Media Globalization Case Study Critiques Perspectives

Name: Panther ID:
Case Study 1: Media Globalization and Migration
1) Briefly describe four assumptions about media globalization
that Professor Hafez presents. 10 points each (40 total)
2) Briefly describe four critiques Professor Hafez makes of the
conventional perspective on media.10 points each (40 total)

3) Briefly describe how Professor Hafez’s perspective expands
our understanding of media globalization. (20 points)
Name:
Panther ID:
Case Study
1
:
Media Globalization and Migration
1)
Briefly describe four
assumptions
about
media globalization

that Professor Hafez
presents
.
10 points each (40
total)
2)
Briefly describe four
critiques
Professor Hafez makes of the conventional perspective on media
.
10
points
each (40
total)

3)
Briefly describe how
Professor Hafez’s
perspective
expands our understanding
of media globalization
.
(
2
0 points
)
Name: Panther ID:
Case Study 1: Media Globalization and Migration
1) Briefly describe four assumptions about media globalization
that Professor Hafez presents. 10 points each (40 total)

2) Briefly describe four critiques Professor Hafez makes of the
conventional perspective on media.10 points each (40
total)
3) Briefly describe how Professor Hafez’s perspective expands
our understanding of media globalization. (20 points)
Received: 17 April 2018 Revised: 16 July 2018 Accepted: 20
July 2018
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2370
S P E C I A L I S S U E A R T I C L E

The relations among animal abuse, psychological
disorders, and crime: Implications for forensic
assessment
Frank R. Ascione1 | Shelby E. McDonald2 | Philip Tedeschi1 |
James Herbert Williams3
1 Graduate School of Social Work, University
of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
2 School of Social Work, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,
USA
3 School of Social Work, Arizona State
University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Correspondence
Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., Scholar‐in‐Residence,
University of Denver, Graduate School of
Social Work, Craig Hall 463, 2148 High St,
Denver, CO 80208, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Behav Sci Law. 2018;36:717–729. wileyo
Abstract
The confluence of developments in the assessment of ani-

mal abuse, the evolution of psychiatric nosology for the
diagnosis of conduct disorder, legislative changes involving
crimes against non‐human animals, and the recent inclusion
of crimes against animals in the FBI's National Incident‐
Based Reporting System, highlights the critical need for
examining the forensic dimensions of animal abuse cases.
We provide an overview of the research literature on these
topics in the hope that forensic evaluators will have an evi-
dence‐based framework for assessing cases they encounter
that include perpetration of violence against animals.
1 | INTRODUCTION
Despite the ubiquity of pets and other animals in Westernized
societies, their fate as victims of abuse and violence at
the hands of humans has only recently received research
attention in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, social work,
and criminology. In the current paper, we contribute to the
sociological understanding of animal abuse (AA) by pro-
viding a critical integration of literature on AA, psychological
disorders, and crime, to inform an evidence‐based
framework for assessing violence against animals. Our review
begins with a review of early research on AA, including

the evolution of AA as a behavioral indicator of
psychopathology in children. This section is followed by a
review of
current challenges and developments in the assessment of AA in
children. Next, we integrate literature on relations
between AA, child and adult psychopathology, and crime.
Finally, we conclude our review by discussing the state of
current knowledge in this area, and the implications of this
work in the context of forensic assessment and future
research.
We obtained material for this review through multiple search
methods, including electronic and hand searching
of key journals and databases, index terms and named authors,
reference scanning, and citation tracking. This review
is intended to be a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, summary
of the literature to guide future work in this area.
Search terms included animal/pet cruelty, animal/pet abuse,
animal maltreatment, animal torture, cruelty to
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.nlinelibrary.com/journal/bsl
717
mailto:[email protected]
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370
http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bsl
718 ASCIONE ET AL.
animals/pets, killing animal/dog/cat/pet, childhood animal

cruelty, intimate partner violence (IPV), antisocial behavior,
conduct disorder (CD), and forensic animal maltreatment
evaluations.
2 | EARLY RESEARCH AND THE EVOLUTION OF AA IN
THE DSM
The purported relation between AA and other antisocial
behavior and criminal acts was emphasized in the earliest
writings of leaders in the animal welfare field (e.g., Angell,
1884). Exaggerated claims about this relation were not
uncommon (“What shows a worse disposition than to abuse a
poor dumb creature. It is the beginning of a course that
leads to robbery and murder”; Grier, 2006) and reflected a
belief that the abuse of animals presaged violence toward
people, an idea known as the “graduation hypothesis.”
Unfortunately, the empirical basis for this belief was non‐
existent and still awaits rigorous prospective research.
Early attempts at creating a typology for assessing AA in young
offenders combined acts of cruelty toward ani-
mals and cruelty toward children in one category (Burt, 1925),
but did separate cruelty from acts of property destruc-
tion, such as vandalism and fire setting. In contrast to the study
of AA, there is a substantial body of early literature
on the psychological significance of fire setting (Lewis &
Yarnell, 1951; Sakheim & Osborn, 1994), perhaps due to the

more observable outcome of fire setting, the potential for
human injury and death, and the interest of (and research
funding from) insurance companies. More serious forms of
juvenile fire setting are associated with AA (Becker,
Stuewig, Herrera, & McCloskey, 2004; Sakheim & Osborn,
1994), although their co‐occurrence may not have unique
predictive value in psychological assessment (Baglivio, Wolff,
Delisi, Vaughn, & Piquero, 2017).
The first research study specifically designed to examine the
association between AA and mental health in chil-
dren was conducted by Tapia (1971) and was followed by
seminal research on AA histories in criminal samples con-
ducted by Felthous and colleagues (Felthous, 1980; Felthous &
Kellert, 1986; Felthous & Bernard, 1979). When this
research was being conducted, the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders of the American
Psychiatric Association (1980) had not yet included AA as a
symptom of antisocial behavior in childhood and
adolescence.
DSM‐III‐R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) was the
first edition to include AA as a symptom of CD, but
it was unclear whether AA was akin to vandalism (property
destruction) or to interpersonal violence (cruelty to chil-
dren). Later editions of the DSM (IV, IV‐TR, and 5, American

