself disappointed. For some people, that feeling of disappointment becomes a justification to be even more cautious the next time one wishes to form an emotional attachment which may cause a person to build further defenses to protect the wounds of developmental and attachment trauma. Therefore, the ongoing maintenance of an attachment bond is complex and takes consistent work. Especially for those that have learned about the ethereal nature of trusting another, safety achieved can be safety lost, seemingly in an instant. Again, this is a place where the attachment to a “safe” animal companion can significantly help.

It is important to mention that an essential part of attachment maintenance/growth is based upon experience of attunement [1, 8]. Such as one being in sync with another’s mood states and behaviors. One such example is how service dogs are trained to be in sync with the emotional needs of their humans. The attunement can be seen for those that have seizure alert dogs. Dogs recognize the physical symptoms when an individual is moving into a seizure state and responding in a way to protect the individual. It may include a dog lying near or even on top of a human in a protective fashion. Likewise, a service dog can recognize and respond to those with PTSD, becoming triggered by sounds or crowds. The service dog learns to recognize a human’s level of anxiety and lead the person from the situation.

While occurring in different contexts, those with developmental trauma can also experience an emotional attunement from one’s everyday animal companions. As in the case of any attachment figure that is safe, we do not have to be in their company 24/7 or have specially trained skill sets like mentioned above, in order to be helpful. Theoretically, the initial emotional attachment bond is built and sustained upon in these instances of animal companions being in sync with day-to-day mood states and behaviors. For many, it is this day to day interaction that forms the basis of a trustworthy bond.

12. The need to attach in peaceful times

One can suggest the attachment maintenance/growth process also occurs in peaceful times among human-animal dyads. The greater emphasis in attachment theory literature is the need to connect when under duress. That is, when our attachment system is activated, we turn to another to help when we experience emotional overwhelm as well as perceived danger. But what occurs to our attachment system when not in that distressed state? One may argue that our need to connect continues, however, in a different form. Peaceful moments that are not necessary based our attachment ‘needs’ but from a different type of emotional fulfillment. We can consider the psychological idea of accompaniment in more peaceful times. Accompaniment being the day-to-day interface of an attachment dyad when not under significant duress. Our attachment system having experienced the prerequisite of safety, we experience mutuality, joy, play, and an existential fulfillment rooted in connecting [6, 8]. Accompaniment with human and animal companions may also allow for further integration of our attachment experience. We consider what allowed us to trust; what is unique about our companion; and a potential deepening of our attachment bond.

13. Conclusion

In this chapter various elements of what constitutes the ability to trust are discussed. We can see that several components are interrelated especially for those that have experienced developmental trauma. These dynamics inform who, how, and why we ‘trust’. We can think of trust as a fluid concept. It can wax and wane in the early parts of a bond. But even an established connection there can be moments of doubt that may feel/is justified, as old worries arise. Trust with a human or animal companion is filtered through the culmination of attachment history, the lens of various traumas, and what our somatic senses tell us.

Trust can be seen as interrelated dynamic with our attachment experiences. For secure attachments there is a grounded expectation that one’s loving others will be present when one is in need. In essence there is a sense of trust that appears across the beginnings of bonds, continuing through one’s attachment maintenance and growth. Research has supported the notion that among human romantic dyads, one’s attachment style interfaces with a sense of mistrust/trust [35]. Especially anxious attachment styles lead to less trust in one’s partner as evidenced by more jealousy and fear. So, much of the relational efforts are spent securing the safety of the connection, that it may not allow for other efforts toward deepening. By contrast other research findings suggest that in securely attached dyads, the goal of relational intimacy is prioritized over seeking control and security [36]. A secure dyad allows for mutuality and depth of connection to progress. The focus on establishing/maintaining safety in relationships is already achieved.

Is trust a potential precursor for an attachment bond to form? Do we need to trust in some cursory way to bond with another? Or do our attachment needs propel us into forming a bond first, only to find out later if the bond is truly trustworthy? It is likely these complex processes are very intertwined, playing off each other in any attachment bond.

