research paper about animal abuse

Documenting Harm to the Voiceless: Researching Animal Abuse

• First Online: 03 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Jennifer Maher 6  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology ((PSVV))

1542 Accesses

This chapter considers how harms against nonhuman animals have been documented in criminological research, associated challenges and implications for future research. The development of animal abuse research is examined and contributions from studies identifying, defining and measuring harm to nonhuman animals are discussed. It finds that although animal welfare laws exist in most countries, legislation typically addresses a few crimes against some nonhuman animals. Protections are limited because most harms are legal, falling outside the remit of mainstream criminology. Historically, few criminological studies have adopted an animal-centred nonspeciesist approach, contributing to a legacy of speciesism in social institutions, academia included. The development of animal abuse and critical animal studies challenges the status quo, greatly expanding concepts of victimology, while highlighting a broader spectrum of harms including interpersonal violence and everyday routine harms which exploit and kill nonhuman animals in their millions. These studies shine a light on the voiceless long-suffering nonhuman animal victims and the unique challenges facing animal abuse researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Editors’ Introduction

Animal sexual assault, animal hoarding.

The rating produced by World Animal Protection involves a ranking of 50 countries according to their legislation and policy commitments to protecting animals (e.g. recognising animal protection, governance structures and systems, animal welfare standards, providing humane education and promoting communication and awareness). The Global Animal Law database ranks countries according to existing animal laws, civil code provisions and constitutional principles.

Other legislation exists which provides a lower standard of protect to other animals, such as the UK Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (see Nurse 2012 ).

See the RSCPA explanation of the five freedoms at https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/changingthelaw/whatwechanged/animalwelfareact .

In 1999, a protocol which explicitly recognised nonhuman animals as sentient beings was incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty (Article 13 of Title II). The UK has no legal instrument other than Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty to legally recognise that nonhuman animals are sentient beings. In the aftermath of the UK vote to exit the EU, the Bill to transfer this protocol on nonhuman animal sentience into UK law, brought to Parliament on 15 November 2017, failed to be passed. Consequently, there is no legal recognition of nonhuman animal sentience in the UK.

Human-like rights does not equate to human rights for animals. For a more detailed discussion on rights for animals, see Regan ( 2004 ).

For example, Luke et al. ( 1997 ) study concluded that animal abusers were: five times more likely to commit violence against people; four times more likely to commit property crimes; and three times more likely to be involved in drunken or disorderly offenses. These results were determined from the criminal records of 153 intentional animal abusers prosecuted by the MSPCA, compared to the criminal history of a control group of offenders of the same size.

According to NGO Mighty Earth, South America is home to the world’s largest meat company JBS (Hurowitz et al. 2019 ).

See for example: USA department of Agriculture https://www.ers.usda.gov/ , UN food and Agriculture organisation— http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data , world beef production https://beef2live.com/storylist-242 .

See the US/UK/Australia and Canada total calculation of animals killed for the food industry. https://animalclock.org/ .

The recognition within UK welfare legislation of animals as objects to which we have a duty of care is in stark contrast to their treatment elsewhere in law—as inanimate objects or possibly subjects to control. Lawson ( 2019 ) identifies how some controls can lead directly to the destruction of ‘dangerous’ or ‘unwanted’ dogs. These dogs are vilified and treated as subjects accountable for the risk they might pose to humans even if the risk is created by the poor standards of care provided by humans from birth.

The Animal Enterprise Protection Act was expanded in 2006 into the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

For example, a search for ‘animal’ or ‘animal abuse/welfare’ on the UK’s largest funding organisation for research on economic and social issues (ESRC) website reveals funding for one software project which aids the identification of the illegal wildlife trade.

Adams, C. (2018). Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals . London: Bloomsbury.

Google Scholar  

Adams, C., & Donovan, J. (Eds.). (1995). Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations . London: Duke University Press.

Agnew, R. (1998). The Causes of Animal Abuse: A Social Psychological Analysis. Theoretical Criminology., 2 (2), 177–209.

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd rev. ed.). Washington, DC: APA.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (2020). What Is Ag-Gag Legislation . Available at: https://www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/what-ag-gag-legislation . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Arluke, A., & Irvine, L. (2017). Physical Cruelty of Companion Animals. In. J. Maher, H. Pierpoint, & P. Beirne (Eds.), Palgrave International Handbook of Animal Abuse Studies (pp. 39–58). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Arroyo-Quiroz, I., & Wyatt, T. (2019). Wildlife Trafficking Between the European Union and Mexico. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 8 (3), 23–37.

Ascione, F. (2010). The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application . West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Ascione, F., & Arkow, P. (1999). Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention . West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Ascione, F., & Shapiro, K. (2009). People and Animals, Kindness and Cruelty: Research Directions and Policy Implications. Journal of Social Issues, 65 (3), 569–587.

Beirne, P. (1999). For a Nonspeciesist Criminology: Animal Abuse as an Object of Study. Criminology, 37 (1), 117–148.

Beirne, P. (2007). Animal Rights, Animal Abuse and Green Criminology. In P. Beirne & N. South (Eds.), Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms Against Environments, Humanity and Other Animals (p. 5586). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Beirne, P. (2009). Confronting Animal Abuse: Law, Criminology and Human-Animal Relations . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Beirne, P. (2011). Animal Abuse and Criminology: Introduction to a Special Issue. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55 (5), 349–357.

Beirne, P. (2018). Murdering Animals: Writings on Theriocide, Homicide and Nonspeciesist Criminology . Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Beirne, P., & South, N. (Eds.). (2007). Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms Against Environments, Humanity and Other Animals . Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Braidotti, R. (2017). Four Theses on Posthuman Feminism. In R. Grusin (Ed.), Anthropocene Feminism (pp. 21–48). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Brisman, A., & South, N. (2014). Green Cultural Criminology: Constructions of Environmental Harm, Consumerism, and Resistance to Ecocide . London and New York: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Butt, N., Lambrick, F., Menton, M., & Renwick, A. (2019). The Supply Chain of Violence. Nature Sustainability, 2, 742–747.

Cazaux, G. (1999). Beauty and the Beast: Animal Abuse from a Non-speciesist Criminological Perspective. Crime, Law and Social Change, 31, 105–125.

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44 (4), 588–608.

Cordeiro-Rodrigues, L. (2016). Is the Animal Liberation Front Morally Justified in Engaging in Violent and Illegal Activism Towards Animal Farms? Critical Studies on Terrorism, 9 (2), 226–246.

Cox, R. (2018). New Data Reveals 197 Land and Environmental Defenders Murdered in 2017. Global Witness . Available at https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/blog/new-data-reveals-197-land-and-environmental-defenders-murdered-2017/ . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2011). Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and World Politics . London: Zed Books.

Deckha, M. (2013). Animal Advocacy, Feminism and Intersectionality. Deportate, Esuli, Profughe, 23, 48–65.

Favre, D. (2004). Integrating Animal Interests into Our Legal System. Animal Law, 10, 87–97.

Fitzgerald, A. (2010). A Social History of the Slaughterhouse: From Inception to Contemporary Implications. Human Ecology Review, 17 (1), 58–69.

Flynn, C. (2008). A Sociological Analysis of Animal Abuse. In F. R. Ascione (Ed.), International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 155–174). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

Flynn, C. (2012). Understanding Animal Abuse: A Sociological Analysis . New York: Lantern Books.

Flynn, M., & Hall, M. (2017). The Case for A Victimology of Nonhuman Animal Harms . Lincoln Eprints. Available at http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/15917/1/15917%20Non-human%20victimology%20MH%20and%20MF%20edits.pdf . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Francione, G. (2008). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation . New York: Columbia University Press.

Gaard, G. (2017). Critical Ecofeminism . London: Lexington Books.

Glendinning, L. (2008). Spanish Parliament Approves ‘Human Rights’ for Apes. The Guardian . Available at: www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare Accessed 1 January 2020.

Global Animal Law. (2020). Database Legislation . Available at: https://www.globalanimallaw.org/database/national/index.html . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Gore, M. (2017). Conservation Criminology . West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Goyes, D. (2019). Southern Green Criminology: A Science to End Ecological Discrimination . Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

Goyes, D., & Sollund, R. (2018). Animal Abuse, Biotechnology and Species Justice. Theoretical Criminology, 22 (3), 363–383.

Goyes, D., Sollund, R., & South, N. (2019). Guest Editors’ Introduction’ Special issue. Towards Global Green Criminological Dialogues: Voices from the Americas and Europe. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 8 (3), 1–5.

Gupta, M., Lunghofer, L., & Shapiro, K. (2017). Interventions with Animal Abuse Offenders. In J. Maher, H. Pierpoint, & P. Beirne (Eds.), Palgrave International Handbook of Animal Abuse Studies (pp. 497–518). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Herrmann, K. & Jayne, K. (2019). Animal Experimentation Working Towards a Paradigm Change . Boston: Brill

Hillyard, P., Pantazis, C., Tombs, S., & Gordon, D. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously . London: Fernwood.

Hurowitz, G., Jacobson, M., Higonnet, E., & von Reusner, L. (2019). The Companies Behind the Burning of the Amazon. Mighty Earth . Available at: https://stories.mightyearth.org/amazonfires/index.html . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Israel and Hay. (2011). Research Ethics in Criminology. In D. Gadd, S. Karstedt, & S. Messner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Research Methods (pp. 500–514). London: Sage.

Kenehan, S. (2019). The Moral Status of Animal Research Subjects in Industry: A Stakeholder Analysis. In K. Herrmann & K. Jayne (Eds.), Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change: Human-Animal Studies (pp. 209–223). Boston: Brill.

Lawson, C. (2019). Dogs and the Criminology of Control a Case Study of Contemporary Policy Making in England and Wales . Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Cardiff: School of Social Sciences. Cardiff: Cardiff University.

Lemieux, A., & Clarke, R. (2009). The International Ban on Ivory Sales and Its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa. The British Journal of Criminology, 49, 451–471.

Lewis, J. (2004). Testimony: Before the Senate Judiciary Committee . Washington, DC. Available at: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/animal-rights-extremism-and-ecoterrorism . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Lindemann, H. (Ed.). (2005). An Invitation to Feminist Ethics . London: McGraw-Hill.

Linzey, A. (2009). The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence . Sussex: Sussex Academic Press.

Lockwood, R., & Ascione, F. (Eds.). (1997). Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Low, P. (2012). The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals, at Churchill College , University of Cambridge, UK Available at: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Luke, C., Arluke, A., & Levin, J. (1997). Cruelty to Animals and Other Crimes . Available at: http://support.mspca.org/site/DocServer/cruelty-to-animals-and-other-crimes.pdf?docID=12541 . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Lynch, M. (2019). Green Criminology and Environmental Crime: Criminology That Matters in the Age of Global Ecological Collapse. Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime, 1 (1), 50–61.

Lynch, M., Long, M., & Stretesky, P. (2017). Green Criminology: Crime, Justice and the Environment . Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Lynch, M., & Pires, S. (2019). Quantitative Studies in Green and Conservation Criminology: The Measurement of Environmental Harm and Crime . London: Routledge.

Maher, J., Pierpoint, H., & Beirne, P. (Eds.). (2017). Palgrave International Handbook of Animal Abuse Studies . London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Maher, J., & Sollund, R. (2016). Law Enforcement of the Illegal Wildlife Trafficking: A Comparative Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis of the UK and Norway. Journal of Trafficking, Organized Crime and Security, 2 (1), 82–89.