Psychiatric Association, 1994, 2000, and , 2013, respec-
tively) grouped “physical cruelty to animals” in a category
labeled “Aggression to people and animals” that included
bullying, physical fighting, and using a weapon that could
inflict harm on others (Signal, Ghea, Taylor, & Acutt,
2013). It is worthy of note that AA has been found to be
associated with both traditional and cyberbullying (Sanders
& Henry, 2017), the latter not specifically noted in the DSM.
Inclusion of AA as a symptom of CD has resulted in greater
information about the prevalence and significance of
this symptom in understanding violence perpetrated by young
people. However, the fields of human–animal interac-
tion, psychology, psychiatry, social work, and criminology have
been plagued by a lack of consensus on the definition
of “cruelty to animals” and AA. Early in our own study of this
topic, we developed a definition of AA that we believed
would foster greater consistency in research studies: “…
non‐accidental, socially unacceptable behavior that causes
pain, suffering, or distress to and/or the death of an animal”
(Ascione & Shapiro, 2009, p. 570). This definition is
now widely used in this area of research.
We referred to AA as “non‐accidental” behavior as a parallel to
current definitions of child maltreatment and as

“socially unacceptable” to capture variations in social and
cultural norms in beliefs about how animals should be
treated (McGreevy, Griffiths, Ascione, & Wilson, 2018). This
definition still suffers from a failure to specify the
species of animals that should be included, although it could be
argued that species type is not relevant to a
general definition of AA due to social and cultural variations in
relationships with various species. Similarly to child
maltreatment, AA may include acts of omission (e.g., neglecting
to provide essential care) and commission
(e.g., physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse). The concept of
non‐accidental injuries to animals has since taken hold
ASCIONE ET AL. 719
in the veterinary profession (McGuinness, Allen, & Jones, 2005;
Munro & Thrusfield, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d;
Tong, 2014) and is informing the burgeoning field of veterinary
forensics (Levitt, Patronek, & Grisso, 2015; Munro
& Munro, 2008; Merck, 2012; Stern & Smith‐Blackmore, 2016).
3 | ASSESSING AA
Since the topography and victims of AA are varied, Ascione,
Thompson, and Black (1997) developed a semi‐struc-
tured interview, the Children and Animals Assessment
Instrument or CAAI, in an attempt to capture these variations.

The CAAI integrates quantitative and qualitative methods to
assess several dimensions of cruelty to animals: fre-
quency, severity, duration, recency, and empathy. Open‐ended
questions at the conclusion of the interview provided
an opportunity to explore possible motivations for abusing
animals, factors that might prove valuable for prevention
and intervention efforts. The interview content was based, in
part, on a review of clinical literature related to child-
hood perpetration of AA (Ascione, 1993). Forms for both
caregiver‐reported and child self‐reports of AA were
designed, given that caregivers may not always be aware of or
observe their children's acts of AA.
The motivations children may have for engaging in AA were
described in a review prepared for the US Office of
Juvenile Justice (Ascione, 2001). These include, for example,
controlling the animal, to retaliate against the animal, to
satisfy prejudice against a species or breed (e.g., hatred of cats),
and to express aggression through an animal (e.g., to
inflict pain to create a mean dog). Since the publication of that
review, numerous summaries of the relevant research
literature to date have been published, and their contents will
not be duplicated in this article. We refer the reader
to the work of Ascione (2005b, 2007, 2008), Levitt et al.
(2015), Monsalve, Ferreira, and Garcia (2017), and McDonald

(2018). Topographies of and motivations for AA continue to be
a focus of research attention (Newberry, 2018). For
example, the retrospective study by Hensley and Tallichet
(2005) of incarcerated adults found that the most common
motivation for AA perpetrated in childhood and/or adolescence
included anger (48%), followed by “fun”, out of “dislike
for the animal”, to control the animal, fear of the animal,
revenge/to intimidate someone, for sex, and to shock people.
Although the CAAI yielded detailed information about
childhood AA, the time required to administer the CAAI
likely hindered its widespread adoption in the research and
clinical communities. Since the publication of the CAAI, a
number of more easily administered assessments of AA have
appeared (e.g., Alleyne, Tilston, Parfitt, & Butcher,
2015; Guymer, Mellor, Luk, & Pearse, 2001). An assessment
closest to the intent and content of the CAAI, yet more
easily administered, is the Cruelty to Animals Inventory (CAI)
developed by Dadds et al. (2004), which asks children
about AA (i.e., Have you ever hurt an animal on purpose?) by
breaking down questions based on environments in which
animals live (e.g., wild animals, animals in the home) as well as
types of animal (e.g., worms and insects; amphibians and
reptiles; mammals). For children who report having
purposefully hurt an animal (in any category), they are asked to
elab-

orate on their behavior (i.e., what they did, what happened).
These descriptions can be qualitatively analyzed in order to
gain more insight into children's perceptions of their own
perpetration of animal cruelty (see, e.g., McDonald et al.,
2018). A caregiver‐report version of the CAI is also available;
both caregiver report and child self‐report forms have
demonstrated excellent internal consistency, test–retest
reliability, and convergent validity with an observational mea-
sure of AA in prior studies. It should be noted, however, that
this measure does not capture a unidimensional construct,
as questions about both exposure to and perpetration of AA
comprise the set of survey items. Given the ease of admin-
istration of the CAI, we recommend its adoption in future mixed
methods research on AA.
4 | AA AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS
4.1 | Conduct disorder in childhood and adolescence
As noted earlier, the DSM‐III‐R was the first edition to include
AA among symptoms of CD. Although certain forms of
AA, separate from their co‐occurrence with other antisocial
behaviors, are worthy of attention in their own right
720 ASCIONE ET AL.
(Signal et al., 2013), AA has most often been examined in the
context of CD. As we highlight research studies in this

