Place-Based Differences in the Commission of Recurrent Animal Cruelty

Abstract

Despite the recent surge in research linking animal and human acts of violence, relatively few studies have been conducted examining animal cruelty itself. Although several researchers have begun to identify some of the correlates of animal cruelty, few have attempted to understand how differences in the backgrounds of rural and urban residents have led to their abuse of animals. Using survey data from 180 inmates, this study examines how demographic characteristics, exposure to animal cruelty in childhood, and the target animal’s relationship with the abuser have contributed to the frequency of acts of animal cruelty in urban- and rural-based settings. Unlike their urban counterparts, rural respondents who engaged in recurrent animal cruelty were more likely to have witnessed family members and/or friends abuse an animal. Moreover, rural respondents who engaged in recurrent animal cruelty abused pet and stray animals, whereas recurrent animal abusers who grew up in urban areas tended to abuse pets only. These findings suggest possible place-based differences in the etiology of recurrent animal cruelty.

Keywords

animal cruelty rural and urban difference in animal cruelty target animal

Introduction

Starting in the 1960s, researchers began evaluating the connection between animal cruelty and violence toward humans, primarily among incarcerated populations (Felthous & Yudowitz, 1977; Hellman & Blackman, 1966; Hensley, Tallichet, & Dutkiewicz, 2009; Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001; Ressler, Burgess, Hartman, Douglas, & McCormack, 1998; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004). Researchers have suggested that the increase in academic interest in animal cruelty can largely be attributed to an increase in the animal welfare and animal rights movements, the work and media coverage of both campaigns, and the social concerns about violence in general (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004).

To date, few studies using an incarcerated sample have focused on the formative backgrounds of those who have committed animal cruelty and how that may affect the learning, nature, and extent of the problem. Some researchers have demonstrated the importance of demographic and place-based characteristics and the differential experiences of individuals who are cruel to animals (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Tallichet & Hensley, 2005). This study is a replication of the earlier study by Tallichet and Hensley (2005), which examined the influence of rural–urban differences in early exposure to animal cruelty and the type of animal targeted on the recurrence of animal cruelty among an incarcerated sample. Are there any regional differences that may exist regarding early exposure to the maltreatment of animals? Could there be differences in animal targets (i.e., pet vs. stray) that are abused in different place-based settings?

Literature Review

Animal cruelty is currently associated with a variety of antisocial behaviors, including interpersonal violence. Among clinicians, animal cruelty was first recognized as symptomatic of a conduct disorder by the American Psychiatric Association’s (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., revised; DSM-III-R). Later, a conduct disorder was defined in the 1994 DSM-IV as “a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated” as revealed by the presence of three (or more) criteria within the past 12 months with at least one occurring within the past 6 months (p. 85). As one of 15 criteria, animal cruelty was simply defined as the physical abuse of animals. Among researchers, animal cruelty is defined as “nonaccidental, socially unacceptable behavior that causes pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal,” excluding socially acceptable behaviors, such as legal hunting and certain veterinary and agricultural practices (Ascione & Shapiro, 2009, p. 570). Animal cruelty “represents an objectively definable behavior that occurs within a definable social context” (Lockwood & Ascione, 1998, p. 443). More recently, Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) have stated that animal cruelty is a complex expression of violence and investigating it requires methodological rigor and conceptual clarity.

Over the past decade, scholars have studied and measured animal cruelty in a variety of ways. For instance, Ascione, Thompson, and Black (1997) measured animal cruelty in terms of its frequency and severity. Being mindful of the complexities of animal cruelty, Guymer, Mellor, Luk, and Pearse (2001) examined the severity, frequency, duration, and recency of animal cruelty. They also explored the diversity of animals abused, intention to do harm, covertness of the act, whether it was committed within a group or in isolation, and the offender’s level of empathy. To date, only a few studies of incarcerated populations have examined animal cruelty as a recurrent behavior (Hensley et al., 2009; Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Merz-Perez et al., 2001; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Miller & Knutson, 1997; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004). Even fewer of these same studies have looked into the effects of childhood or adolescent exposure to animal cruelty and its subsequent commission (Merz-Perez et al., 2001; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Miller & Knutson, 1997), and only two of these studies have examined abusers’ demographic backgrounds and their frequency of animal abuse (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Tallichet & Hensley, 2005).