Menache, A. (2017). Animals in Scientific Research. In J. Maher, H. Pierpoint, & P. Beirne (Eds.), Palgrave International Handbook of Animal Abuse Studies (pp. 389–416). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Merck, M. D. (2007). Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations . Ames, Iowa: Blackwell.

Mietola, R., Miettinen, S., & Vehmas, S. (2017). Voiceless Subjects? Research Ethics and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20 (3), 263–274.

Monaghan, R. (2013). Not Quite Terrorism: Animal Rights Extremism in the United Kingdom. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36 (11), 933–951.

Munro, H. (2006). Animal Sexual Abuse: A Veterinary Taboo? The Veterinary Journal, 172, 195–197.

Munro, H., & Thrusfield, M. (2001). “Battered Pets”: Features That Raise Suspicion of Nonaccidental Injury. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 42, 218–226.

Musing, L., Harris, L., Williams, A., Parry-Jones, R., van Uhm, D., & Wyatt, T. (2019). Corruption and Wildlife Crime: A Focus on Caviar Trade (A TRAFFIC, WWF, U4 ACRC, Utrecht University, and Northumbria University report).

Nibert, D. (2002). Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Nonhuman Rights Project. (2018). Litigation. Available at: www.nonhumanrights.org/litigation/ . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Nurse, A. (n/d). Legal Personhood for Animals. Available at: https://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/what-we-do/faculty-of-professional-and-social-sciences/school-of-law/features/dr-angus-nurse-legal-personhood-for-animals-is-still-some-way-off . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Nurse, A. (2012). Repainting the Thin Green Line: The Enforcement of UK Wildlife Law. Internet Journal of Criminology. Available at: https://958be75a-da42-4a45-aafa-549955018b18.filesusr.com/ugd/b93dd4_4b720aabf88442f29fec2bec2ff6fee6.pdf . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Nurse, A. (2015). An Introduction to Green Criminology and Environmental Justice . London: Sage.

Pagani, C., Robustelli, F., & Ascione, F. (2010). Investigating Animal Abuse: Some Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Anthrozoos, 23 (3), 259–276.

Piper, H., Johnson, M., Myers, S., & Pritchard, J. (2003). Children and Young People Harming Animals: Intervention Through PSHE? Research Papers in Education, 18, 197–213.

Pires, S., & Clarke, R. (2012). Are Parrots CRAVED? An Analysis of Parrot Poaching in Mexico. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 122–146.

Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Rowlands, M. (2012). Can Animals be Moral . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scheper-Hughes, N. (1995). The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Ethnography. Current Anthroplogy, 36 (3), 409–440.

Shapiro, K., & DeMello, M. (2010). The State of Human-Animal Studies. Society & Animals, 18 (3), 307–318.

Singer, P. (1995). Animal Liberation (2nd ed.). London: Pimlico.

Sollund, R. (2008). Global Harms: Ecological Crime and Speciesism . New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Sollund, R. (2012). Speciesism as Doxic Practice Versus Valuing Difference and Plurality. In R. Sollund & R. Ellefsen (Eds.), Eco-Global Crimes: Contemporary Problems and Future Challenges (pp. 91–113). New York: Routledge.

Sollund, R. (2017). Doing Green, Critical Criminology with an Auto-ethnographic, Feminist Approach. Critical Criminology, 25 (2), 1–16.

Sollund, R. (2019). The Crimes of Wildlife Trafficking: Issues of Justice, Legality and Morality . London: Routledge.

Sollund, R., & Maher, J. (2015). The Illegal Wildlife Trade . A Case Study Report on the Illegal Wildlife Trade in the United Kingdom, Norway, Colombia and Brazil. A Study Compiled as Part of the EFFACE Project. Available at: http://efface.eu/ . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Solot, D. (1997). Untangling the Animal Abuse Web. Society and Animals, 5, 257–265.

Sorenson, J. (2009). Constructing Terrorists: Propaganda About Animal Rights. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2 (2), 237–256.

South, N., & Wyatt, T. (2011). Comparing Illicit Trades in Wildlife and Drugs: An Exploratory Study. Deviant Behaviour, 32, 538–561.

Taylor, N., & Fitzgerald, A. (2018). Understanding Animal (Ab)use: Green Criminological Contributions, Missed Opportunities and a Way Forward. Theoretical Criminology, 22 (3), 402–425.

Tignino, M., & Turley, L. (2018). Granting Legal Rights to Rivers: Is International Law Ready? The Revelatory. Available at: https://therevelator.org/rivers-legal-rights/ . Accessed 1 January 2020.

van Uhm, D. (2016a). Crimes Against Nature. In The Illegal Wildlife Trade: Inside the World of Poachers, Smugglers and Traders (pp. 49–74). New York: Springer.

van Uhm, D. (2016b). The Illegal Wildlife Trade: Inside the World of Poachers, Smugglers and Traders (Studies of Organized Crime) . New York: Springer.

van Uhm, D. (2016c). Monkey business: The Illegal Trade in Barbary Macaques’. Journal of Trafficking, Organized Crime and Security, 2 (1), 36–49.

van Uhm, D. (2018). The Social Construction of the Value of Wildlife: A Green Cultural Criminological Perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 22 (3), 384–401.

Vidal, J. (2010). Bolivia Enshrines Natural World’s Rights with Equal Status for Mother Earth. The Guardian . Available at: www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-enshrines-natural-worlds-rights . Accessed 1 January 2020.

White, R. (2015). Environmental Victimology and Ecological Justice. In D. Wilson & S. Ross (Eds.), Crime, Victims and Policy: International Contexts, Local Experiences (pp. 33–52). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

White, R. (2018). Green Victimology and Non-human Victims. International Review of Victimology, 24 (2), 239–255.

World Animal Protection. (2016). Animal Protection Index. Available at: https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/about . Accessed 1 January 2020.

World Organisation for Animal Health. (2019). Terrestrial Animal Health Code . Available at: https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_introduction.htm . Accessed 1 January 2020.

Wyatt, T. (2013). Wildlife Trafficking: A Deconstruction of the Crime, the Victims, and the Offenders . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wyatt, T. (2014). Non-Human Animal Abuse and Wildlife Trade: Harm in the Fur and Falcon Trades. Society and Animals, 22, 194–210.

Wyatt, T., Maher, J., & Biddle, P. (2017). Scoping Research on the Sourcing of Pet Dogs from Illegal Importation and Puppy Farms 2016–17. Social Research Series. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Yates, R. (2011). Criminalizing Protests About Animal Abuse: Recent Irish Experience in Global Context. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55 (5), 469–482.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK

Jennifer Maher

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Maher .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Pamela Davies

Department of Sociology, Anthropology & Criminology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA

Paul Leighton

Tanya Wyatt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Maher, J. (2021). Documenting Harm to the Voiceless: Researching Animal Abuse. In: Davies, P., Leighton, P., Wyatt, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Social Harm. Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72408-5_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72408-5_8

Published : 03 September 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-72407-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-72408-5

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Extending Animal Cruelty Protections to Scientific Research

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

INTRODUCTION

On November 25, 2019, the federal law H.R. 724 – the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT) prohibiting the intentional harm of “living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians” was signed. [1] This law was a notable step in extending protections, rights, and respect to animals. While many similar state laws existed, the passing of a federal law signaled a new shift in public tone. PACT is a declaration of growing societal sentiments that uphold the necessity to shield our fellow creatures from undue harm. Protecting animals from the harm of citizens is undoubtedly important, but PACT does nothing to protect animals from state-sanctioned harm, particularly in the form of research, which causes death and cruelty. It is time to extend and expand protections for animals used in research.

There is a long history of animal experimentation in the US, but no meaningful ethical protections of animals emerged until the 20 th century. Proscription of human experimentation and dissection led to animals bearing the brunt of harm for scientific and medical progress. For instance, English physician William Harvey discovered the heart did not continuously produce blood but instead recirculated it; he made this discovery by dissecting and bleeding out living dogs without anesthesia. [2] Experiments like this were considered ethically tenable for hundreds of years. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas, and Rene Descartes held that humans have no primary moral obligations to animals and that one should be concerned about the treatment of an animal only because it could indicate how one would treat a human. [3] During the 20 th century, as agriculture became more industrialized and government funding for animal research increased, the social demand for ethical regulations finally began to shift. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act (Public Law 89-544) marked the first American federal legislation to protect laboratory animals, setting standards for use of animals in research. [4]

There has been progress in the field of animal research ethics since Harvey’s experiments, but much work remains. In the US alone, there are an estimated 20 million mice, fish, birds, and invertebrates used for animal research each year that are not regulated by the Animal Welfare Act. [5] Instead, the “3Rs Alternatives” approach (“reduce, replace, and refine”) [6] is one framework used to guide ethical treatment of animals not covered by federal protections. Unfortunately, unpacking the meaning and details of this approach only leads to ambiguity and minimal actionable guidance. For instance, an experimenter could reduce the number of animals used in research but subsequently increase the number of experiments conducted on the remaining animals. Replace could be used in the context of replacing one species with another. Refining is creating “any decrease in the severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals, which still have to be used.” [7] The vague “ any ” implies that even a negligible minimization would be ethically acceptable. [8] An experimenter could technically follow each of the “3Rs” with minimal to no reduction in harm to the animals. One must also consider whether it is coherent to refer to guidelines as ethical when they inevitably produce pain, suffering, and death as consequences of research participation.

Other ethical guides like Humane Endpoints for Laboratory Animals Used in Regulatory Testing [9] encourage researchers to euthanize animals that undergo intractable pain or distress. This is a fate that an estimated one million animals face yearly in the US. [10] However, to use the word “humane” in this context contradicts the traditional meaning and undermines the integrity of the word. Taking living creatures, forcing them to experience intractable pain and suffering for human benefit, and killing them is the antithesis of what it means to be humane. During one of my Animal Ethics classes as a graduate student, our cohort visited an animal research facility to help inform our opinions on animal research. We observed one of the euthanasia chambers for lab mice – an enclosed metal lab bench with a sign above describing methods for euthanasia if CO 2 asphyxiation were to fail. The methods included decapitation, removal of vital organs, opening of the chest cavity, incision of major blood vessels, and cervical dislocation. [11] Behind us were rows and rows of see-through shoebox-sized containers housing five mice in each little box. Thousands of mice were packed together in this room for the sole purpose of breeding. If the mice were not the correct “type” for research, then they were “humanely” euthanized. “Humane,” in this context, has been deprived of its true meaning.

One can acknowledge that animal research was historically necessary for scientific progress, but those that currently claim these practices are still required must show empirically and undoubtedly this is true. As of now, this is not a settled issue. In the scientific community, there is contention about whether current animal research is actually applicable to humans. [12] Many drug researchers even view animal testing as a tedious barrier to development as it may be wholly irrelevant to the drug or medical device being tested. Since 1962, the FDA has required preclinical testing in animals; it is time to question whether this is necessary or helpful for drug development.

The scientific community should stop viewing animal testing as an unavoidable evil in the search for medical and technological innovation. PACT should be amended and extended to all animals and the FDA should modify the requirement for preclinical animal testing of all drugs and medical devices. It is time to encourage the scientific community to find alternative research methods that do not sacrifice our fellow animals. We use animals as test subjects because, in some sense, they resemble humans. But, if they are indeed like humans, they should receive similar protections. Science builds a better world for humans, but perhaps it is time for science to be more inclusive and build a better world for all creatures.