area, the reader is reminded that AA was most often treated as a
dichotomous, not a dimensional, variable.
CD diagnoses are also dichotomous, although age of onset and a
recently added clinical specifier, “with limited
prosocial emotions (LPE)” (DSM‐5, American Psychiatric
Association, 2013), provide some dimensional refinements.
This clinical specifier is used to identify CD with concurrent
callous/unemotional (CU) traits. Youth with co‐occurring
CD and CU traits designate a more severe, aggressive subgroup
of youth as compared with those having conduct
problems alone (Frick & White, 2008). Due to the stigma
attached to “CU traits,” the specifier “LPE” is used to assess
current and future functioning of youth diagnosed with CD and
to guide treatment planning.
Gelhorn, Sakai, Price, and Crowley (2007) examined AA in the
context of CD and antisocial personality disorder
(APD) in a large (N = 41,571) nationally representative sample
of adults, finding that for men self‐reports of AA were
associated with both CD and APD. The recently included LPE
specifier (DSM‐5, 2013) may prove to be valuable in
studies of AA (Kahn, Frick, Youngstrom, Findling, &
Youngstrom, 2012; Klahr & Burt, 2014; Longman, Hawes, &
Kohlhoff, 2016; Scheepers, Buitelaar, & Matthys, 2011;
Walters, 2013, 2014), especially since deficits in empathy

and CU traits may be implicated in some cases of AA
(McDonald, Collins, et al., 2017; Plant, van Schaik, Gullone,
& Flynn, 2016). We note that the developing field of behavioral
epigenetics lends support to the associations among
CD, CU traits, DNA methylation (Cecil et al., 2014; Dadds et
al., 2014), and levels of serotonin (Moul, Dobson‐Stone,
Brennan, Hawes, & Dadds, 2013). Our own research supports
associations among exposure to animal abuse, CU
traits, and children's internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems (McDonald, Graham‐Bermann, Maternick,
Ascione, & Williams, 2016; McDonald, Collins, et al., 2017).
Although the etiologies of CD are, no doubt, varied, CU traits
have been associated with multiple adverse child-
hood experiences, such as physical and sexual maltreatment
(Bright, Huq, Spencer, Applebaum, & Hardt, 2018;
McEwen, Moffitt, & Arseneault, 2014), IPV (Ascione,
Friedrich, Heath, & Hayashi, 2003; Currie, 2006; McDonald
et al., 2018), and other familial influences (Wertz et al., 2016).
It remains untested whether early adverse experiences,
including AA exposure, may foster the development of CU traits
in youth, and exacerbate genetic and environmental
risk for CU and AA behaviors.
5 | ANIMAL ABUSE AND ADULT PSYCHIATRIC
DISORDERS

Associations between AA and adult psychiatric disorders are the
subject of increasing research attention (Febres
et al., 2014; Gleyzer, Felthous, & Holzer, 2002; Stupperich &
Strack, 2016; van Wijk, Hardeman, & Endenburg,
2018). Utilizing a large nationally representative sample of US
adults, Vaughn et al. (2009) found that AA was asso-
ciated with lifetime APD, as well as alcohol use disorders,
obsessive–compulsive and histrionic personality disorders,
and pathological gambling. Among studies examining
associations between APD and AA in forensic samples, findings
have been mixed. Gleyzer et al. (2002) found that an APD
diagnosis was more than four times more likely for a sam-
ple of criminal defendants with a history of “substantial” AA
(i.e., a pattern of deliberate, repeated, and unwarranted
harm to vertebrate animals in a manner likely to cause injury)
than those without such a history. In contrast, our
recent study of men incarcerated for domestic violence related
offenses found no association between APD diagno-
sis and perpetration of animal cruelty (Haden, McDonald,
Booth, Ascione, & Blakelock, 2018). It is important to note
that research in this area tends to employ smaller samples and
retrospective designs. Moreover, inconsistencies in
sampling procedures (e.g., severity of crimes committed) may
account for differences across studies.

6 | AA AND CRIME
The relationship between animal abuse and crime has been
examined in many areas, as crime includes many forms.
Below we concentrate on the literature in three important areas:
school shootings, community and interpersonal vio-
lence, and IPV.
ASCIONE ET AL. 721
6.1 | School shootings
As we prepared this article, the USA experienced another
horrific school shooting that took place in Parkland, FL (“At
least 17 dead in Florida school shooting, law enforcement says”,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida‐high‐
school‐shooting/index.html). Reviews of the AA backgrounds of
school shooters rarely include officially documented
reports of such behavior; most often rely on media coverage and
anecdotal statements of peers (Arluke & Madfis,
2014). It is almost pro forma to assume that mass and serial
killers have a history of AA. However, Arluke and Madfis
(2014) reported that, among 23 perpetrators of school shootings
between 1998 and 2012, the majority (57%) had no
history of AA. Indeed, a recent meta‐analysis (Patterson‐Kane,
2016) of studies examining AA among violent

offenders noted a relatively weak link between AA and
human‐directed violence, as the majority of those who mis-
treat animals do not go on to perpetrate violent acts against
humans. Still, collectively, studies in this area suggest
that animal maltreatment may be a risk factor for later
aggressive and criminal behavior.
6.2 | Community and interpersonal violence
The relationship between AA and less high‐profile crimes is
likely more complex. A series of recent studies shed light
on sociological factors correlated with AA, such as community
crime rates and related socioeconomic hardship
(Burchfield, 2016, 2017; White & Quick, 2018). Studies of
individual psychopathology provide analyses of AA and
its relation to different forms of criminal offending
(Mertz‐Perez & Heide, 2003). For example, Arluke, Levin,
Luke,
and Ascione (1999) found that adults who had been prosecuted
for active forms of AA (in contrast to a comparable
sample of individuals without such a history) were more likely
to have state criminal records for violent, property, or
drug offenses. In 200 randomly selected cases of people
arrested for AA in New South Wales, Australia, Gullone and
Clarke (2008) reported that 61% of these individuals had a
criminal record for assaults, 55% for domestic violence,
20% for assaulting police, and 17% for sexual assault.