Current research suggests that we need a better understanding of animal abusers’ characteristics and the circumstances under which animal cruelty is committed. Arluke and Lockwood (1997) have argued that future animal cruelty studies should focus on perpetrators’ demographic backgrounds associated with the frequency of animal abuse. Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) have pointed out that animal cruelty studies need to include demographic characteristics such as gender, race, and place of residence. Moreover, to understand animal cruelty, Ascione (1999) called for a conceptual model that includes social and cultural components behind the learned beliefs and practices that reflect humans’ relationships with animals.

Several studies have discovered some demographic effects on attitudes toward animal abuse and on the commission of animal cruelty (Agnew, 1998; Flynn, 1999; Kendall, Lobao, & Sharp, 2006; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Nibert, 1994; Tallichet & Hensley, 2005). For example, Agnew (1998) established that women tend to be more opposed to animal abuse and tend to have more empathy, affection, and concern for animals. Nibert (1994) found that women and city residents are more likely to support animal rights. Flynn (1999) surveyed psychology and sociology students to see if youthful animal cruelty was associated with the endorsement of interpersonal violence, primarily against women and children. He found that men were nearly four times more likely to abuse animals than women, and Whites were somewhat more likely to abuse animals than were Blacks.

Recently, Kendall et al. (2006) found that women, Blacks, people suffering economic hardships, younger and middle-aged people, and less educated people were more concerned with the well-being of animals than men, Whites, those not experiencing financial hardship, older people, and those with more education. They suggested that their findings support the “underdog hypothesis” that groups with a vested interest in prevailing social arrangements are less concerned with the well-being of animals, whereas more underprivileged individuals show more concern with animal well-being. As they argued, the “(o)ppression of humans and the oppression of animals are linked systems, reinforced and perpetuated by the same mechanisms” (Kendall et al., 2006, p. 403). In their discussion of the theoretical literature on animal attitudes, Kendall et al. (2006) pointed out that “emulation is the exporting of social relations of inequality from one setting to another” (p. 403), suggesting that attitudes and behaviors about animals are learned and acted out later at other times and places. In sum, there may be certain demographic differences in the nature of a child’s exposure to animals, which could be particularly profound in their consequences for the commission of animal cruelty.

Agnew (1998) has similarly argued that an individual’s socialization experiences may impact attitudes toward animals and their later treatment of them. Although these differences in socialization are especially pronounced relative to an individual’s rearing, researchers have paid much less attention to the effects of place-based factors. According to Kellert (1996), not only does current residence matter but also where one grew up has a profound effect on animal attitudes. In an earlier study, Kellert (1980) categorized individual attitudes toward animals into four distinct dimensions: moralistic, humanistic, utilitarian, and negativistic. Individuals whose attitudes fell into the moralistic category generally had a strong opposition to the exploitation or cruel treatment of animals. Individuals in the humanistic category tended to have strong affection for individual animals. Those individuals who held utilitarian views of animals were primarily concerned with the practical and/or material value of animals. Finally, those individuals in the negativistic category tended to actively avoid animals because of their fear or dislike of them. He found that rural residents tended to score lower on both the moralistic and humanistic dimensions than did urban residents. Moreover, rural residents, particularly those with occupations involving the raising of animals, scored high on the utilitarian dimension. Similarly, Agnew (1998) found that urban residents were more opposed to animal abuse than were rural residents and argued that “rural individuals . . . may perceive more benefits from abuse given (their) greater direct dependence on animals as a source of livelihood” (p. 201).

Recent research by Kendall et al. (2006) revealed that individuals who grew up either on a farm or in a nonurban area had less concern for the well-being of animals than individuals who grew up in urban areas. Moreover, rural residents were more likely to view animals as economic resources than urban residents even though they had a history of close ties to animals due to their greater reliance on animals for their food, livelihood, and protection, whereas residents of urban areas tended to be more socially and spatially distanced from animals (Kendall et al., 2006). They also argued that these geographic patterns in animal attitudes are found, in part, because rural and urban residents have different opportunities for contact and relationships with animals, and also have different cultural experiences that shape and reinforce their attitudes. They found that individualized experiential variables were important for explaining attitudes toward animal well-being and, more specifically, that childhood experience had the greatest place-based effect on individuals’ attitudes toward animals.