[1] Theodore E. Deutch, “Text - H.R.724 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act,” legislation, November 25, 2019, 2019/2020, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/724/text.

[2] Anita Guerrini, “Experiments, Causation, and the Uses of Vivisection in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the History of Biology 46, no. 2 (2013): 227–54.

[3] Bernard E. Rollin, “The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27, no. 4 (September 28, 2006): 285–304, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-006-9007-8; Darian M Ibrahim, “A Return to Descartes: Property, Profit, and the Corporate Ownership of Animals,” LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 70 (n.d.): 28.

[4] Benjamin Adams and Jean Larson, “Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: Introduction | Animal Welfare Information Center| NAL | USDA,” accessed November 3, 2021, https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislative-history-animal-welfare-act-introduction.

[5] National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Patterns of Animal Use , Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research (National Academies Press (US), 1988), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218261/.

[6] Robert C. Hubrecht and Elizabeth Carter, “The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change,” Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI 9, no. 10 (September 30, 2019): 754, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100754.

[7] Hubrecht and Carter.

[8] Hubrecht and Carter.                           

[9] William S. Stokes, “Humane Endpoints for Laboratory Animals Used in Regulatory Testing,” ILAR Journal 43, no. Suppl_1 (January 1, 2002): S31–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.Suppl_1.S31.

[10] Stokes.

[11] “Euthanasia of Research Animals,” accessed April 21, 2022, https://services-web.research.uci.edu/compliance/animalcare-use/research-policies-and-guidance/euthanasia.html.

[12] Neal D. Barnard and Stephen R. Kaufman, “Animal Research Is Wasteful and Misleading,” Scientific American 276, no. 2 (1997): 80–82.

Chad Childers

MS Bioethics Candidate Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

• DOI: 10.1111/J.1540-4560.2009.01614.X
• Corpus ID: 145755057

People and Animals, Kindness and Cruelty: Research Directions and Policy Implications

• F. Ascione , Kenneth J. Shapiro
• Published 1 September 2009
• Environmental Science, Law, Psychology, Sociology
• Journal of Social Issues

95 Citations

Investigating animal abuse: some theoretical and methodological issues, examining the links between animal abuse and human violence, place-based differences in the commission of recurrent animal cruelty, animal abuse: offender and offence characteristics. a descriptive study, human-animal bonds i: the relational significance of companion animals., the rescuers: intersections of individual and group activism and the recognition of the human-animal “link”, the relations among animal abuse, psychological disorders, and crime: implications for forensic assessment., bystanders’ reactions to animal abuse in relation to psychopathy, empathy with people and empathy with nature, animal abuse issues in psychotherapy, rediscovering connections between animal welfare and human welfare: creating social work internships at a humane society, 95 references, animal abuse, cruelty, and welfare: an australian perspective, cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence : readings in research and application, an investigation into the association between the witnessing of animal abuse and adolescents' behavior toward animals, linking domestic violence, child abuse, and animal cruelty, the relationship between bullying and animal abuse behaviors in adolescents: the importance of witnessing animal abuse., children and animals: exploring the roots of kindness and cruelty, exposure to animal abuse and group context: two factors affecting participation in animal abuse, animal abuse and exposure to interparental violence in italian youth, forensic investigation of animal cruelty: a guide for veterinary and law enforcement professionals., unraveling the methods of childhood and adolescent cruelty to nonhuman animals, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Animals (Basel)

Animal Cruelty and Neighborhood Conditions

Laura a. reese.

1 Urban and Regional Planning and Political Science, Michigan State University, 517-353-5942, Human Ecology Building 552W, Circle Drive, Room 208A, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

Joshua J. Vertalka

2 Lucid Spaces, 200 N, Grand Ave, Lansing, MI 48933, USA; [email protected]

Cassie Richard

3 Oregon Commission for the Blind, 535 SE 12th Ave, Portland, OR 97214, USA; moc.liamg@041reissac

Simple Summary

Animal cruelty appears to be widespread. Competing theories have been posed regarding the causes of animal cruelty leading to conflicting findings and little direction for public policies to combat it. Using data from police department reports of animal cruelty in the City of Detroit from 2007 to 2015 this project assesses competing theories of the causes of animal cruelty. The findings suggest that deviance and social disorganization theories best account for animal cruelty. Neighborhood conditions in terms of economic stress, vacancy and blight, and crime appear to have the greatest impact on animal cruelty in this urban area.

Background: Animal cruelty appears to be widespread. Competing theories have been posed regarding the causes of animal cruelty leading to conflicting findings and little direction for public policies to combat it. Objective: To assess the applicability of extant theories of the causes of animal cruelty: domestic violence; deviance; perpetrator traits; and social disorganization. Methods: Data are drawn from police department reports of animal cruelty in the City of Detroit from 2007 to 2015; 302 incidences of animal cruelty were reported. Multiple regression is used to determine the theory which best appears to account for animal cruelty. Results: Common types of animal cruelty in Detroit are shooting; blunt force trauma; neglect; and dogfighting. While most incidents involve unknown persons; cruelty by owners; neighbors; and domestic partners is also common. Neighborhood conditions in terms of economic stress; vacancy and blight; and crime appear to have the greatest impact on animal cruelty. Conclusions: The findings from Detroit support deviance and social disorganization theories of animal cruelty. Neighborhood conditions in terms of economic stress, vacancy and blight, and crime appear to have the greatest impact on animal cruelty in this urban area.

1. Animal Cruelty and Neighborhood Conditions

Research on animal cruelty has grown exponentially and across disciplines over the course of the last two decades although work focusing explicitly on urban areas is relatively rare. Additionally, because of the complexity of the issue, it has been noted that there remains a limited understanding of companion animal cruelty:

“Companion animal cruelty is a surprisingly complex phenomenon, involving a multitude of different situational factors, motives, and other potential causes…there is no single type of companion animal cruelty offense, nor is there one typical type of companion animal cruelty offender.” [ 1 ]

It appears that animal cruelty is quite widespread. Although based on a sample of college students, recent research has suggested that 55% of surveyed respondents had intentionally harmed or killed at least one animal [ 2 ]. Because the inclusion of animal cruelty in the FBI database is recent (2016) and reporting voluntary, it is difficult to calculate national rates of cruelty in the US but it has been suggested that the available figures are underestimated because so much cruelty is hidden and otherwise unreported [ 3 ]. A survey conducted in Australia indicated that animal mistreatment was common with almost 26% of respondents reporting that they had witnessed mistreatment although the most typical perception was that they were seeing neglect as opposed to more active forms of cruelty [ 4 ].

Research across countries has attempted to assess the extent of different types of animal cruelty, although comparable data are consistently problematic. Carlisle-Frank and colleagues investigated the animal cruelty of abusers as reported by women in domestic violence shelters [ 5 ]. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that their significant other had punched, hit, choked, drowned, shot, stabbed, or thrown their animals against walls or down stairs. Denial of food, water, and veterinary care occurred in 26% of the cases. The most common forms of animal cruelty in a South African study were the restriction of movement, insufficient food or water, abandonment, neglect, lack of veterinary care, and assault [ 6 ]. A study conducted in Australia found that the most common complaints of animal cruelty, particularly for puppies, involved neglect such as poor body weight, lack of food and water, and being confined in such a way that the animal lacked appropriate exercise. Adult dogs were exposed to more active forms of cruelty such as poisoning [ 7 ]. The most frequently reported forms of animal cruelty in Manitoba, Canada, are also related to neglect (lack of food and water) and most commonly involve dogs. In Winnipeg, Canada, issues most often reported include animals locked in cars, left in conditions of extreme heat or cold, insufficient food and water, and abandonment. However, research on cruelty enforcement has found that prosecution is rare, occurring in only the most serious cases [ 8 ].

There have been calls in the academic literature to examine animal cruelty in light of larger social factors and relationships to address the complexity of causes [ 9 ]. This study does this by looking at a broadly-based set of potential correlates of animal cruelty in an urban setting including characteristics of the perpetrator, relationship between the abuser and the nonhuman animal victim, the neighborhood environment where the cruelty took place, and the types of cruelty that occurred. In doing so it weighs the applicability of four theories or explanations for animal cruelty in an urban setting highlighting the complexity of the issue and setting directions for public policies that acknowledge and address those complexities.

The article proceeds by discussing the major strands of theory and research exploring the causes and correlates of animal cruelty: human relationships/domestic violence, deviance/criminality, perpetrator traits, and social disorganization. Gaps in extant knowledge are summarized and the current research positioned within those gaps. To provide an explicit urban focus, the City of Detroit is used as the case for the analysis of police reports of animal cruelty to follow. Explanatory models are developed and tested and the implications for urban public policy addressed.

1.1. Animal Cruelty and Human Relationships/Domestic Violence

The relationship between animal cruelty and domestic violence has been extensively studied [ 10 ]. Forty-seven to seventy one percent of women in domestic violence shelters indicated that their partners had abused or threatened their pets [ 11 ]. Research comparing women that had and had not been abused found that cruelty to pets was reported by 53% of the former but only 13% of the latter [ 12 ]. Forty-one percent of men arrested for domestic violence reported committing animal cruelty as adults; the rate of animal cruelty in the general population is 1.5% [ 13 ]. Animal cruelty by domestic partners and other family members was more prevalent in violent families compared to those without domestic violence [ 10 ]. A Canadian study indicated that women reporting violence to their animals tended to suffer abuse themselves with greater frequency and severity [ 14 ].

However, recent research has suggested that domestic partners are not the only source of animal cruelty resulting from interpersonal human relationships. Animal cruelty is part of a complex of aggression that includes assault against humans, domestic violence, intimidation, and harassment. While much research has focused on romantic partners, family members and neighbors are also involved in animal cruelty [ 15 ]. Perpetrators that assault humans are also more likely to use direct force against animals. Individuals that shoot other people are more likely to shoot animals. Thus, the same modes of violence play out against both human and nonhuman animals [ 16 ].

1.2. Animal Cruelty: Deviance and Criminality

Animal cruelty has been framed as an indicator of antisocial behavior in children potentially leading to violence in adulthood [ 17 ]. This “link” or graduation hypothesis suggests that young violent offenders test their abusive skills on animals and take this knowledge, and the desensitization that goes with it, on to humans [ 18 ]. A good bit of research has supported a link between being exposed to and engaging in animal cruelty as a child and perpetrating animal cruelty and violence against humans as an adult [ 19 ]. Yet, this research has been limited to small and unrepresentative samples and work with larger datasets has not found the graduation hypothesis to be supported [ 20 ]. As a result other scholars have proposed a generalized deviance theory to explain animal cruelty suggesting that it is just one type of behavior that is tied to a complex of others such as drug use and criminality [ 21 ].

Partly tied to, and supporting, deviance theory of animal cruelty, research has explored the connections between animal cruelty and other types of crime. For example, dog fighting is related to other criminal acts such as drug and weapons offenses, and gang participation and involves dogs that are owned by the abuser [ 15 ]. Thus, it has been suggested that persistent poverty and lack of opportunities feed into a culture of gang activities which normalizes dog fighting [ 22 ].

