What if the participant’s first reaction was already valuable information for the intervention?
When an animal is included in an intervention, many expect the participant to immediately want to get closer.
To pet it.
To play with it.
To show interest.
But reality is sometimes quite different.
Some people prefer to keep their distance.
Others observe without taking part.
Some express fear, concern, or even disinterest.
These reactions can be surprising.
Yet they should never be seen as a failure.
The most common mistake
The first instinct is often to want to make that reaction disappear.
We encourage the participant to come closer.
We try to reassure them.
We suggest they touch the animal.
We insist that it’s gentle.
These intentions are well-meaning.
But they sometimes make us forget an essential question:
Why is this reaction present?
And above all…
What can it teach us about the person?
The SPP methodology perspective
At Synergie Plumes et Poils, we believe that a participant’s reactions are information, not obstacles.
Fear can tell us about their sense of safety.
A refusal can reveal a need for control or predictability.
Disinterest can lead us to reflect on whether the animal is relevant to achieving the goals.
So the goal isn’t to convince the participant to like the animal.
The goal is to understand what that reaction means and determine whether it represents an opportunity for intervention.
Sometimes, it will.
Sometimes, it won’t.
And in some situations, the best decision will be not to include the animal.
A concrete example
A teenage girl takes part in an intervention aimed at building her self-confidence.
When the dog arrives, she chooses to stay several metres away.
She quickly replies that she doesn’t like dogs.
The first instinct might be to explain that this dog is calm, well trained, and that she has nothing to fear.
The practitioner chooses a different approach.
He respects her choice.
He asks her what would make her feel more comfortable.
He simply invites her to observe the interactions, with no obligation to participate.
Over the course of the sessions, the teen starts asking questions.
Then she agrees to toss a treat from a distance.
A few weeks later, she chooses on her own to reduce the distance.
The goal was never to get her to pet a dog.
The goal was to help her regain a sense of control, respect her pace, and experience successes in a situation that was challenging for her.
In another situation, the practitioner might conclude that the animal’s presence adds no value to the goals being pursued and choose another intervention approach.
The methodology is precisely about making that choice thoughtfully.
Transfer into practice
This way of thinking changes the professional’s perspective.
A reaction becomes information.
Hesitation becomes a line of inquiry.
A refusal becomes an opportunity to better understand the person’s needs.
The professional then stops trying to force an interaction with the animal at all costs.
Instead, they aim to build an intervention that respects the participant’s pace, limits, and goals.
Professional practice starts with respecting choice
Human-animal interactions must always remain voluntary.
Both the participant and the animal must be able to express their limits.
A quality intervention never seeks to impose an interaction.
It seeks to understand whether that interaction truly adds value.
At Synergie Plumes et Poils, we believe that a rigorous methodology doesn’t measure the success of an intervention by the number of pets or by proximity to the animal.
It measures it by the quality of the choices made by the professional to support the person while respecting their needs.