Nonetheless, there is little research examining rural–urban differences in child or adolescent exposure to animal cruelty and only a few studies that examine the role that youthful exposure plays at all among incarcerated samples. Miller and Knutson (1997) found that 66% of the 314 inmates in their sample at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center had hurt or killed animals or had witnessed the same acts. These respondents were also asked “who engaged in the act, what animals were involved, what was done, the number of incidents, the age of the subject at the time of the event, who was aware of the incident, and if there were any consequences” (p. 71). Only 16% admitted to hurting an animal and 31% admitted to killing a stray animal. More than 40% of these respondents had witnessed an animal being hurt, whereas more than 50% had witnessed an animal being killed by someone else. Although they found no association between witnessing or committing animal cruelty and criminal charges, Miller and Knutson noted that the base rate of exposure to animal cruelty was high for their incarcerated sample. Coston and Protz (1998) have argued that there may be an intergenerational transmission of both human and nonhuman violence, saying there could be “a pecking order of aggressive acts, involving a lack of empathy, being passed down from the head of the household through the child and down to animals” (pp. 154-155).

Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) surveyed 45 violent and 45 nonviolent inmates in a Florida maximum-security prison (see also Merz-Perez et al., 2001). They measured animal cruelty in terms of its frequency and asked if respondents had observed animal cruelty committed by a family member, friend, acquaintance, or stranger. Their analyses demonstrated a relationship between prior acts of animal cruelty and subsequent acts of human violence. Although not statistically significant, the violent subjects in their sample reported seeing slightly more acts of animal cruelty than nonviolent subjects. However, on the basis of their qualitative analyses, they found that several violent subjects in their sample reported witnessing the same friend repeatedly having committed the same act of animal cruelty. In addition, some of their violent and nonviolent respondents “reported abuse that included the victimization of pets that had either been abused or killed by parent figures” (Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004, p. 123). Thus, they concluded that more research was needed examining the effects of exposure to animal cruelty committed by others, such as family members, friends, neighbors, or strangers.

Based on previous studies of animal abuse, the animals targeted for abuse have been examined. In perhaps the first study about target animals, Felthous (1980) studied the association between the nature of childhood animal cruelty and interpersonal aggression by interviewing 346 male psychiatric patients. Individuals in the study’s Animal Cruelty Group (n = 18) said that they injured dogs and cats. With one exception, all these individuals tortured cats. Those who tortured dogs and cats demonstrated high levels of aggression. In his study, Flynn (1999) identified possible target animals that included cats, dogs, small animals (i.e., rodents, reptiles, birds, or poultry), or large animals (i.e., livestock). Small animals, cats, and dogs were abused most often, but small animals were most often killed. Small animals were also more likely to be hurt or tortured, followed by dogs (50% and 44.4%, respectively). Around 35% reported killing a stray or wild animal on one occasion, whereas nearly 40% had done so twice, and 25% of the sample had done so on three or more occasions.

In another study that examined specific animals targeted for abuse, Merz-Perez et al. (2001) found that 56% of the violent inmates had committed acts of animal cruelty compared with only 20% of nonviolent inmates (see also Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). Nonviolent and violent inmates more often abused wild animals followed by farm animals and pets although the respective proportions were quite different. Many of the nonviolent inmates in their sample committed animal cruelty against wild animals in the company of their peers. However, all the violent offenders reported abusing animals alone. Nonviolent offenders expressed more remorse over their acts of animal cruelty when compared with the violent ones.

In a place-based study examining target animals, Lembke (1999) found that rural residents who abused animals were more likely to abuse pets, barn cats, and farm dogs. According to Lembke (1999), “Rural animal abuse is not limited to the species used for meat or milk production, fiber, traction or locomotion. Companion animals as well are commonly found in rural surroundings: family pets, barn cats, and farm dogs” (p. 229). Given most rural residents’ generally greater utilitarian attitudes toward animals, they may view abuse, as Agnew (1998) has suggested, as a function of the costs and benefits, thereby justifying the abuse of one species of animal over another.

With regard to rural–urban differences in exposure to and the targeting of certain animals for abuse, Tallichet and Hensley (2005) found place-based differences in the way that individuals learn to commit violence toward animals. Specifically, when they were young, rural residents primarily observed family members commit animal cruelty. However, when urban-reared respondents were young, they observed family members and friends abuse animals. Tallichet and Hensley (2005) also found that rural animal abusers tended to primarily abuse cats, whereas urban abusers abused dogs, cats, and wild animals indiscriminately. Thus, animal cruelty may be at least partially explained by differences in their formative experiences in rural versus urban areas.