It appears that a complex of individual traits and general criminal activity are related to animal abuse. For example, gender, race, and age were found to be correlated with animal crime in Chicago as were a juvenile crime record and crimes involving drugs and weapons leading to the conclusion that animal abusers are more similar to common street criminals than both the graduation hypotheses or studies of pathologies would suggest [ 3 ]. Thus, animal abuse is tied to both violence generally and other types of crime, including violent crime [ 23 ].

1.3. Animal Cruelty and Individual Traits of Perpetrators

Agnew posed a social psychological model of the causes of animal abuse with “social position” (gender, age, race, education) along with individual traits such as degree of empathy, self-control, and ignorance about the consequences of abusive behavior leading to animal cruelty [ 24 ]. A good bit of research has identified connections between gender, age, and animal cruelty. Overwhelmingly males are the more likely perpetrators, particularly for active and more violent forms of cruelty [ 1 ]. When women are involved in cruelty it is more likely to be passive such as neglect, hoarding, or involving poison [ 25 ]. The lower propensity for animal cruelty among women has been posited to emanate from their higher levels of empathy across animal types—pets, pests, and food—and their tendency to view themselves as animal guardians [ 26 ]. Most cruelty offenders have been found to be around 30 years old or younger although older individuals are more likely to neglect or hoard animals even in the presence of strong attachments to them [ 26 ].

Relationships between race, ethnicity, and animal cruelty have not been definitively determined in extant research, however, because of conflicting results. On the one hand, some work suggests that African Americans and Hispanics are the most frequent perpetrators of animal cruelty although racial segregation not race per se may be the driver [ 3 ]. However, other research has found white animal abuse offenders to be more common [ 27 ], that Hispanic pet owners have human-animal bonds similar to non-Hispanic whites [ 28 ], and that white partners are more likely than Hispanic ones to harm pets as part of domestic violence situations [ 29 ]. Further, whites have been found to be more engaged in dog fighting than individuals of color [ 30 ] while other research has suggested that the practice crosses racial and socioeconomic lines [ 31 ].

1.4. Animal Cruelty and Neighborhood Disorganization

A relatively recent body of research has begun to explore the larger environment of animal cruelty, specifically looking at potential connections between neighborhood conditions and rates of cruelty. Social disorganization theory posits that community structural disadvantages in terms of poverty and lack of education and opportunities, weaken social ties, social controls, and consensus against crime [ 32 ]. It has been suggested that animal cruelty will be higher in disorganized areas for these reasons [ 3 ]. For example, spatial analysis was used to identify correlations between neighborhoods with high levels of animal cruelty (including dog fighting) and domestic violence, child abuse, crime, Hispanic populations, and abandoned properties [ 33 ]. In a suburban setting, block groups with higher levels of social disorganization (measured as female-headed households, percent below the poverty level, unemployment, economic disadvantage, ethnic heterogeneity, housing tenure instability, and divorced and separated persons) were found to have more reported animal cruelty offenses [ 34 ]. General “community hardship” such as crowded housing, poverty, low income, percent of residents without a high school diploma, crime, and dependent children and seniors appears related to animal crimes [ 3 ]. Such research essentially shifts the unit of analysis from the psychological motivations of the individual perpetrator to neighborhood characteristics. However, by employing demographic indicators to measure “disorganization” such studies also run the risk of “blaming the victims” whereby systemic inequalities are redefined as neighborhood problems as opposed to conditions that place both human and nonhuman animals at risk.

1.5. Proposing and Testing a more Comprehensive Model

The research just discussed explores a variety of correlates of animal cruelty at different scales. Yet more work has been called for, particularly on community features that relate to, promote, or both, animal cruelty [ 34 ]. This research responds to that call by examining a broader array of potential correlates of animal cruelty at the sub-city level in an urban setting. Independent variables are drawn from across the literature just cited and include four categories of factors: traits of the perpetrators, relationships between perpetrator and animal including domestic violence, and socio-economic and physical neighborhood characteristics. Thus, by examining correlates across academic disciplines and approaches, the research provides a comprehensive examination of the factors related to animal cruelty in a major city.

This research focuses on animal cruelty in the City of Detroit because economic distress, vacancy and abandonment, high numbers of stray and feral dogs, high risk of dog bites, and dog fighting create circumstances ripe for animal cruelty [ 15 ]. Detroit’s economic distress limits its ability to provide animal welfare services including combating animal cruelty [ 35 ]. However, it should be noted that Detroit Animal Care and Control (the municipal agency responsible for animal control and welfare) has improved enforcement of animal welfare ordinances since the period of this study.

Data and Variables

A variety of methods have been used to explore animal cruelty. Studies of domestic violence have typically involved small samples, recall interviews, and surveys with victims and perpetrators and with college students [ 2 ]. Research on incarcerated individuals, serial killers, and sadists also provides few cases and unique populations [ 36 ]. Broader studies have examined news reports of animal cruelty or used open source websites that include convictions for animal cruelty. These have limitations in that only the most serious or attention garnering cases are included, many cases are not in the public domain, or both [ 1 ]. Finally, other studies have employed police data but have not coded the text of police reports in detail thus missing information about the circumstances surrounding the incident, victim and perpetrator, the nature and conditions of the animals, and the demographic and locational context where the incidents occurred [ 34 ]. There have been specific calls for research that considers a broad range of potential factors involved in animal cruelty that incorporates administrative data such as police reports [ 1 ]. This research addresses these calls by using animal cruelty police data with the text describing each incident coded in detail.

Police reports: All animal cruelty incidents in Detroit between 2007 and 2015 for which there is a police report were included in the analysis. Animal cruelty was categorized into eight types of abuse: dog fighting, shooting, neglect, poisoning, threat, stabbing, kicking/hitting with blunt force, and other (see [ 15 ] for a full explanation of data and coding). Attributes of the suspect, relationships between the suspect and the owner of the dog (neighbor, family member, romantic partner), whether domestic violence was suspected, and circumstances surrounding the cruelty (type of animal, breed of dog, location where abuse occurred) were also coded. Number of cruelty reports by zip code serves as the dependent variable for the study (It would have been optimal to use a smaller unit of geography such as a census tract but there were too few reported incidents in many tracts for this to have been viable. There are 29 zip codes in the City of Detroit).

Neighborhood variables: The environmental variables represent factors that have been used in previous research to indicate neighborhood conditions. However, there are additional attributes of neighborhoods, not explored in the extant literature that might create environments ripe for animal cruelty. These include features that might attract roaming dogs and present hidden locations where dog fighting could occur (vacant buildings, blighted areas, parks and greenspaces, for example). Conversely, areas where adults and children congregate might lessen the likelihood of cruelty because many “eyes” are on the scene and they represent locales of routine activities; schools and bus stops, for example (see [ 37 ] for a detailed description of data and coding). The presence of liquor stores was also measured as they could represent a source of neighborhood disorder (increasing cruelty) or more active commercial activity (lowering cruelty).

Finally, to provide a sense of other potential demographic correlates, data for the zip code where the cruelty incident occurred were collected including: unemployment, percent below the poverty level, female-headed households below the poverty level, education, median rent, food stamp use, age structure, per capita income, and occupied and vacant housing. These variables assess the level of neighborhood poverty, economic stress, and opportunity structures that have been hypothesized to increase the risk of animal cruelty [ 37 , 38 ]. These data have been drawn from the 2011 American Community Survey estimates since that is roughly the midpoint of the range of the animal cruelty data.

3.1. Nature of Cruelty Incidents

The dataset includes 302 police reports of animal cruelty over a period of nine years. It is likely that this represents an undercount of actual cruelty since reports may have gone to and been investigated by Detroit Animal Care and Control or the Michigan Humane Society also operating in Detroit. The most frequent types of animal cruelty in Detroit were shooting (23% of incidents), kicking/blunt force (21%), other (17%), neglect (12%), and dogfighting (10%). Stabbing (6%), poisoning (5%), and threatening to harm an animal (2%) are much less common. Thus, cruelty in Detroit appears different than in other studies indicating that neglect—restriction of movement, lack of food and water, abandonment, and lack of veterinary care—is the most common form of cruelty.

3.2. Traits of the Perpetrator

The perpetrators tend to be male (83%). Of the 150 suspects whose race is included in the police report, 89.3% are of color (It should be noted that 83% of Detroit residents are African American). Fewer than one third of the perpetrators (32%) were arrested for the animal cruelty incident.

Table 1 presents the results of the traits of the suspect as drawn from the police reports regressed on number of cruelty incidents in a zip code. The traits of the cruelty suspects overall do a very poor job of predicting cruelty; none of the individual variables are significantly correlated with cruelty in multiple regression.

Regression of traits of perpetrator (Female serves as the referent category for gender. Age of perpetrator was collapsed into ordinal categories; there were insufficient incidents for child and adult suspects to calculate regression data) and animal cruelty.

3.3. Human Relationships/Circumstances Surrounding Cruelty

Thirty-six percent of the cruelty incidents were committed by an unknown person. The next mostly likely perpetrators were the owner of the animal (20%), neighbors of the owner (14%), domestic partners or others involved in a romantic relationship (It would have been ideal to have also measured cruelty committed by ex-partners of the human guardian of the animal but that information was not included in the police reports) (12%), or a family member (9%). The majority of the cruelty cases involved dogs (89%, 7% involved cats, and 2% other animals). This comports with other research which has indicated dogs as the most common victims of animal cruelty [ 1 ]. Among incidents involving a dog for which the breed is identified, 57% involved pit bulls (Detroit has not conducted a dog census to determine predominant types of dogs in the city nor is there an accessible data set on dog licenses. However, over 90% of the dogs in the city’s municipal animal shelter (Detroit Animal Care and Control) at any given time are likely some type of pit bull mix suggesting that there are high rates of pit bull ownership in the city [ 35 ]. The implications of this overrepresentation would be worthy of future study.). Of the cases involving dogs, 20% died as a result of their abuse. The preponderance of incidents occurred in the animal owner’s yard or home.

As a group, the variables measuring the relationship between the suspect and the animal victim do a slightly better job of accounting for variation in total incidents in a zip code than traits of the suspect ( Table 2 ). The equation including attributes of the animal and relationship between animal and suspect accounts for 17% of the variation in cruelty. However, only one variable comes close to statistical significance; whether the owner was the suspect. Situations where domestic violence was noted in the police report as being present are not significantly correlated with number of cruelty incidents.

Regression of human relationships/circumstances surrounding cruelty. (A number of variables were removed from the equation due to high VIFs including: location of cruelty; breed of dog other than pit bull designation; abuse caused by police, unknown persons, in the course of a break-in, and neighbors; whether there was a history of abuse or bites for the animal involved; type of animal involved; specific nature of the cruelty; and number of animals involved. Reference categories thus include cruelty not part of domestic violence, cruelty by neighbor, and other dog breeds).

3.4. Socio-Economic Aspects of Neighborhood Disorganization

The socio-economic traits of the zip code where the cruelty occurred do a very good job of predicting the number of incidents of cruelty; 81% of the variation in cruelty is accounted for by the variables in the equation in Table 3 . Zip codes that are more distressed in terms of unemployment and higher rents as a percentage of income have more reported cruelty incidents. Areas with more children under 5 years of age also have more cruelty.

Regression of relationship between socioeconomics of the neighborhood and cruelty (Several demographic variables were removed from the equation due to high VIFs including: median household income, % with a bachelor’s degree, and % with a high school degree.).