While the above attachment findings have been more explored among human dyads, the bond between human animal companions may be paralleled. If the safety of the bond is more easily established and maintained, then a depth of trust and relational growth becomes a central focus, allowing for a different quality of connection. A type of purer love, less fraught with fear and conflict. In this sense, are dogs more trustworthy than humans? If by trustworthy, we mean they are more predictable in their behaviors; offering a singular focus on one’s companion; a type of emotional constant, then perhaps for some, dogs are more reliable. More research is needed to understand the complexity of trust and attachment at the beginning of forming a human-animal bond as well as how it is maintained and grows. Does the process differ for human-animal dyads? Perhaps it is more streamlined due to the sense that trust is real and with it, deeper attachment can be found.

The definitive question however involves whether human-animal dyads can provide a corrective experience for damaging insecure attachment with human-human dyads. In social media the concept of the pet effect references if animal companions positively influence our human health and wellbeing. Research previously mentioned focused upon positive physiological changes (e.g., heart rates, blood pressure, etc.) that occur when we are in the company of our animal companions. The complex next step is if under the right circumstances can animal companions provide a corrective attachment experience? That is to say given the hierarchical nature of various attachment experiences, can having a secure bond that is juxtaposed insecure ones across species impact us for the better? More research is needed.

A cautionary note, that the definition of the pet effect becomes too encompassing, where psychological gains from our bond makes us only feel better, or only positively in all our everyday interactions. Even more extreme would be does the human-animal bond erase the difficulties in life or somehow prevent them. That would be a tall order for any connection and not realistic. Instead, it is the nature of any secure attachment bond to provide a type of support and a form of existential meaning. That includes what we receive from another but also what we give. The reciprocal nature of the human-animal bond is the basis for not only potential correcting some prior trauma related to attachment; it also gives a purpose to our lives- to love. That meaning does not always lead to positive feelings. For instance, in the case of a challenging rescue dog with a history of trauma, or when we face the eventual loss of a beloved companion. The legitimacy of the pet effect is not based in all-encompassing euphoria, but instead in the richness and complexity of an attachment that impacts for the better but does not always lead to happy experiences in the moment.

While the focus upon trusting another is significant, there is also the issue of trusting ourselves. Given that distortion is both a potential residual of developmental trauma and a type of coping skill, we strive to trust our own processes. That is, even with the distortion that can accompany developmental trauma, we can emerge from prior dynamics in a clearer way, trusting our own experience. A part of that journey is also trusting when we are off base in our process, realizing that old dynamics are impacting one’s view of things. Trust in ourselves likewise involves having the ability to reset and get back on track after one is triggered into a state of hyperarousal, fear, and anxiety. Clear communication with ourselves and others sets the stage for trusting oneself and others.

Future research directed toward the complexity of who, how, and why we trust should be explored. It includes a myriad of information and somatic inputs we may be experiencing at any single moment. It is argued in this chapter that there is something unique about our attachment bonds with animal companions. However, animal companions are not a panacea, nor our all dogs alike. We expect there to be individual differences among them, including their own experiences of abuse, neglect, and extended stays in shelters, and puppy mills. Some dogs are more imbued with the needed skillsets that draw the reticent person out of their protector layers.

However, when there is a good match between a human and animal companion, something special occurs for those that have been affected by trauma. Perhaps it is the clarity or intensity of the signals from our mind and body that inform us about the viability of trust. What we experience makes trust more discernable. Perhaps the interspecies nature of our bond also prevents some from generalizing past histories of distrust with humans to animal companions. Our attachment histories being nuanced beyond a simply one size fits all approach for connection. Instead, one discerns the building blocks of bonds that are safer than others. Once established, the significance of our bond may also become a reference point for those that wrestle with insecure attachments, developmental trauma, and contextual life events that would suggest there is no safety to be found. Perhaps even here there is room for fluidity regarding our trust with animal companions, however, there may be fewer ruptures in the bond with less intensity. Temporary moments of stress due to chewed belongings, or accidents in the house may pale by comparison to attachment insecurities among human dyads. One settles back into the rhythm of connection that approximates an emotional constant. The clarity and intensity of the bond may help some have a new experience of trust. A type of model for what we would like other caring bonds to resemble.