Associations between AA and sexual homicide have been
reported (DeLisi & Beauregard, 2018; Ressler, Burgess,
& Douglas, 1988), and different forms of sex offending are
related to different forms of AA. A Colorado study exam-
ined developmental experiences of incarcerated rapists and
child sexual abusers (n = 269), whose offender classifica-
tions were derived from both official records and polygraphy
(Simons, Wurtele, & Durham, 2008). As part of a more
comprehensive assessment, participants reported on their
histories of AA and bestiality, a misdemeanor in 21 states
and a felony in 21 (Wisch, 2017a). AA was reported by 44% of
child sexual abusers and 68% of rapists, and the
results for bestiality were 38% and 11%, respectively. Hands‐on
forms of physical animal abuse, as well as bestiality,
have been found to be related to interpersonal violence and
sexual offending against humans in a recent FBI (Federal
Bureau of Investigations) study (Levitt, Hoffer, & Loper, 2016).
The sexual abuse of animals may produce negligible physical
harm to the victims (see, e.g., Wilcox, Foss, &
Donathy, 2005), but can also cause injury or death, depending
on the manner of sexual assault and the species of
animal (Ascione, 2005a; Imbschweiler, Kummerfeld, Gerhard,
Pfeiffer, & Wohlsein, 2009). Bestiality may, on occasion,

also cause injury to the human perpetrator (Blevins, 2009).
Bestiality's relation to other forms of AA and interpersonal
violence is now being studied as a forensic issue from
psychological, legal, and veterinary perspectives (Holoyda &
Newman, 2016; Holoyda, 2017; Hvozdík et al., 2006; Munro,
2006; Stern & Smith‐Blackmore, 2016). One of the
challenges of studying bestiality in forensic samples is the
potential for underreporting (Schenk, Cooper‐Lehki,
Keelan, & Fremouw, 2014). However, such study is more
imperative than ever given the FBI's recent inclusion of ani-
mal sexual abuse among crimes against animals in its National
Incident‐Based Reporting System (FBI, 2016).
6.3 | Intimate partner violence
A number of issues implicated in AA perpetrated in the context
of IPV warrant forensic attention and are discussed
below. These include assessing the AA experiences of survivors
of IPV and their children, AA as a risk factor for dif-
ferent forms and severity of IPV, children's exposure to AA as
an adverse childhood experience related to children's
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-
shooting/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-
shooting/index.html
722 ASCIONE ET AL.
adjustment, and legal aspects of animal welfare in homes

experiencing IPV, especially the inclusion of animals in
orders of protection. Although research on some of these topics
has been conducted with non‐clinical convenience
samples (Henry, 2004), we will focus on research with survivors
of IPV. More comprehensive reviews on AA and IPV
are available (Kimber, Adham, Gill, McTavish, & MacMillan,
2018; McDonald, 2018; Monsalve et al., 2017; Newberry,
2017).
6.3.1 | Assessing AA in the context of IPV
Anecdotal reports of AA in the early literature on IPV were
ubiquitous (Gordon, 1988; Jacobson & Gottman, 1998;
Pizzey, 1974; Pleck, 1987; Walker, 1980), but the first study to
query IPV survivors about AA was Renzetti's
(1992) study of women in lesbian relationships (38% of women
with pets reported AA perpetrated by their partners).
The first study specifically designed to ask IPV survivors (n =
38) about AA found that actual harm to or killing of pets
was reported by 57% of women at a domestic violence shelter in
Utah (Ascione, 1998). Similar results were reported
in two replications, with larger samples, in Utah (54% reporting
that pets were hurt or killed—Ascione et al., 2007) and
Melbourne, Australia (53%—Volant, Johnson, Gullone, &
Coleman, 2008). Corroboration of these reports comes from
two studies that interviewed men arrested for and/or admitting

to perpetrating IPV (41%—Febres et al., 2014; 50%—
Haden et al., 2018). AA is more likely to be experienced by
women reporting close relationships with their pets
(Hardesty, Khaw, Ridgway, Weber, & Miles, 2013). One study
found that female perpetrators of IPV also reported
perpetrating AA, but at a much lower level of prevalence
(17%—Febres et al., 2012).
The assessment of AA used by Ascione et al. (2007) and Volant
et al. (2008) included questions about partners'
threats to harm animals, as well as actual harm to or killing of
animals, women's emotional states after experiencing
AA, and level of closeness to the animal victims of abuse. The
format of this assessment and the nature of the sam-
ples (women in crisis) precluded traditional assessment of
psychometric properties (e.g., coefficient alpha, test–retest
reliability). Since most other research studies used a
dichotomous question to ask about AA, it is encouraging to
report that a more refined assessment measure, the Partner's
Treatment of Animals Scale (PTAS), is now available
(Fitzgerald, Barrett, Shwom, Stevenson, & Chernyak, 2016).
The PTAS scale contains 40 items related to AA that may occur
in the context of IPV with a five‐point response
scale ranging from “never” to “very frequently.” The forms of
AA measured include emotional abuse of animals,