3.5. Physical Aspects of Neighborhood Disorganization

Physical traits of the environment where the cruelty took place account for 72% of the variation in cruelty making it just slightly less robust than the forgoing socio-economic model ( Table 4 ). Overall cruelty appears to be strongly related to neighborhood conditions: higher building vacancy and blight, more crime as represented by murders, fewer building permits, and lack of green spaces for recreation.

Regression of relationship between physical characteristics of the neighborhood and cruelty (Variables removed from the equation due to high VIF include: bus stops; robbery; assault; land bank properties; liquor stores; parks; childcares; and middle and elementary school buildings).

3.6. Combined Model

A final regression was run including only the variables most strongly related to the number of cruelty incidents in a zip code in the previous regression analyses. Results of the best fitting model are presented in Table 5 . This model including environmental variables and whether the owner was the suspect accounts for 72% of the variation in animal cruelty (The demographic variables of rent to income, unemployment, and children under five were removed from the model due to high VIF. Cruelty by neighbor serves as the referent category for cruelty by owner). Cruelty is higher in areas with higher levels of blight, murder, a lack of building permits indicating low development activity, and less green space amenities.

Regression of best fitting model across categories of variables.

4. Discussion and Policy Implications

Detroit has a different profile of animal cruelty than has been found in previous research; neglect is relatively less frequent than active forms of abuse. This may be due to high levels of criminal violence in the city generally or to the severity of the city’s economic decline. Exploring the factors causing more active cruelty in Detroit is something that should be considered in future research.

The findings from Detroit generally appear to support the social disorganization, and to a lesser extent the deviance/criminality, theories of animal cruelty. The only human relationship that remains significantly correlated to cruelty in multiple regressions is that of an owner. None of the traits of the accused—race, gender, or age—remain related to animal cruelty in multiple regression. In short, neighborhood conditions in terms of economic stress, vacancy and blight, and crime appear to have the greatest impact on animal cruelty in this urban area. In addition to lending support for the disorder theory the findings also speak to potential policy actions to combat animal cruelty.

That animal cruelty is tied to general patterns of deviance and other violent crime has led scholars and health professionals to recommend that it be used as a marker for other types of child and family abuse. The One Health movement has called for better communication and cross-reporting between the veterinary, social work, animal sheltering, and human medical communities in an attempt to reduce violence among all family members, both human and nonhuman animals [ 39 ]. It should be noted that there are recommendations that such cross-reporting be encouraged and facilitated but not made mandatory as it could create a disincentive for taking animals for medical care or not being open about abuse in the home due to fear of retaliation [ 17 ].

There are a variety of actions that might be taken to improve the neighborhood conditions that appear to be the most important correlates of animal cruelty. In a larger sense efforts to reduce economic stress and structural inequality in terms of unemployment and high rent burdens may decrease anxiety among pet owners, allow them to more easily afford pet food and medical care, and lessen the need to embrace dog fighting as a form of income production (from both gambling and the breeding and sale of dogs). Animal welfare advocates and organizations have increasingly begun to recognize inherent discrimination related to judgments about pet-keeping and enforcement of animal welfare and control ordinances [ 40 ]. Strict enforcement of such legislation often targets low income, minority, and immigrant communities [ 41 ]. As a result, a number of animal welfare organizations around the US have been implementing programs to support those struggling financially to keep their pets in their homes providing food, low cost medical care, training assistance, fencing, crates, and so on [ 42 ]. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ (ASPCA) Keeping Pets and People Together position statement underlies such efforts [ 43 ]. These programs recognize that in situations of neglect or passive cruelty specifically, economic deprivation is the driver and that increased enforcement is not the most appropriate response particularly since the concept of “neglect” of an animal is socially determined based on the “myth” of the irresponsible owner [ 42 ]. The partnership between the ASCPA and the New York Police Department (NYPD) to fight animal cruelty is an example of an effort to address these concerns. Here the resources of the NYPD are brought to bear on animal cruelty cases while the ASPCA focuses on the health and welfare of the nonhuman animal victims and also the needs of guardians in cases where pets may be able, with a supportive response, to remain in their homes [ 44 ].

However, other attributes of the environment are also related to cruelty. Addressing abandonment and blight should also reduce cruelty. Vacancy and blight are markers that a neighborhood has been left behind economically and socially. Many animals have been left in abandoned homes as the result of foreclosure and precarious housing options that often restrict size or type (read pit bull) of dog. Vacant structures provide places for stray and feral animals to hide. Checking vacant homes for animals, placing them in an animal shelter, and boarding up the structures or razing them entirely should reduce the cruelty that un-homed animals may experience on the streets and improve general welfare. Expanding programs to remove abandoned buildings and clear blighted lots should reduce habitats for stray and feral animals but also make the area more desirable and less open to crime and further deterioration. Neighborhoods with high vacancy and blight may suffer from other markers of economic distress thus endangering the social capital necessary for protective behaviors.

Finally, dog fighting in particular is tied to other types of criminality such as drug offenses and involves dogs owned by the perpetrator [ 15 ]. Crackdowns on dog fighting and breeding and drug and weapons possession and sales would likely reduce this type of animal cruelty. Cooperation and communication between public safety and humane organizations would help identify the locations of dog fighting based on the condition of animals ending up at animal control and would enhance police resources with investigators trained and experienced in animal cruelty investigations [ 3 ]. However, it should be noted that police and animal control responses to dog fighting and breeding are tied to social constructions of gender and race and increased enforcement efforts will likely fall more heavily on communities of color.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study which speak for needed future research. First, it would have been ideal to have explored neighborhood variation using a smaller geography than zip codes. Future research could collect data from a longer time period and from more cities to allow for sufficient cases of animal cruelty for census tract analysis. Second, the study is based in a single US city and thus findings might not be generalizable to other urban contexts. Third, the text of the police reports varied in level of detail and individual officers could have had different perceptions of a variety of variables such as breed of dog, severity of incident, and whether domestic violence was involved. Fourth, communities with more police are likely to evidence more police reports of animal cruelty because of greater resources, making comparisons across cities problematic. Further, there has been no research to date that explores the connections between different types of cruelty and the theories explored. For example, are the types of cruelty related to neighborhood conditions different from those that stem from domestic violence? There are reasons to suspect that this might be the case with domestic violence related to more violent cruelty such as beating and kicking animals [ 15 ] and animal abandonment potentially more likely in areas with greater housing vacancy. Testing these possibilities is ripe for future research. Finally, the analysis does not interrogate the nexus between the need to implement measures to identify and reduce animal cruelty and over policing in minority and immigrant communities which places their animals and themselves at greater risk of enforcement. The optimal balance between these realities is a necessary topic for future research.

5. Conclusions

While this research points to neighborhood conditions as the strongest predictors of animal cruelty, domestic violence and other interpersonal relationships, and in some cases, traits of the perpetrator, have been found to be related to different aspects of animal cruelty in other research. Thus, it is unlikely that solely focusing on conditions within the environment will address all aspects of animal cruelty. Systemic inequality breeds many conditions that put both humans and animals at risk of violence and greatly challenges the ability of even caring animal guardians to meet the needs of their pets. Better understanding the complexity of animal abuse can only lead to more effective and multi-pronged efforts to combat it.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.A.R., J.J.V. and C.R.; L.A.R. and J.J.V.; formal analysis, L.A.R. and J.J.V.; data curation, L.A.R. and C.R.; writing—original draft preparation, L.A.R.; writing—review and editing, L.A.R. and J.J.V.; supervision, L.A.R.; project administration, L.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Animal abuse as an indicator of domestic violence: one health, one welfare approach.