In sum, few studies have explored animal abuser’s demographics along with potential differential place-based effects of their exposure to animal cruelty and the targeted animals for abuse among either incarcerated populations. This study seeks to replicate Tallichet and Hensley’s (2005) study by examining the effects of several demographic characteristics (race, education, and residence), childhood exposure to animal cruelty (witnessing of animal cruelty by a family member or a friend), and the preferred target animal (pet or stray) on the frequency of animal cruelty committed by members of an incarcerated sample.

This study is different in three important ways. First, Tallichet and Hensley (2005) used the variable “saw someone hurt or kill an animal” in their analyses. We excluded this variable from the replication because we believe that the responses are already captured in the variables “saw a family member and/or a friend commit animal cruelty.” Second, the variable “recurrent animal cruelty” was coded in the original study as 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = twice, and 3 = more than twice. However, for this study, the same variable is continuous in nature, allowing for a more accurate depiction of recurrent animal cruelty. Finally, the sample in this study is from a different Southern state, which has a more distinct urban–rural difference.

Method

Participants

In March 2007, all inmates housed in one medium-security and one maximum-security Southern correctional facility for men were requested to participate in a study of childhood animal cruelty. Of the 1,800 inmates incarcerated in the two prisons, a total of 180 agreed to participate in the study, yielding a response rate of 10% (as each inmate received a questionnaire). Although this response rate appears low, most prison studies dealing with sensitive issues attract 25% or fewer respondents (Hensley et al., 2009; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004; Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000). After obtaining the approval from the state department of corrections and the university’s institutional review board, the principal researcher drove to the facilities and delivered the questionnaires and informed consent forms. The informed consent stated that the questionnaires were confidential. In addition, the state department of corrections agreed not to open any of the surveys prior to them being mailed back to the authors.

Correctional counselors at each prison distributed self-administered questionnaires to each inmate. Inmates were informed that it would take approximately 20 min to complete the 26-item questionnaire. They were asked to return their completed questionnaires and signed informed consent forms in a stamped, self-addressed envelope within 1 month of distribution. The informed consents were immediately shredded after arrival. No incentives were given for completion of the survey. The researchers contacted the two prisons after the 30-day period to make sure all completed surveys had been mailed.

Table 1 displays the characteristics of the state prison population and the sample. A comparison of the racial composition and age distribution of the respondents and the state prison population revealed no significant differences. Thus, the sample seems to be representative of the state prison population in terms of these variables.

Table 1.

Population and Sample Characteristics

	Prison population		Sample
Characteristic	n	%	n	%
Race
White	10,654	67.0	182	70.0
Other	5,280	33.0	78	30.0
Median age, years	33		33.5

Measures

The primary goal of this study was to examine rural–urban differences in the commission of recurrent childhood animal cruelty regarding differences in exposure to animal cruelty and the animals targeted for abuse. Therefore, inmates were asked about the frequency with which they had committed animal cruelty using the following question: “How many times have you ever hurt or killed animals other than for hunting?” This item was a continuous variable and served as the dependent variable. This item in the survey also further defined “animal” (see also Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004) and the means for “hurting or killing” animals (see also Ascione, 1993). Animal cruelty included any action where the respondent hurt or killed animals as children (other than for hunting). Respondents who reported killing animals for food were not considered animal abusers as this is socially condoned behavior.

Demographic characteristics (race, educational level, and residence where they grew up) were also recorded for the sample. To indicate their exposure to animal cruelty, inmates were asked “who they had seen hurt or kill animals other than for hunting” by circling all the types that were listed on the survey that applied. These included family member, friend, or stranger. Each response for the individual they witnessed was coded, so that 0 = had not seen and 1 = had seen that person hurt or kill an animal. Two separate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were run for rural and urban inmates using race, education level, and whether the perpetrator was a family member and/or a friend. OLS regression models were calculated to determine the effects that the demographic characteristics and exposure to animal cruelty had in predicting recurrent childhood animal cruelty.

Relative to the animals targeted, inmates were also asked to indicate “what kind of animal did they hurt or kill” by indicating the animals that were listed on the survey that applied. These included pet and stray animals. Each response for the animal was coded, so that 0 = had not abused that animal and 1 = had abused that animal. Two separate OLS regression models were run for rural and urban inmates using race, education level, and whether they had hurt or killed pet and/or stray animals. OLS regression models were calculated to determine the effects that the demographic characteristics and the targeted animal for abuse had in predicting recurrent childhood animal cruelty.