threats to harm animals, physical neglect of animals, physical
abuse of animals, sexual abuse of animals, and severe
physical abuse of animals. It is important to note, however, that
this measure was developed and tested using a small
sample (n = 55). Although the measure is promising, further
psychometric evaluations of the PTAS that incorporate
large samples and rigorous statistical techniques (e.g., item
response theory, structural equation modeling) are needed
in order to determine the utility of the measure in clinical and
community samples.
6.3.2 | Risk for other violence
Survivors reporting AA are also more likely to report
experiences of sexual violence, rape, emotional violence, and
stalking than women whose pets have not been harmed
(Simmons & Lehmann, 2007). Using the PTAS, Barrett, Fitz-
gerald, Stevenson, and Cheung (2017) found that survivors
reporting AA by their partner were at greater risk for
more frequent and more severe IPV. In a recent study examining
reports from police officers at IPV scenes (Campbell,
Thompson, Harris, & Wiehe, 2018), women reporting IPV by a
suspect with a history of AA (in contrast to no such
history) were significantly more likely to report being strangled
(76%) and forced to have sex (26%) in addition to
other IPV lethality risks (e.g., threats to kill the victim or her

child, suspect's easy access to a gun).
6.3.3 | Children's exposure to AA and IPV
Explorations of the etiology of CD and APD have included a
focus on the potentially deleterious effects of children's
exposure to IPV (Howell, Thurston, Hasselle, Decker, &
Jamison, 2018; Kimber et al., 2018; Vu, Jouriles, McDonald, &
Rosenfield, 2016), but less often on exposure to AA, especially
AA perpetrated by a caregiver. Ascione et al. (2007)
ASCIONE ET AL. 723
found that 67% of children whose mothers were IPV survivors
reported that they had seen or heard pet animal
abuse. In 2010, three of us (Ascione, Williams, and McDonald)
began a four‐year project, funded by the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant
5R01HD66503–4) and the American Society for the Pre-
vention of Cruelty to Animals, to examine the correlates of
children's exposure to both IPV and AA. The details of the
design of this study and characteristics of the sample can be
found in the work of McDonald et al. (2015).
A review of the results of this project thus far are summarized
by McDonald (2018), and include identifying the
mediational role of CU traits in the association between
childhood AA exposure and externalizing behaviors. More-

over, we have found that children (and their victimized
caregivers) distinguish between multiple forms of AA, includ-
ing AA as a tactic of coercive control against their
parent/siblings, AA meant to punish animals for misbehavior,
and
callous abuse/torturing of pets (McDonald et al., 2015;
McDonald et al., 2016; McDonald, Cody, et al., 2017;
McDonald, Collins, et al., 2017; McDonald, Dmitrieva, et al.,
2017). A notable finding from this study is that many
children were physically and emotionally victimized as a result
of protecting a pet during incidents of AA perpetrated
by an abusive caregiver, which may exacerbate their risk for
serious injury and maladjustment.
As a whole, findings from this project also highlight the critical
need for a multidimensional measure of exposure
to AA that adequately captures the complex and dynamic nature
of this construct. Such a measure may provide crit-
ical instrumentation for future longitudinal research that aims to
examine the etiology of antisocial behavior across
the life course, particularly AA. Studies have primarily relied
on four measures of AA exposure: the Physical and Emo-
tional Tormenting against Animals Scale (Baldry, 2004; four
AA exposure items), the Boat Inventory on Animal‐
Related Experiences (Boat, 1994; two AA exposure items), the
CAI—Revised Version (Dadds et al., 2004; two AA

exposure items), and the Pet Treatment Survey (Ascione, 2011;
one AA exposure item). These measures were not
designed to measure children's AA exposure.
Another potential assessment of such exposure is now available
(Children's Exposure to Domestic Violence
Scale, CEDV; Edleson, Johnson, & Shin, 2007). The CEDV is
notable for including both caregiver and child self‐report
forms. Still, the scale only includes one item assessing the
frequency and proximity of children's exposure to AA per-
petrated by a caregiver's partner.
6.3.4 | AA and the inclusion of animals in protective orders
Society's growing awareness of the significance of companion
animals in the welfare and lives of survivors of IPV and
their children is reflected in the now common practice of
allowing pets and other animals to be included in orders of
protection requested by a survivor of IPV. In 2006, the state of
Maine became the first to enact legislature on this
issue; as of 2017, 32 other states and the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico have followed suit (Wisch, 2017b).
Two bills pending in the United States' 114th Congress (H.R.
1258 and S. 1559) that are designed to support pro-
grams for sheltering pets of IPV survivors specifically note that
“It is the sense of Congress that States should encour-

age the inclusion of protections against violent or threatening
acts against the pet of the person in domestic violence
protection orders.”
7 | DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT OF
AA
As we noted earlier, the field of forensic veterinary medicine
has expanded dramatically over the past two decades.
However, there is a critical need for psychological/psychiatric
forensic assessment of AA cases. In the USA, state
statutes may permit, provide, and/or mandate that judges order a
mental health evaluation for individuals who are
convicted of AA (Levitt et al., 2015). Although the frequency of
these forensic animal maltreatment evaluations
(FAMEs) is unknown, the number of clinical assessment
instruments that have emerged in recent years (e.g., Factors
in the Assessment of Dangerousness in Perpetrators of Animal
Cruelty, Lockwood, 2013; AniCare Model, Shapiro &
Henderson, 2016) suggest that this is an emerging area of
forensic mental health assessment (Levitt et al., 2015;
Tedeschi, 2015). Still there is a need for empirical evaluations
of the reliability and validity of these clinical tools.
724 ASCIONE ET AL.
As part of the Colorado LINK Project
(https://tinyurl.com/y8r8tvue), the third author (Tedeschi) has