Simple Summary

1. introduction, 2. material and methods, 3. animal cruelty as an indicator of domestic violence, 4. risk factors for the development of animal cruelty in children, 4.1. empathy, 4.2. callous-unemotional traits, 5. warning signs of the potential for domestic violence and animal abuse, 6. animal cruelty and animal protection laws, 7. one health, one welfare approach, 8. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Kellert, S.R.; Felthous, A.R. Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Hum. Relat. 1985 , 38 , 1113–1129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Volant, A.M.; Johnson, J.A.; Gullone, E.; Coleman, G.J. The relationship between domestic violence and animal abuse. J. Interpers. Violence 2008 , 23 , 1277–1295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arkow, P.; Boyden, P.; Patterson-Kane, E. Practical Guidence for the Effective Response by Veterinarians to Suspected Animal Cruelty, Abuse and Neglect. Available online: https://ebusiness.avma.org/Files/ProductDownloads/AVMA%20Suspected%20Animal%20Cruelty.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2021).
• University, T.; Boston, A.R.L.; Folks, A. Reporting Animal Cruelty—The Role of the Veterinarian: Establishing Protocols to Identify and Report Suspected Animal Cruelty in Massachusetts. Available online: https://vet.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/MA_Reporting-Manual-August-2018.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2021).
• Ascione, F.R. Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos 1993 , 6 , 226–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, H.C.; Wong, R.W.Y. Childhood and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent interpersonal violence in adulthood: A review of the literature. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2019 , 48 , 83–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallagher, B.; Allen, M.; Jones, B. Animal abuse and intimate partner violence: Researching the link and its significance in Ireland—A veterinary perspective. Ir. Vet. J. 2008 , 61 , 658. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bright, M.A.; Huq, M.S.; Spencer, T.; Applebaum, J.W.; Hardt, N. Animal cruelty as an indicator of family trauma: Using adverse childhood experiences to look beyond child abuse and domestic violence. Child Abuse Negl. 2018 , 76 , 287–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beirne, P. Rethinking bestiality. Theor. Criminol. 1997 , 1 , 317–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beetz, A.M. Bestiality/zoophilia: A scarcely investigated phenomenon between crime, paraphilia, and love. J. Forensic Psychol. Pract. 2004 , 4 , 1–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shih, H.Y.; Paterson, M.B.A.; Phillips, C.J.C. Breed group effects on complaints about canine welfare made to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Queensland, Australia. Animals 2019 , 9 , 390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gomes, L.B.; Paiva, M.T.; Lisboa, L.d.O.; de Oliveira, C.S.F.; Garcia, R.d.C.M.; Soares, D.F.d.M. Diagnosis of animal abuse: A Brazilian study. Prev. Vet. Med. 2021 , 194 , 105421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Siqueira, A.; Cassiano, F.C.; Landi, M.F.d.A.; Marlet, E.F.; Maiorka, P.C. Non-accidental injuries found in necropsies of domestic cats: A review of 191 cases. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2012 , 14 , 723–728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• World Health Organization (WHO). World Report on Violence and Health: Summary. Available online: https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2021).
• Macdonald, J. The threat to kill. Am. J. Psychiatry 1963 , 120 , 125–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ascione, F.R.; Weber, C.V.; Thompson, T.M.; Heath, J.; Maruyama, M.; Hayashi, K. Battered Pets and Domestic Violence. Violence Women 2007 , 13 , 354–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Febres, J.; Shorey, R.C.; Brasfield, H.; Zucosky, H.C.; Ninnemann, A.; Elmquist, J.; Bucossi, M.M.; Andersen, S.M.; Schonbrun, Y.C.; Stuart, G.L. Adulthood animal abuse among women court-referred to batterer intervention programs. J. Interpers. Violence 2012 , 27 , 3115–3126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• McDonald, S.E.; Collins, E.A.; Nicotera, N.; Hageman, T.O.; Ascione, F.R.; Williams, J.H.; Graham-Bermann, S.A. Children’s experiences of companion animal maltreatment in households characterized by intimate partner violence. Child Abuse Negl. 2015 , 50 , 116–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Monsalve, S.; Ferreira, F.; Garcia, R. The connection between animal abuse and interpersonal violence: A review from the veterinary perspective. Res. Vet. Sci. 2017 , 114 , 18–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Newberry, M. Pets in danger: Exploring the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2017 , 34 , 273–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faver, C.A.; Strand, E.B. Fear, guilt, and grief: Harm to pets and the emotional abuse of women. J. Emot. Abus. 2007 , 7 , 51–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alleyne, E.; Parfitt, C. Adult-perpetrated animal abuse: A systematic literature review. Trauma Violence Abus. 2019 , 20 , 344–357. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDonald, S.E.; Collins, E.A.; Maternick, A.; Nicotera, N.; Graham-Bermann, S.; Ascione, F.R.; Williams, J.H. Intimate partner violence survivors’ reports of their children’s exposure to companion animal maltreatment: A qualitative study. J. Interpers. Violence 2019 , 34 , 2627–2652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monsalve, S.; Pereira, É.L.; Leite, L.O.; Polo, G.; Garcia, R. Perception, knowledge and attitudes of small animal practitioners regarding animal abuse and interpersonal violence in Brazil and Colombia. Res. Vet. Sci. 2019 , 124 , 61–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pinel, P. A treatise on Insanity ; Messers Cadell & Davies, Strand: London, UK, 1806; pp. 1–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mead, M. Cultural factors in the cause and prevention of pathological homicide. Bull. Menn. Clin. 1964 , 28 , 11–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leary, T.; Southard, L.; Hill, J.; Ashman, J. The MacDonald Triad revisited: An empirical assessment of relationships between triadic elements and parental abuse in serial killers. N. Am. J. Psychol. 2017 , 19 , 627–640. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reese, L.A.; Vertalka, J.J.; Richard, C. Animal cruelty and neighborhood conditions. Animals 2020 , 10 , 2095. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Allen, M.; Gallagher, B.; Jones, B. Domestic violence and the abuse of pets: Researching the link and its implications in Ireland. Practice 2006 , 18 , 167–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartman, C.; Hageman, T.; Williams, J.H.; Mary, J.S.; Ascione, F.R. Exploring empathy and callous–unemotional traits as predictors of animal abuse perpetrated by children exposed to intimate partner violence. J. Interpers. Violence 2019 , 34 , 2419–2437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Travers, C.; Dixon, A.; Thorne, K.; Spicer, K. Cruelty towards the family pet: A survey of women experiencing domestic violence on the Central Coast, New South Wales. Med. J. Aust. 2009 , 191 , 409–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faver, C.A.; Strand, E.B. To leave or to stay? J. Interpers Violence 2003 , 18 , 1367–1377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vaughn, M.G.; Fu, Q.; DeLisi, M.; Beaver, K.M.; Perron, B.E.; Terrell, K.; Howard, M.O. Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2009 , 43 , 1213–1218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Dadds, M.R.; Whiting, C.; Bunn, P.; Fraser, J.A.; Charlson, J.H.; Pirola-Merlo, A. Measurement of cruelty in children: The cruelty to animals inventory. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2004 , 32 , 321–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Dadds, M.R.; Hunter, K.; Hawes, D.J.; Frost, A.D.J.; Vassallo, S.; Bunn, P.; Merz, S.; Masry, Y. El A measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2008 , 39 , 111–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Frick, P.J.; Cornell, A.H.; Barry, C.T.; Bodin, S.D.; Dane, H.E. Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2003 , 31 , 457–470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Woolf, J.A. How can veterinarians be reporters of animal abuse when they are not taught to recognize it? J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2015 , 247 , 1363–1364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Monsalve, S.; de Souza, P.V.; Lopes, A.S.; Leite, L.O.; Polo, G.; Garcia, R. Veterinary forensics, animal welfare and animal abuse: Perceptions and knowledge of Brazilian and Colombian veterinary students. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2021 , 48 , 640–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Creevy, K.E.; Shaver, S.L.; Cornell, K.K. Domestic violence shelter partnerships and veterinary student attitudes at North American veterinary schools and colleges. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2013 , 40 , 184–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sharpe, M.S.; Wittum, T.E. Veterinarian involvement in the prevention and intervention of human violence and animal abuse: A survey of small animal practitioners. Anthrozoos 1999 , 12 , 97–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, V.; Dale, A.; Clarke, N.; Garrett, N. Animal abuse and family violence: Survey on the recognition of animal abuse by veterinarians in New Zealand and their understanding of the correlation between animal abuse and human violence. N. Z. Vet. J. 2008 , 56 , 21–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Randour, M.L.; Smith-Blackmore, M.; Blaney, N.; DeSousa, D.; Guyony, A.-A. Animal abuse as a type of trauma: Lessons for human and animal service professionals. Trauma Violence Abus. 2021 , 22 , 277–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McGuinness, K.; Allen, M.; Jones, B.R. Non-accidental injury in companion animals in the Republic of Ireland. Ir. Vet. J. 2005 , 58 , 392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Roth, I.; Martin, J. A case of animal and domestic abuse initially diagnosed as legg-calve-perthes disease. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2018 , 54 , e54603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ascione, F.R.; Arkow, P.; Ascione, F.R.; Arkow, P. Another weapon for combating family violence: Prevention of animal abuse. In Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Preventions and Intervention ; Ascione, F.R., Arkow, P., Eds.; Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 1999; pp. 62–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeGue, S.; DiLillo, D. Is animal cruelty a “red flag” for family violence? J. Interpers. Violence 2009 , 24 , 1036–1056. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Informe sobre la situación mundial de la prevención de la violencia contra los niños. Available online: https://www.who.int/es/news/item/18-06-2020-countries-failing-to-prevent-violence-against-children-agencies-warn (accessed on 22 December 2021).
• Mora-Medina, P.; Arvizu-Tovar, L.O.; Flores-Peinado, S.C.; Flores-Huitrón, N.R.; Arch-Tirado, E.; Lino-González, A. Animal abuse as an indicator of domestic violence. Enseñanza e Investig. en Psicol. 2020 , 2 , 288–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walton-Moss, B.J.; Manganello, J.; Frye, V.; Campbell, J.C. Risk factors for intimate partner violence and associated injury among urban women. J. Community Health 2005 , 30 , 377–389. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holt, S.; Buckley, H.; Whelan, S. The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse Negl. 2008 , 32 , 797–810. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shirtcliff, E.A.; Vitacco, M.J.; Graf, A.R.; Gostisha, A.J.; Merz, J.L.; Zahn-Waxler, C. Neurobiology of empathy and callousness: Implications for the development of antisocial behavior. Behav. Sci. Law 2009 , 27 , 137–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Moul, C.; Hawes, D.J.; Dadds, M.R. Mapping the developmental pathways of child conduct problems through the neurobiology of empathy. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018 , 91 , 34–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Decety, J.; Norman, G.J.; Berntson, G.G.; Cacioppo, J.T. A neurobehavioral evolutionary perspective on the mechanisms underlying empathy. Prog. Neurobiol. 2012 , 98 , 38–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mrug, S.; Madan, A.; Windle, M. Emotional desensitization to violence contributes to adolescents’ violent behavior. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2016 , 44 , 75–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Commins, S. Behavioral Neuroscience ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 48–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ripoll, L.H.; Snyder, R.; Steele, H.; Siever, L.J. The neurobiology of empathy in borderline personality disorder. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2013 , 15 , 344. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Decety, J. Empathy in medicine: What it is, and how much we really need it. Am. J. Med. 2020 , 133 , 561–566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McPhedran, S. A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2009 , 14 , 1–4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taylor, N.; Signal, T.D. Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoos 2005 , 18 , 18–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jegatheesan, B.; Enders-Slegers, M.-J.; Ormerod, E.; Boyden, P. Understanding the link between animal cruelty and family violence: The bioecological systems model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 3116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hardesty, J.L.; Khaw, L.; Ridgway, M.D.; Weber, C.; Miles, T. Coercive control and abused women’s Decemberisions about their pets when seeking shelter. J. Interpers. Violence 2013 , 28 , 2617–2639. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hartman, C.A.; Hageman, T.; Williams, J.H.; Ascione, F.R. Intimate partner violence and animal abuse in an immigrant-rich sample of mother–child dyads recruited from domestic violence programs. J. Interpers. Violence 2018 , 33 , 1030–1047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Upadhya, V. The abuse of animals as a method of domestic violence: The need for criminalization. Emory Law J. 2014 , 63 , 1163–1209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hawkins, R.D.; McDonald, S.E.; O’Connor, K.; Matijczak, A.; Ascione, F.R.; Williams, J.H. Exposure to intimate partner violence and internalizing symptoms: The moderating effects of positive relationships with pets and animal cruelty exposure. Child Abuse Negl. 2019 , 98 , 104166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Girardi, A.; Pozzulo, J.D. Childhood experiences with family pets and internalizing symptoms in early adulthood. Anthrozoos 2015 , 28 , 421–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carlisle-Frank, P.; Frank, J.M.; Nielsen, L. Selective battering of the family pet. Anthrozoos 2004 , 17 , 26–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Currie, C.L. Animal cruelty by children exposed to domestic violence. Child Abuse Negl. 2006 , 30 , 425–435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Longobardi, C.; Badenes-Ribera, L. The relationship between animal cruelty in children and adolescent and interpersonal violence: A systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2019 , 46 , 201–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Campbell, A.M. The intertwined well-being of children and non-human animals: An analysis of animal control reports involving children. Soc. Sci. 2022 , 11 , 46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baldry, A.C. Animal abuse and exposure to interparental violence in Italian youth. J. Interpers. Violence 2003 , 18 , 258–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gullone, E.; Robertson, N. The relationship between bullying and animal abuse behaviors in adolescents: The importance of witnessing animal abuse. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2008 , 29 , 371–379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muñoz, L.C.; Qualter, P.; Padgett, G. Empathy and bullying: Exploring the influence of callous-unemotional traits. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2011 , 42 , 183–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zych, I.; Ttofi, M.M.; Farrington, D.P. Empathy and callous–unemotional traits in different bullying roles: A systematic Review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abus. 2019 , 20 , 3–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ladny, R.T.; Meyer, L. Traumatized witnesses: Review of childhood exposure to animal cruelty. J. Child Adolesc. Trauma 2020 , 13 , 527–537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ascione, F.R.; Friedrich, W.N.; Heath, J.; Hayashi, K. Cruelty to animals in normative, sexually abused, and outpatient psychiatric samples of 6- to 12-year-old children: Relations to maltreatment and exposure to domestic violence. Anthrozoos 2003 , 16 , 194–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mellor, D.; Yeow, J.; Mamat, N.H.b.; Hapidzal, N.F.b.M. The relationship between childhood cruelty to animals and psychological adjustment: A malaysian atudy. Anthrozoos 2008 , 21 , 363–374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanders, C.E.; Henry, B.C. Nonhuman animal cruelty, bullying, and behavioral difficulties among women. Soc. Anim. 2015 , 23 , 68–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baldry, A.C. Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Crim. Behav. Ment. Heal. 2005 , 15 , 97–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Henry, B.; Sanders, C. Bullying and animal abuse: Is there a connection? Soc. Anim. 2007 , 15 , 107–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Walters, G.D. Animal cruelty and bullying: Behavioral markers of delinquency risk or causal antecedents of delinquent behavior? Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2019 , 62 , 77–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tapia, F. Children who are cruel to animals. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 1971 , 2 , 70–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hensley, C.; Tallichet, S.E. The effect of inmates’ self-reported childhood and adolescent animal cruelty. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 2008 , 52 , 175–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hensley, C.; Tallichet, S.E.; Dutkiewicz, E.L. Recurrent childhood animal cruelty. Crim. Justice Rev. 2009 , 34 , 248–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hensley, C.; Tallichet, S.E. Childhood and adolescent animal cruelty methods and their possible link to adult violent crimes. J. Interpers. Violence 2009 , 24 , 147–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wright, J.; Hensley, C. From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the graduation hypothesis. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 2003 , 47 , 71–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patterson-Kane, E. The relation of animal maltreatment to aggression. In Animal Maltreatment: Forensic Mental Health Issues and Evaluations ; Levitt, L., Patronek, G.J., Grisso, T., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 140–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morales-Vives, F.; Cosi, S.; Lorenzo-Seva, U.; Vigil-Colet, A. The inventory of callous-unemotional traits and antisocial behavior (inca) for young people: Development and validation in a community sample. Front. Psychol. 2019 , 10 , 713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Anderson, N.E.; Kiehl, K.A. Psychopathy: Developmental perspectives and their implications for treatment. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2014 , 32 , 103–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Van Dongen, J.D.M. The empathic brain of psychopaths: From social science to neuroscience in empathy. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 11 , 695. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Pisano, S.; Muratori, P.; Gorga, C.; Levantini, V.; Iuliano, R.; Catone, G.; Coppola, G.; Milone, A.; Masi, G. Conduct disorders and psychopathy in children and adolescents: Aetiology, clinical presentation and treatment strategies of callous-unemotional traits. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2017 , 43 , 84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Lockwood, R.; Arkow, P. Animal abuse and interpersonal violence. Vet. Pathol. 2016 , 53 , 910–918. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Dadds, M.R.; Whiting, C.; Hawes, D.J. Associations among cruelty to animals, family conflict, and psychopathic traits in childhood. J. Interpers. Violence 2006 , 21 , 411–429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henderson, B.B.; Hensley, C.; Tallichet, S.E. Childhood animal cruelty methods and their link to adult interpersonal violence. J. Interpers. Violence 2011 , 26 , 2211–2227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Salvagni, F.A.; de Siqueira, A.; Fukushima, A.R.; Landi, M.F.d.A.; Ponge-Ferreira, H.; Maiorka, P.C. Animal serial killing: The first criminal conviction for animal cruelty in Brazil. Forensic Sci. Int. 2016 , 267 , e1–e5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siever, L.J. Neurobiology of aggression and violence. Am. J. Psychiatry 2008 , 165 , 429–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lischinsky, J.E.; Lin, D. Neural mechanisms of aggression across species. Nat. Neurosci. 2020 , 23 , 1317–1328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henry, B.C. Exposure to animal abuse and group context: Two factors affecting participation in animal abuse. Anthrozoos 2004 , 17 , 290–305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McEwen, F.S.; Moffitt, T.E.; Arseneault, L. Is childhood cruelty to animals a marker for physical maltreatment in a prospective cohort study of children? Child. Abuse Negl. 2014 , 38 , 533–543. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Crenshaw, D.A.; Mordock, J.B. Understanding and Treating Aggression of Children ; Jason Aronson: Lanham, MD, USA, 2005; pp. 23–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morera, M.D.; Quiles, M.N.; Correa, A.D.; Delgado, N.; Leyens, J.-P. Perception of mind and dehumanization: Human, animal, or machine? Int. J. Psychol. 2018 , 53 , 253–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Parkes, D.; Signal, T. Revisiting a link: Animal abuse, bullying, and empathy in Australian youth. Human. Anim. Interat. Bull. 2007 , 5 , 26–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ascione, F.R.; Thompson, T.M.; Black, T. Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoos 1997 , 10 , 170–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hensley, C.; Tallichet, S.E. Animal cruelty motivations. J. Interpers. Violence 2005 , 20 , 1429–1443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, K.S.; Knutson, J.F. Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students. Child. Abuse Negl. 1997 , 21 , 59–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arluke, A.; Madfis, E. Animal abuse as a warning sign of school massacres. Homicide Stud. 2014 , 18 , 7–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flynn, C.P. Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children’s cruelty to animals. J. Marriage Fam. 1999 , 61 , 971. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riggs, D.W.; Taylor, N.; Fraser, H.; Donovan, C.; Signal, T. The link between domestic violence and abuse and animal cruelty in the intimate relationships of people of diverse genders and/or sexualities: A binational study. J. Interpers. Violence 2021 , 36 , 3169–3195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Faver, C.A. School-based humane education as a strategy to prevent violence: Review and recommendations. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2010 , 32 , 365–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hawkins, R.D.; Williams, J.M. Children’s Beliefs about Animal Minds (Child-BAM): Associations with positive and negative child–animal interactions. Anthrozoos 2016 , 29 , 503–519. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miralles, A.; Raymond, M.; Lecointre, G. Empathy and compassion toward other species Decemberrease with evolutionary divergence time. Sci. Rep. 2019 , 9 , 19555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jolliffe, D.; Farrington, D.P. Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2004 , 9 , 441–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jolliffe, D.; Farrington, D.P. Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggress. Behav. 2006 , 32 , 540–550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Plant, M.; van Schaik, P.; Gullone, E.; Flynn, C. “It’s a dog’s life”: Culture, empathy, gender, and domestic violence predict animal abuse in adolescents—implications for societal health. J. Interpers. Violence 2019 , 34 , 2110–2137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Hawkins, E.L.; Hawkins, R.D.; Caceres Castellanos, L.M.; Williams, J.M. The links between personality, empathy and animal cruelty attitudes and behaviour: A cross national comparison. In Proceedings of the Human—Animal Interconnections, Davis, CA, USA, 22–25 June 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frick, P.J.; White, S.F. Research Review: The importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 2008 , 49 , 359–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lahey, B.B.; Waldman, I.D.; McBurnett, K. Annotation: The development of antisocial behavior: An integrative causal model. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 1999 , 40 , 669–682. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muñoz, L.C. Callous-unemotional traits are related to combined deficits in recognizing afraid faces and body poses. J. Am. Acad. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2009 , 48 , 554–562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Zhang, H.; Wilson, A.; Shuai, L.; Xia, W.; Wang, Z.; Qiu, M.; Wang, Y. Callous-unemotional traits in Chinese preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2021 , 15 , 35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fanti, K.A. Individual, social, and behavioral factors associated with co-occurring conduct problems and callous-unemotional traits. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 2013 , 41 , 811–824. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barry, C.T.; Frick, P.J.; DeShazo, T.M.; McCoy, M.; Ellis, M.; Loney, B.R. The importance of callous–unemotional traits for extending the concept of psychopathy to children. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2000 , 109 , 335–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frick, P.J.; Ray, J.V. Evaluating callous-unemotional traits as a personality construct. J. Pers. 2015 , 83 , 710–722. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wright, N.; Pickles, A.; Sharp, H.; Hill, J. A psychometric and validity study of callous-unemotional traits in 2.5 year old children. Sci. Rep. 2021 , 11 , 8065. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• McDonald, S.E.; Cody, A.M.; Booth, L.J.; Peers, J.R.; O’Connor Luce, C.; Williams, J.H.; Ascione, F.R. Animal cruelty among children in violent households: Children’s explanations of their behavior. J. Fam. Violence 2018 , 33 , 469–480. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, C. Childhood animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2001 , 21 , 735–749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Felthous, A.R.; Bernard, H. Enuresis, firesetting, and cruelty to animals: The significance of two thirds of this triad. J. Forensic Sci. 1979 , 24 , 240–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ressler, R.K.; Burgess, A.W.; Hartman, C.R.; Douglas, J.E.; McCormack, A. Murderers who rape and mutilate. J. Interpers. Violence 1986 , 1 , 273–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rigdon, J.; Tapia, F. Children who are cruel to animals: A follow-up study. J. Oper. Psychiatr. 1977 , 8 , 27–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holoyda, B.J.; Newman, W.J. Childhood animal cruelty, bestiality, and the link to adult interpersonal violence. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2016 , 47 , 129–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kinsey, A.C.; Pomeroy, W.R.; Martin, C.E. Sexual behavior in the human male. Am. J. Public Health 2003 , 93 , 894–898. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fleming, W.; Jory, B.; Burton, D. Characteristics of juvenile offenders admitting to sexual activity with nonhuman animals. Soc. Anim. 2002 , 10 , 31–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hensley, C.; Tallichet, S.E.; Singer, S.D. Exploring the possible link between childhood and adolescent bestiality and interpersonal violence. J. Interpers. Violence 2006 , 21 , 910–923. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abel, G. What can 44,000 men and 12,000 boys with sexual behavior problems teach us about preventing sexual abuse. In Proceedings of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending 11th Annual Training Conference, Emerging Perspectives on Sexual Abuse Management, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–11 May 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hensley, C.; Tallichet, S.E.; Dutkiewicz, E.L. Childhood bestiality. J. Interpers. Violence 2010 , 25 , 557–567. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holoyda, B.; Newman, W. Zoophilia and the law: Legal responses to a rare paraphilia. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 2014 , 42 , 412–420. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Gupta, M. Functional links between intimate partner violence and animal abuse: Personality features and representations of aggression. Soc. Anim. 2008 , 16 , 223–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Junewicz, A.; Billick, S.B. Conduct disorder: Biology and developmental trajectories. Psychiatr. Q. 2020 , 91 , 77–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kimonis, E.R.; Fanti, K.A.; Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, X.; Mertan, B.; Goulter, N.; Katsimicha, E. Can callous-unemotional traits be reliably measured in preschoolers? J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 2016 , 44 , 625–638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MacDonald, J.M.; Boyd, S.; Galvin, J.A.V. The Murderer and His Victim , 2nd ed.; Thomas, C.C., Ed.; Hemisphere Publisher Comporation: Springfield, MA, USA, 1961; pp. 1–420. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walters, G.D. Animal cruelty and firesetting as behavioral markers of fearlessness and disinhibition: Putting two-thirds of Macdonald’s triad to work. J. Forens. Psychiatry Psychol. 2017 , 28 , 10–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McEwen, B. Eternally Vulnerable: The Pathology of Abuse in Domestic Animals. Acad. Forensic Pathol. 2017 , 7 , 353–369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teicher, M.H.; Samson, J.A.; Anderson, C.M.; Ohashi, K. The effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure, function and connectivity. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2016 , 17 , 652–666. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, J.; Jeong, B.; Polcari, A.; Rohan, M.L.; Teicher, M.H. Reduced fractional anisotropy in the visual limbic pathway of young adults witnessing domestic violence in childhood. Neuroimage 2012 , 59 , 1071–1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Joinson, C.; Sullivan, S.; von Gontard, A.; Heron, J. Stressful events in early childhood and developmental trajectories of bedwetting at school age. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2016 , 41 , 1002–1010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Joinson, C.; Grzeda, M.T.; von Gontard, A.; Heron, J. A prospective cohort study of biopsychosocial factors associated with childhood urinary incontinence. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2019 , 28 , 123–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Gannon, T.A.; Pina, A. Firesetting: Psychopathology, theory and treatment. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2010 , 15 , 224–238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collins, J.; Barnoux, M.; Langdon, P.E. A preliminary firesetting offence chain for adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2022 , 2022 , 2037186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parfitt, C.H.; Alleyne, E. Not the sum of its parts: A critical review of the MacDonald triad. Trauma Violence Abus. 2020 , 21 , 300–310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joubert, D.; Welsh, K.; Edward, L.J. Validity of the MacDonald triad as a forensic construct: Links with psychopathology and patterns of aggression in sex offenders. Leg. Criminol. Psychol. 2021 , 26 , 103–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoffer, T.; Hargreaves-Cormany, H.; Muirhead, Y.; Meloy, J.R. Description of the problem of animal cruelty and its association with interpersonal violence. In Violence in Animal Cruelty Offerders ; Hoffer, T., Hargreaves-Cormany, H., Muirhead, Y., Meloy, J.R., Eds.; SpringerBriefs in Psychology: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 31–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aggrawal, A. A new classification of zoophilia. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2011 , 18 , 73–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Holoyda, B.; Sorrentino, R.; Friedman, S.H.; Allgire, J. Bestiality: An introduction for legal and mental health professionals. Behav. Sci. Law 2018 , 36 , 687–697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stern, A.W.; Smith-Blackmore, M. Veterinary forensic pathology of animal sexual abuse. Vet. Pathol. 2016 , 53 , 1057–1066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edwards, M.J. Arrest and prosecution of animal sex abuse (bestiality) offenders in the united states, 1975–2015. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 2019 , 47 , 335–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Satapathy, S.; Swain, R.; Pandey, V.; Behera, C. An adolescent with bestiality behaviour: Psychological evaluation and community health concerns. Indian J. Community Med. 2016 , 41 , 23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holoyda, B.; Gosal, R.; Michelle Welch, K. Bestiality among sexually violent predators. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 2020 , 48 , 358–364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• De Gea, T. Historia del Derecho Animal. Available online: https://www.abogacia.es/publicaciones/blogs/blog-de-derecho-de-los-animales/historia-del-derecho-animal/ (accessed on 23 July 2020).
• Ryder, R.D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism ; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1989; pp. 1–300. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trent, N.; Edwards, S.; Felt, J.; O’Meara, K. International animal law, with a concentration on Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In The State of the Animals III ; Salem, D., Rowan, A., Eds.; Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 65–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morton, R.; Hebart, M.L.; Ankeny, R.A.; Whittaker, A.L. Assessing the uniformity in australian animal protection law: A statutory comparison. Animals 2020 , 11 , 35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cardoso, S.D.; Faraco, C.B.; de Sousa, L.; Da Graça Pereira, G. History and evolution of the European legislation on welfare and protection of companion animals. J. Vet. Behav. 2017 , 19 , 64–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carpenter, A.F.; Song, W. Changing attitudes about the weak: Social and legal conditions for animal protection in China. Crit. Asian Stud. 2016 , 48 , 380–399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fuseini, A.; Knowles, T.; Hadley, P.; Wotton, S. Food and companion animal welfare: The Islamic perspective. CAB Rev. 2017 , 12 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Villafañe-Ferrer, L.M.; Gómez-Camargo, D.E.; Gómez-Arias, R.D. Normativas para la protección de mascotas: Situación de Colombia, Chile, Uruguay y México. Rev. MVZ Córdoba 2020 , 25 , e1609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Otto, S.K. State animal protection laws—The next generation. Anim. Law 2005 , 11 , 131–166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibrahim, D.M. The anticruelty Statute: A study in animal welfare. arizona legal studies discussion Paper. J. Anim. Law Ethics 2006 , 1 , 175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benetato, M.A.; Reisman, R.; McCobb, E. The veterinarian’s role in animal cruelty cases. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2011 , 238 , 31–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scheffer, G.K. Animal abuse: A close relationship with domestic violence. Derecho Anim. Forum Anim. Law Stud. 2019 , 10 , 56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morton, R.; Hebart, M.; Whittaker, A. Increasing maximum penalties for animal welfare offences in south australia—Has it caused penal change? Animals 2018 , 8 , 236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Gilbreath, T. Where’s Fido: Pets are missing in domestic violence shelters and stalking laws. J. Anim. Law 2008 , 4 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleary, M.; Thapa, D.K.; West, S.; Westman, M.; Kornhaber, R. Animal abuse in the context of adult intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2021 , 61 , 101676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monsalve, S.; Hammerschmidt, J.; Izar, M.L.; Marconcin, S.; Rizzato, F.; Polo, G.; Garcia, R. Associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment in Pinhais, Brazil. Prev. Vet. Med. 2018 , 157 , 19–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valiyamattam, G.J.; Kritchevsky, J.; Beck, A.M. Demographics and outcome of dogs and cats enrolled in the PetSafe program at the Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine: 2004–2019. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2021 , 260 , 228–233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saliba, O.; Garbin, C.A.; Garbin, A.J.; Dossi, A. Responsibility of health professionals on reporting cases of domestic violence. Rev. Saude Publica 2007 , 41 , 472–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gomes, L.; Pinto, T.C.; Costa, E.M.M.; Ferreira, J.M.; Cavalcanti, S.D.L.; Granville-Garcia, A. Perception of dental students about maltreatment in childhood. Odoltol. Clin. Cient. 2011 , 10 , 73–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavalcanti, A.L. Lesões no complexo maxilofacial em vítimas de violência no ambiente escolar. Cien. Saude Colet. 2009 , 14 , 1835–1842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Garbin, C.A.S.; Garbin, A.J.I.; Dossi, A.P.; Dossi, M.O. Violência doméstica: Análise das lesões em mulheres. Cad. Saude Publica 2006 , 22 , 2567–2573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ferraz e Silva, F.; Pereira Franco de Sá, R.M.; Paranhos, L.R. Domestic violence and the role of the dentist from the public health perspective: A review of scientific literature. Acta Bioeth. 2014 , 20 , 125–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Moreira, S.d.N.T.; Galvão, L.L.L.F.; Melo, C.O.M.; de Azevedo, G.D. Violência física contra a mulher na perspectiva de profissionais de saúde. Rev. Saude Publica 2008 , 42 , 1053–1059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Komorosky, D.; O’Neal, K.K. The development of empathy and prosocial behavior through humane education, restorative justice, and animal-assisted programs. Contemp. Justice Rev. 2015 , 18 , 395–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jalongo, M.R. Humane education and the development of empathy in early childhood: Definitions, rationale, and outcomes. In Teaching Compassion: Humane Education in Early Childhood ; Jalongo, M.R., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 3–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fung, S.C.; Zhou, S. An investigation of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward animals and empathy toward humans: Implications for humane education development. Anthrozoos 2020 , 33 , 415–426. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Craig, E.A.; Nieforth, L.; Rosenfeld, C. Communicating resilience among adolescents with Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) through Equine Assisted Psychotherapy (EAP). West. J. Commun. 2020 , 84 , 400–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinillos, R.G. One Welfare. A Framework to Improve Animal Welfare and Human Well-Being ; CAB International: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018; pp. 16–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, H.P.; Smith, H. A qualitative assessment of a dog program for youth offenders in an adult prison. Public Health Nurs. 2019 , 36 , 507–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Humby, L.; Barclay, E. Pawsitive solutions: An overview of prison dog programs in Australia. Prison J. 2018 , 98 , 580–603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collica-Cox, K.; Furst, G. Implementing successful jail-based programming for women: A case study of planning Parenting, Prison & Pups—Waiting to “let the dogs in”. J. Prison Educ. Reentry 2019 , 5 , 101–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barr, J.; Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. Adolescent empathy and prosocial behavior in the multidimensional context of school culture. J. Genet. Psychol. 2007 , 168 , 231–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Ceballos, M.; Orihuela, A.; Corredor, M.; Pérez, E.; Ramírez, R.; Al, E. Painful practices in farm animals. In Bienestar Animal: Una Visión Global en Iberoamérica ; Mota-Rojas, D., Velarde, A., Maris-Huertas, S., Cajiao, P., Eds.; Elsevier: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; pp. 137–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Orihuela, A.; Strappini-Asteggiano, A.; Cajiao-Pachón, M.N.; Agüera-Buendía, E.; Mora-Medina, P.; Ghezzi, M.; Alonso-Spilsbury, M. Teaching animal welfare in veterinary schools in Latin America. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2018 , 6 , 131–140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tarazona, A.M.; Ceballos, M.C.; Broom, D.M. Human relationships with domestic and other animals: One health, one welfare, one biology. Animals 2020 , 10 , 43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Velarde, A.; Maris-Huertas, S.; Cajiao, M.N. Animal Welfare, a Global Vision in Ibero-America , 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; pp. 1–516. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Broom, D.M.; Orihuela, A.; Velarde, A.; Napolitano, F.; Alonso-Spilsbury, M. Effects of human-animal relationship on animal productivity and welfare. J. Anim. Behav. Biometeorol. 2020 , 8 , 196–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Mariti, C.; Zdeinert, A.; Riggio, G.; Mora-Medina, P.; del Mar Reyes, A.; Gazzano, A.; Domínguez-Oliva, A.; Lezama-García, K.; José-Pérez, N.; et al. Anthropomorphism and its adverse effects on the distress and welfare of companion animals. Animals 2021 , 11 , 3263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Napolitano, F.; Strappini, A.; Orihuela, A.; Martínez-Burnes, J.; Hernández-Ávalos, I.; Mora-Medina, P.; Velarde, A. Quality of Death in Fighting Bulls during Bullfights: Neurobiology and Physiological Responses. Animals 2021 , 11 , 2820. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mota-Rojas, D.; Calderón-Maldonado, N.; Lezama-García, K.; Sepiurka, L.; Garcia, R.C.M. Abandonment of dogs in Latin America: Strategies and ideas. Vet. World 2021 , 14 , 2371–2379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Mota-Rojas, D.; Monsalve, S.; Lezama-García, K.; Mora-Medina, P.; Domínguez-Oliva, A.; Ramírez-Necoechea, R.; Garcia, R.d.C.M. Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach. Animals 2022 , 12 , 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080977

Mota-Rojas D, Monsalve S, Lezama-García K, Mora-Medina P, Domínguez-Oliva A, Ramírez-Necoechea R, Garcia RdCM. Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach. Animals . 2022; 12(8):977. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080977

Mota-Rojas, Daniel, Stefany Monsalve, Karina Lezama-García, Patricia Mora-Medina, Adriana Domínguez-Oliva, Ramiro Ramírez-Necoechea, and Rita de Cassia Maria Garcia. 2022. "Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach" Animals 12, no. 8: 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080977

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Explaining Animal Abuse Among Adolescents: The Role of Speciesism

• August 2020
• Journal of Interpersonal Violence

• Université Grenoble Alpes

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Salman Farizi

• Joanne M. Williams

• Vilja Vähä-Aho

• Margo DeMello
• Thomas J. Mowen
• John H. Boman
• Lacey Levitt
• AGGRESS VIOLENT BEH

• BEHAV SCI LAW

• Philip Tedeschi
• James Herbert Williams
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up