Results

Table 2 presents the zero-order correlation matrix between the independent variables in the first set of rural and urban models regarding animal cruelty exposure differences. White respondents were more likely to have been reared in rural areas. They were also more likely to have witnessed a family member hurt or kill animals. Those who grew up in rural areas were also more likely to have seen a family member hurt or kill an animal. Those who had witnessed a family member abuse an animal were less likely to have witnessed a friend do the same. Respondents who repeatedly hurt or killed an animal were more likely to have witnessed a family member commit the behavior. In sum, all five of the significant correlations discussed above were weak to moderate in strength (.19-.37).

Table 2.

Zero-Order Correlation Matrix Between Independent Variables and Dependent Variable for Exposure Models (n = 180)

		X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅
X₁	Race
X₂	Education	.04
X₃	Residence	−.35*	.02
X₄	Family member	.27*	−.01	−.19*
X₅	Friend	.03	−.06	.02	−.27*
Y	Number of times hurt or killed animals	.18	−.11	−.14	.37*	−.01

Note: Coding of independent variables: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White); education (0 = eighth grade or less, 1 = some high school, 2 = completed high school, 3 = some college, 4 = completed college, 5 = graduate or professional school after college); residence (0 = rural area; 1 = urban area); did you see a family member hurt or kill an animal other than for hunting? (0 = no, 1 = yes); did you see a friend hurt or kill an animal other than for hunting? (0 = no, 1 = yes). Coding of dependent variable: How many times have you hurt or killed animals other than for hunting? (continuous variable).

Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.

Tables 3 and 4 present the rural and urban models for exposure differences, respectively. Among rural respondents, witnessing a family member and/or a friend commit animal cruelty were the only statistically salient variables affecting the number of times respondents hurt or killed an animal. Thus, rural respondents who witnessed a family member and/or a friend abuse an animal reported engaging in this behavior more often themselves. The independent variables accounted for 35% of the total variance in this model. However, among urban respondents, there were no statistically salient variables in the model. In fact, the model itself was not statistically significant.

Table 3.

OLS Regression Solutions Predicting Frequency of Animal Cruelty for Rural Sample (n = 86)

		b	SE	β
X₁	Race	0.56	0.91	.08
X₂	Education	−0.70	0.43	−.21
X₃	Family member	4.92	0.98	.74*
X₄	Friend	2.40	0.96	.37*
Adjusted R²			.35
F			6.69
Significance			.00

Note: Coding of independent variables: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White); education (0 = eighth grade or less, 1 = some high school, 2 = completed high school, 3 = some college, 4 = completed college, 5 = graduate or professional school after college); did you see a family member hurt or kill an animal other than for hunting? (0 = no, 1 = yes); did you see a friend hurt or kill an animal other than for hunting? (0 = no, 1 = yes). Coding of dependent variable: How many times have you hurt or killed animals other than for hunting? (continuous variable).

Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.

Table 4.

OLS Regression Solutions Predicting Frequency of Animal Cruelty for Urban Sample (n = 94)

		b	SE	β
X₁	Race	1.26	1.07	.19
X₂	Education	−0.74	0.54	−.21
X₃	Family member	0.88	1.11	.13
X₄	Friend	0.42	1.04	.06
Adjusted R²			.02
F			1.12
Significance			.36

Note: Coding of independent variables: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White); education (0 = eighth grade or less, 1 = some high school, 2 = completed high school, 3 = some college, 4 = completed college, 5 = graduate or professional school after college); did you see a family member hurt or kill an animal other than for hunting? (0 = no, 1 = yes); did you see a friend hurt or kill an animal other than for hunting? (0 = no, 1 = yes). Coding of dependent variable: How many times have you hurt or killed animals other than for hunting? (continuous variable).

Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.

Table 5 presents the zero-order correlation matrix between the independent variables in the second set of rural and urban models regarding target animal differences. White respondents were more likely to commit animal cruelty toward their own pets. However, non-White inmates were more likely to abuse stray animals. Those who abused pets were less likely to abuse strays. In addition, those inmates who abused pet animals as children were more likely to engage in recurrent animal cruelty. In sum, four of the five significant correlations discussed above were weak to moderate in strength (.21-.35). However, one correlation was strong (.40 or higher). Inmates who abused pets were strongly and negatively correlated with the abuse of stray animals (−.54).

Table 5.