been
spearheading a systematic effort to develop an assessment
framework that could guide such forensic evaluations.
This effort is informed by recent recommendations for the
improvement of forensic assessments in psychiatry
(Glancy et al., 2015). Tedeschi's Animal Abusers Interview and
Risk Assessment Tool (AARAT) is designed to distill
elements of animal abuse incidents to inform assessment of risk
for future AA offending as well as cross‐over
offending against humans. These elements, based in part on the
early, important work of Felthous and Kellert
(1986), are detailed by Tedeschi (2015). The AARAT includes
dimensions such as characteristics of the animal victim
(s), the severity of injuries, perpetrator's sexual arousal during
the offense, intentional documentation of the incident,
whether the AA incident was accompanied by other illegal acts,
motivations, and level of culpability. The develop-
ment and field‐testing of the AARAT is being conducted in
conjunction with the University of Denver Graduate
School of Professional Psychology's Forensic Institute for
Research, Service and Training (https://tinyurl.com/
y83r67ww).
The AARAT could also prove valuable to professionals who
provide support for IPV survivors struggling to decide

whether to stay with or leave an abuser (Collins et al., 2017;
Hageman et al., 2018). Risk assessment for future AA
could be critical information for programs providing shelter for
the pets of IPV survivors (Ascione, 2000).
8 | CONCLUSIONS
In this article we have provided a review of literature on AA,
psychological disorders, and crime, and addressed the
implications of the current knowledge in the context of recent
developments in forensic assessment. Collectively,
the body of work that has been reviewed documents that our
understanding of the sociological underpinnings of
AA has increased in the last few decades due to the growing
number of studies in this area. Still, the majority of stud-
ies that inform our knowledge of AA have been cross‐sectional
in design and/or reported on small samples with
insufficient power to test causal hypotheses. As a result,
empirical knowledge of mechanisms that explain the etiol-
ogy of AA behaviors across the life course is limited.
Our review highlights the need for large‐scale longitudinal
studies that attend to children's exposure to and per-
petration of AA, and potential sociocontexual factors (e.g.,
culture, adverse childhood experiences, economic hard-
ship) and affective processes (e.g., CU traits, CD, anger
dysregulation) that may play a role in the onset and

maintenance of AA behavior. First, however, the field must first
prioritize psychometric studies to provide critical
instrumentation for longitudinal research in this area, given
increasing evidence of the multidimensional and complex
nature of exposure to and perpetration of AA. Knowledge of
longitudinal relations between AA and various sociolog-
ical factors, particularly trauma, psychopathology, and crime, is
essential to informing the development and/or testing
of FAME tools. We recommend that research be conducted to
examine the ability of existing FAME instruments to
measure and predict an individual's risk of AA and violence
over time, as well as the feasibility of their administration
across forensic and community settings.
REFERENCES
Alleyne, E., Tilston, L., Parfitt, C., & Butcher, R. (2015).
Adult‐perpetrated animal abuse: Development of a proclivity
scale.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(6), 570–588.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.999064
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐III. Washington,
DC:
Author.
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐III‐R. Washington,

DC:
Author.
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV. Washington,
DC:
Author.
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV‐TR.
Washington, DC:
Author.
https://tinyurl.com/y8r8tvue
https://tinyurl.com/y83r67ww
https://tinyurl.com/y83r67ww
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.999064
ASCIONE ET AL. 725
statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐5. Washington,
DC:
Author.
Angell, G. T. (1884). The new order of mercy; or, crime and its
prevention. Washington, DC: Bureau of Education. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Department of Superintendence of
the National Educational Association.
Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione, F. (1999). The
relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of
antisocial
behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(9), 963–975.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014009004

Arluke, A., & Madfis, E. (2014). Animal abuse as a warning
sign of school massacres: A critique and refinement. Homicide
Studies, 18(1), 7–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913511459
Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A
review of research and implications for developmental
psychopa-
thology. Anthrozoös, 6(4), 226–247.
https://doi.org/10.2752/089279393787002105
Ascione, F. R. (1998). Battered women's reports of their
partners' and their children's cruelty to animals. Journal of
Emotional
Abuse, 1(1), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v01n01_06
Ascione, F. R. (2000). Safe havens for pets: Guidelines for
programs sheltering pets for women who are battered. Logan,
UTAuthor. Retrieved from
http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/safe_havens.html
Ascione, F. R. (2001). Animal abuse and youth violence.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin..
https://doi.org/10.1037/e304142003‐001
Ascione, F. R. (2005a). Bestiality: Petting, “humane rape”,
sexual assault, and the enigma of sexual interations between
humans and non‐human animals. Anthrozoös, 18, 219–228.
Ascione, F. R. (2005b). Children and animals: Exploring the
roots of kindness and cruelty. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University
Press.
Ascione, F. R. (2007). Emerging research on Animal abuse as a
risk factor for intimate partner violence. In K. Kendall‐Tackett,

& S. Giacomoni (Eds.), Intimate partner violence (pp. 3–1).
Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Ascione, F. R. (Ed.) (2008). The international handbook of
animal abuse and cruelty: Theory, research, and application.
Purdue.
West Lafayette, IN: University Press.
Ascione, F. R. (2011). Pet Treatment Survey (unpublished
rating scale).
Ascione, F. R., Friedrich, W. N., Heath, J., & Hayashi, K.
(2003). Cruelty to animals in normative, sexually abused, and
outpa-
tient psychiatric samples of 6‐ to 12‐year‐old children:
Relations to maltreatment and exposure to domestic violence.
Anthrozoös, 16(3), 194–212.
https://doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992116
Ascione, F. R., & Shapiro, K. (2009). People and animals,
kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy
implications.
Journal of Social Issues, 65, 569–587.
Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (1997).
Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and
motiva-
tions. Anthrozoös, 10(4), 170–177.
https://doi.org/10.2752/089279397787001076
Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M., Heath, J.,
Maruyama, M., & Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered pets and
domestic
violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing
intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against
Women, 13(4), 354–373.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207299201
Baglivio, M. T., Wolff, K. T., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., &
Piquero, A. R. (2017). Juvenile animal cruelty and firesetting
behav-
iour. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(5), 484–500.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2018
Baldry, A. C. (2004). The development of the PET scale for the
measurement of physical and emotional tormenting against
animals in adolescents. Society and Animals, 12(1), 1–17.
Barrett, B. J., Fitzgerald, A., Stevenson, R., & Cheung, C. H.
(2017). Animal maltreatment as a risk marker of more frequent
and severe forms of intimate partner violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260517719542
Becker, K. D., Stuewig, J., Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A.
(2004). A study of firesetting and animal cruelty in children:
Family influences and adolescent outcomes. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(7),
905–912. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000128786.70992.9b
Blevins, R. O. (2009). A case of severe anal injury in an
adolescent male due to bestial sexual experimentation. Journal
of
Forensic and Legal Medicine, 16(7), 403–406.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2009.02.001
Boat, B. (1994). Boat Inventory on Animal‐related Experiences.
Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Department of
Psychiatry.
Bright, M. A., Huq, M. S., Spencer, T., Applebaum, J. W., &
Hardt, N. (2018). Animal cruelty as an indicator of family