Zero-Order Correlation Matrix Between Independent Variables and Dependent Variable for Targeted Animal Models (n = 180)

		X₁	X₂	X₃	X₄	X₅
X₁	Race
X₂	Education	.04
X₃	Residence	−.35*	.02
X₄	Pet animals	.21*	−.08	−.05
X₅	Stray animals	−.27*	.02	.14	−.54*
Y	Number of times hurt or killed animals	.18	−.11	−.14	.29*	.07

Coding of independent variables: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White); education (0 = eighth grade or less, 1 = some high school, 2 = completed high school, 3 = some college, 4 = completed college, 5 = graduate or professional school after college); what kind of animals did you hurt or kill? Pet animals (0 = no, 1 = yes); stray animals (0 = no, 1 = yes). Coding of dependent variable: How many times have you hurt or killed animals other than for hunting? (continuous variable).

Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.

Tables 6 and 7 present the rural and urban models for animals targeted for cruelty, respectively. In the model for rural respondents, pet and stray animals were statistically salient variables affecting recurrent animal cruelty. Thus, rural respondents who engaged in recurrent animal cruelty abused pet and stray animals. The independent variables accounted for 16% of the total variance in the model. However, in the model for urban respondents, hurting or killing pet animals was the only statistically salient variable affecting the number of times respondents hurt or killed animals. Thus, respondents who were reared in urban areas and who reported hurting or killing animals more frequently did so to pet animals. The independent variables accounted for 17% of the total variance in this model.

Table 6.

OLS Regression Solutions Predicting Frequency of Animal Cruelty for Rural Sample (n = 86)

		b	SE	β
X₁	Race	1.51	1.05	.19
X₂	Education	−0.10	0.48	−.03
X₃	Pet animals	3.32	1.14	.47*
X₄	Stray animals	3.97	1.18	.56*
Adjusted R²		.16
F		3.34
Significance		.02

Note: Coding of independent variables: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White); education (0 = eighth grade or less, 1 = some high school, 2 = completed high school, 3 = some college, 4 = completed college, 5 = graduate or professional school after college); what kind of animals did you hurt or kill? Pet animals (0 = no, 1 = yes); stray animals (0 = no, 1 = yes). Coding of dependent variable: How many times have you hurt or killed animals other than for hunting? (continuous variable).

Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.

Table 7.

OLS Regression Solutions Predicting Frequency of Animal Cruelty for Urban Sample (n = 94)

		b	SE	β
X₁	Race	0.82	0.92	.12
X₂	Education	−0.70	0.47	−.20
X₃	Pet animals	3.04	1.01	.46*
X₄	Stray animals	1.45	1.15	.19
Adjusted R²		.17
F		3.61
Significance		.01

Note: Coding of independent variables: race (0 = non-White, 1 = White); education (0 = eighth grade or less, 1 = some high school, 2 = completed high school, 3 = some college, 4 = completed college, 5 = graduate or professional school after college); what kind of animals did you hurt or kill? Pet animals (0 = no, 1 = yes); stray animals (0 = no, 1 = yes). Coding of dependent variable: How many times have you hurt or killed animals other than for hunting? (continuous variable).

Denotes statistical significance at the .05 level.

Discussion

This study specifically sought to examine some of the circumstances under which animal cruelty may be experienced and ultimately learned. We investigated how inmates’ race, residence while growing up, and education along with their exposure to animal cruelty in childhood and their relationship to the target animal may have contributed to the frequency of their acts of animal cruelty. Our findings lend some support to the possibility that place-based differences in individuals’ socialization experiences may affect their recurrent commission of animal cruelty. Specifically, we found that among rural-reared inmates, animal cruelty may have been learned and legitimized after watching family members and friends abuse animals, whereas urban inmates’ frequent acts of animal cruelty were not necessarily the result of having such behaviors modeled for them. Moreover, rural-reared inmates who repeatedly abused animals were more indiscriminate in choosing their target animals than their urban counterparts who specifically targeted pets.

These findings suggest that there may be important differences in the learning and expression of violence toward animals based on rural–urban cultural differences in socialization. For rural residents, having witnessed animal cruelty committed by a family member and/or a friend, someone with whom they presumably had close interpersonal ties, may mark the beginning of their exposure and consummation of multiple acts of animal abuse. In this study, relative to urban residents, such exposure to family members and friends seems to have had a more profound impact on their recurrent violent behavior toward animals. Research on rural families shows that relative to urban residents, rural residents still demonstrate relatively stronger family ties (Glasgow, 2003; MacTavish & Salamon, 2003). Moreover, given the lower populations that characterize rural areas, rural youth may have fewer social outlets and tighter social networks than urban youth (Lembke, 1999). It is also possible that our finding that friends also influence rural inmates’ recurrent commission of animal cruelty could reflect changing trends among rural youth, such as the increase in gang activity in rural areas (Lichter, Roscigno, & Condron, 2003). Regardless, our data do show that having exposure to family members and friends who commit animal cruelty could account for the impact these behaviors have on rural youth. If this is the case, the abuse of animals may be passed down between generations of rural families and passed along among friends.

These findings are similar but not the same as a previous study by Tallichet and Hensley (2005) who found that witnessing only family members abuse animals predicted rural inmates’ recurrent animal cruelty. In this study, although both variables were predictive of a rural inmate’s own recurrent acts of animal cruelty, witnessing a family member was a stronger predictor of recurrent animal abuse than witnessing a friend commit it. It may be the case that rural inmates who committed animal cruelty more frequently in both samples may be learning these behaviors and attitudes from individuals with whom they have more frequent and close contact relative to urban-reared inmates who also frequently abuse animals. The difference in the findings of the previous study (Tallichet & Hensley, 2005) and the present one may reflect differences in the urban and rural areas in the different states from which the samples were drawn.

Regarding the targeting of certain animals based on their relationship to humans, rural-reared inmates who frequently abused animals targeted pets and stray animals. As Lembke (1999) has found, rural animal abuse of companion animals is as likely as the abuse of other animals with which rural residents come into contact. Ostensibly, this corresponds to rural residents’ utilitarian attitudes toward animals in which abuse is based on a calculation of costs and benefits (Agnew, 1998). Thus, this suggests that rural-reared inmates in the sample who commonly abused animals made no distinction between pets as “good” animals and strays as unwanted or “bad” ones (Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Mead, 1964; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). The finding that urban-reared inmates who frequently abused animals targeted pets could suggest that their violence toward animals was more discriminate and focused, especially given urban-based attitudes that support a more humanistic and moralistic orientation toward all animals.

Although this study sought to add to the research examining how place-based factors may affect recurrent animal cruelty, it does have limitations. First, although other studies dealing with sensitive topics among prison populations have yielded relatively low response rates, our 10% return rate is very low for survey-based methodology. Second, our sole reliance on pencil-and-paper self-reports may have excluded illiterate inmates and further selected our sample. Those whose animal cruelty behaviors have been relatively mild, for example, may be expected to volunteer at a higher rate, suggesting that stronger results may be found if a larger sample with a higher return rate is used. These limitations may affect the generalizability of the study to the larger population of inmates in the state and nationwide.

For decades, numerous researchers and animal advocates have been identifying animal cruelty as a serious offense that may lead to or occur concurrently with violence against humans (Ascione, 2001; Hensley et al., 2009; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004). They further warn that undetected and unpunished acts of animal cruelty may result in an individual’s desensitization to violence and a crippling lack of empathy for the pain and suffering of animals and possibly humans (Ascione, 1999; Mead, 1964; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). There is evidence that witnessing acts of animal abuse may lead to its commission, suggesting that this is when the erosion of a child’s moral and emotional development may begin (Hensley & Tallichet, 2005; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004). This study provides some evidence that the pathways and the expression of violence toward animals may be different for rural and urban residents. Thus, more research is needed to further substantiate place-based differences in the learning and commission of animal cruelty beyond inmate samples. More research is also needed examining the motives and methods of animal abuse and the emotions associated with these early acts of animal cruelty. In sum, more studies that capture the critical elements of the social context in which animal abuse occurs are imperative, especially those using direct interviews with recurrent animal abusers from both rural and urban areas.

Knowing that there are place-based differences in the development and targeting of certain animals allows researchers, animal advocates, and policy makers to more adequately address prevention, intervention, and therapeutic strategies that are more appropriate in these locales. For example, in rural areas where family ties may be tighter, preventive education and early intervention programs may help break the intergenerational cycle of animal and human aggression. Peer intervention may prove problematic in small communities where animal abuse is likely to be an “open secret” (Lembke, 1999). This could be even more difficult among rural residents who view animals as objects for profit and not as sentient beings in need of affection and care. Thus, the introduction of humane education programs in these locales might be initiated by those who could make a difference in their communities such as teachers, clergy, social workers, community leaders, veterinarians, and local law enforcement. In urban and rural settings, effective prevention and intervention should be based on a collaborative set of policies and programs delivered by and among all these parties and eventually include parents and positively oriented peers. (For a thorough review of the types of programs being discussed, see Ascione & Shapiro, 2009.)