trauma:
Using adverse childhood experiences to look beyond child abuse
and domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 76,
287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.011
Burchfield, K. B. (2016). The sociology of animal crime: An
examination of incidents and arrests in Chicago. Deviant
Behavior,
37(4), 368–384.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1026769
https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014009004
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913511459
https://doi.org/10.2752/089279393787002105
https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v01n01_06
http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/safe_havens.html
https://doi.org/10.1037/e304142003-001
https://doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992116
https://doi.org/10.2752/089279397787001076
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207299201
https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2018
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719542
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719542
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000128786.70992.9b
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2009.02.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.011
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1026769
726 ASCIONE ET AL.
Burchfield, K. B. (2017). The nature of animal crime: Scope and
severity in Chicago. Crime & Delinquency. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0011128717719515
Burt, C. (1925). The young delinquent. New York, NY:
Appleton.

Campbell, A. M., Thompson, S. L., Harris, T. L., & Wiehe, S.
E. (2018). Intimate partner violence and pet abuse: Responding
law enforcement officers' observations and victim reports from
the scene. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260518759653
Cecil, C. A., Lysenko, L. J., Jaffee, S. R., Pingault, J. B.,
Smith, R. G., Relton, C. L., … Barker, E. D. (2014).
Environmental risk,
Oxytocin Receptor Gene (OXTR) methylation and youth
callous–unemotional traits: A 13‐year longitudinal study.
Molec-
ular Psychiatry, 19(10), 1071.
https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.95
Collins, E. A., Cody, A. M., McDonald, S. E., Nicotera, N.,
Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017). A template analysis of
inti-
mate partner violence survivors' experiences of animal
maltreatment: Implications for safety planning and intervention.
Violence Against Women, 24(4).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217697266
Currie, C. L. (2006). Animal cruelty by children exposed to
domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(4), 425–435.
Dadds, M. R., Moul, C., Cauchi, A., Dobson‐Stone, C., Hawes,
D. J., Brennan, J., & Ebstein, R. E. (2014). Methylation of the
oxytocin receptor gene and oxytocin blood levels in the
development of psychopathy. Development and
Psychopathology,
26(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000497
Dadds, M. R., Whiting, C., Bunn, P., Fraser, J. A., Charlson, J.

H., & Pirola‐Merlo, A. (2004). Measurement of cruelty in chil-
dren: The Cruelty to Animals Inventory. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 32(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/
10.1023/B:JACP.0000026145.69556.d9
DeLisi, M., & Beauregard, E. (2018). Adverse childhood
experiences and criminal extremity: New evidence for sexual
homi-
cide. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(2), 484–489.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13584
Edleson, J. L., Johnson, K. K., & Shin, N. (2007). Children's
Exposure to Domestic Violence Scale: User manual. Saint Paul:
Minnesota Center Against Domestic Violence (MINCAVA),
University of Minnesota.
FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigations (2016, November 20).
Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2016
Febres, J., Brasfield, H., Shorey, R. C., Elmquist, J.,
Ninnemann, A., Schonbrun, Y. C., … Stuart, G. L. (2014).
Adulthood animal
abuse among men arrested for domestic violence. Violence
Against Women, 20(9), 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1077801214549641
Febres, J., Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Zucosky, H. C.,
Ninnemann, A., Elmquist, J., … Stuart, G. L. (2012). Adulthood
animal
abuse among women court‐referred to batterer intervention
programs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(15),
3115–3126.
Felthous, A. R. (1980). Aggression against cats, dogs, and
people. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 10(3), 169–
177.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01433629
Felthous, A. R., & Bernard, H. (1979). Enuresis, firesetting and
cruelty to animals: The significance of two‐thirds of this triad.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 24, 240–246.
Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1986). Violence against
animals and people: Is aggression against living creatures
generalized?
The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law, 14(1), 55–69.
Fitzgerald, A., Barrett, B., Shwom, R., Stevenson, R., &
Chernyak, E. (2016). Development of the Partner's Treatment of
Ani-
mals Scale. Anthrozoös, 29(4), 611–625.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228760
Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The
importance of callous‐unemotional traits for developmental
models of
aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of child psychology
and psychiatry, 49(4), 359–375.
Gelhorn, H. L., Sakai, J. T., Price, R. K., & Crowley, T. J.
(2007). DSM‐IV conduct disorder criteria as predictors of
antisocial
personality disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48(6), 529–
538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.04.009
Glancy, G. D., Ash, P., Bath, E. P. J., Buchanan, A., Fedoroff,
P., Frierson, R. L., … Zonana, H. V. (2015). AAPL practice
guideline
for the forensic assessment. Journal of the American Academy
of Psychology and the Law Online, 43(Supplement 2),
S3–S53.