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Agnew

(1998). The causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Theoretical Criminology, 2, 177-209.

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Arluke

Lockwood

(1997). Guest editor’s introduction: Understanding cruelty to animals. Society & Animals, 5, 183-193.

Ascione

F. R.

(1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos, 6, 226-247.

Ascione

F. R.

(1999). The abuse of animals and human interpersonal violence: Making the connection. In Ascinoe

F. R.

Arkow

(Eds.), Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: Linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention (pp. 50-61). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Ascione

F. R.

(2001, September). Animal abuse and youth violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-15.

Ascione

F. R.

Shapiro

(2009). People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issue, 63, 569-587.

Ascione

F. R.

Thompson

T. M.

Black

(1997). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoos, 10, 170-197.

10.

Coston

C. T. M.

Protz

B. M.

(1998). Kill your dog, beat your wife, screw your neighbor’s kids, rob a bank? A cursory look at an individual’s vat of social chaos resulting from deviance. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 26, 153-158.

11.

Felthous

A. R.

(1980). Aggression against cats, dogs and people. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 10, 169-177.

12.

Felthous

A. R.

Yudowitz

(1977). Approaching a comparative typology of assaultive female offenders. Psychiatry, 40, 270-276.

13.

Flynn

C. P.

(1999). Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. Society & Animals, 7, 161-172.

14.

Glasgow

(2003). Older rural families. In Brown

D. L.

Swanson

L. E.

(Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 86-96). University Park: Penn State Press.

15.

Guymer

E. C.

Mellor

Luk

E. S. L.

Pearse

(2001). The development of a screening questionnaire for childhood cruelty to animals. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 1057-1063.

16.

Hellman

D. S.

Blackman

(1966). Enuresis, firesetting and cruelty to animals: A triad predictive of adult crime. American Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 1431-1435.

17.

Hensley

Tallichet

S. E.

(2005). Learning to be cruel? Exploring the onset and frequency of animal cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 37-47.

18.

Hensley

Tallichet

S. E.

Dutkiewicz

E. L.

(2009). Recurrent childhood animal cruelty: Is there a relationship to adult recurrent interpersonal violence? Criminal Justice Review, 34, 248-257.

19.

Kellert

S. R.

(1980). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 1, 87-119.

20.

Kellert

S. R.

(1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island Press.

21.

Kellert

S. R.

Felthous

A. R.

(1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-1129.

22.

Kendall

H. A.

Lobao

L. M.

Sharp

J. S.

(2006). Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology, 71, 399-428.

23.

Lembke

(1999). Animal abuse and family violence in a rural environment. In Ascione

F. R.

Arkow

(Eds.), Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: Linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention (pp. 228-240). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

24.

Lichter

D. T.

Roscigno

V. J.

Condron

D. J.

(2003). Rural children and youth at risk. In Brown

D. L.

Swanson

L. E.

(Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 97-108). University Park: Penn State Press.

25.

Lockwood

Ascione

F. R.

(1998). Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

26.

MacTavish

Salamon

(2003). What do rural families look like today? In Brown

D. L.

Swanson

L. E.

(Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 73-85). University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

27.

Mead

(1964). Cultural factors in the cause and prevention of pathological homicide. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 28, 11-22.

28.

Merz-Perez

Heide

K. M.

(2004). Animal cruelty: Pathway to violence against people. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

29.

Merz-Perez

Heide

K. M.

Silverman

I. J.

(2001). Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 556-573.

30.

Miller

K. S.

Knutson

J. F.

(1997). Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21(1), 59-82.

31.

Nibert

(1994). Society and animals: Social scientific studies of the human experience of other animals. Animal Rights and Human Social Issues, 2, 115-124.

32.

Ressler

R. K.

Burgess

A. W.

Hartman

C. R.

Douglas

J. E.

McCormack

(1998). Murderers who rape and mutilate. In Lockwood

Ascione

F. A.

(Eds.), Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence (pp. 179-193). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

33.

Tallichet

S. E.

Hensley

(2004). Exploring the link between recurrent acts of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent violent crime. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 304-316.

34.

Tallichet

S. E.

Hensley

(2005). Rural and urban differences in the commission of animal cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 711-726.

35.

Tourangeau

Rips

L. J.

Rasinski

(2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.