Gleyzer, R., Felthous, A. R., & Holzer, C. E. (2002). Animal
cruelty and psychiatric disorders. Journal of the American
Academy
of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 30(2), 257–265.
Gordon, L. (1988). Heroes of their own lives: The politics and
history of family violence: Boston 1880–1960. New York:
Viking,
Penguin.
Grier, K. (2006). Pets in America: A history. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Gullone, E., & Clarke, J. P. (2008). Animal abuse, cruelty, and
welfare: An Australian perspective. InThe International
Handbook
of Animal Abuse and Cruelty (pp. 305–334). West Lafayette
Indiana: Purdue University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717719515
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717719515
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518759653
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518759653
https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.95
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217697266
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000497
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000026145.69556.d9
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000026145.69556.d9
https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13584
https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2016
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214549641
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214549641
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01433629
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228760

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.04.009
ASCIONE ET AL. 727
Guymer, E. C., Mellor, D., Luk, E. S., & Pearse, V. (2001). The
development of a screening questionnaire for childhood cruelty
to animals. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and
Allied Disciplines, 42(8), 1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1469‐7610.00805
Haden, S. C., McDonald, S. E., Booth, L. J., Ascione, F. R., &
Blakelock, H. (2018). An exploratory study of domestic
violence:
Perpetrators' reports of violence against animals. Anthrozoös,
31(3), 337–352.
Hageman, T. O., Langenderfer‐Magruder, L., Greene, T.,
Williams, J. H., St. Mary, J., McDonald, S. E., & Ascione, F. R.
(2018).
Intimate partner violence survivors and pets: Exploring
practitioners' experiences in addressing client needs. Families in
Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389418767836
Hardesty, J. L., Khaw, L., Ridgway, M. D., Weber, C., & Miles,
T. (2013). Coercive control and abused women's decisions
about their pets when seeking shelter. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 28(13), 2617–2639.
Henry, B. C. (2004). Exposure to animal abuse and group
context: Two factors affecting participation in animal abuse.
Anthrozoös, 17, 290–305.
Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2005). Learning to be cruel?:
Exploring the onset and frequency of animal cruelty.
International
journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 49(1),

37–47.
Holoyda, B. (2017). Bestiality in forensically committed sexual
offenders: A case series. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(2),
541–544.
Howell, K. H., Thurston, I. B., Hasselle, A. J., Decker, K., &
Jamison, L. E. (2018). Systemic factors associated with
prosocial
skills and maladaptive functioning in youth exposed to intimate
partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence.
https://doi.org 10.1177/0886260518766420
Holoyda, B. J., & Newman, W. J. (2016). Childhood animal
cruelty, bestiality, and the link to adult interpersonal violence.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 129–135.
Hvozdík, A., Bugarský, A., Kottferová, J., Vargová, M.,
Ondrašovičová, O. G., Ondrašovič, M., & Sasáková, N. A.
(2006). Etho-
logical, psychological and legal aspects of animal sexual abuse.
Veterinary Journal, 172(2), 374–376.
Imbschweiler, I., Kummerfeld, M., Gerhard, M., Pfeiffer, I., &
Wohlsein, P. (2009). Animal sexual abuse in a female sheep.
Vet-
erinary Journal, 182(3), 481–483.
Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter
women: New insights into ending abusive relationships. New
York,
NY: Simon and Schuster.
Kahn, R. E., Frick, P. J., Youngstrom, E., Findling, R. L., &
Youngstrom, J. K. (2012). The effects of including a callous–
unemo-

tional specifier for the diagnosis of conduct disorder. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(3), 271–282.
Kimber, M., Adham, S., Gill, S., McTavish, J., & MacMillan, H.
L. (2018). The association between child exposure to intimate
partner violence (IPV) and perpetration of IPV in adulthood—A
systematic review. Child Abuse and Neglect, 76, 273–286.
Klahr, A. M., & Burt, S. A. (2014). Practitioner Review:
Evaluation of the known behavioral heterogeneity in conduct
disorder
to improve its assessment and treatment. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(12), 1300–1310.
Levitt, L., Patronek, G., & Grisso, T. (Eds.) (2015). Animal
maltreatment: Forensic mental health issues and evaluations.
New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, N. D. C., & Yarnell, H. (1951). Pathological firesetting:
Pyromania (No. 82). New York, NY: Nervous and Mental
Disease
Monographs.
Levitt, L., Hoffer, T. A., & Loper, A. B. (2016). Criminal
histories of a subsample of animal cruelty offenders. Aggression
and
violent behavior, 30, 48–58.
Lockwood, R (2013). Factors in the Assessment of
Dangerousness in Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty. Retrieved
from http://
coloradolinkproject.com/dangerousness‐factors‐2/
Longman, T., Hawes, D. J., & Kohlhoff, J. (2016). Callous–
unemotional traits as markers for conduct problem severity in

early
childhood: a meta‐analysis. Child Psychiatry and Human
Development, 47(2), 326–334.
McDonald, S. E. (2018). Animal maltreatment in households
experiencing family violence. In The Routledge international
hand-
book of human aggression: Current issues and perspectives.
McDonald, S. E., Cody, A., Collins, E., Stim, H., Nicotera, N.,
Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017). Concomitant exposure
to
animal abuse and socioemotional adjustment among children
exposed to intimate partner violence: A mixed methods
study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma..
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653‐017‐0176‐6
McDonald, S. E., Cody, A. M., Booth, L. J., Peers, J. R., Luce,
C. O. C., Williams, J. H., & Ascione, F. R. (2018). Animal
cruelty
among children in violent households: Children's explanations
of their behavior. Journal of Family Violence, 13(7),
469–480.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00805
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00805
https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389418767836
https://doi.org 10.1177/0886260518766420
http://coloradolinkproject.com/dangerousness-factors-2/
http://coloradolinkproject.com/dangerousness-factors-2/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-017-0176-6
728 ASCIONE ET AL.
McDonald, S. E., Collins, E. A., Maternick, A., Nicotera, N.,
Graham‐Bermann, S., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017).

Inti-
mate partner violence survivors' reports of their children's
exposure to companion animal maltreatment: A qualitative
study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516689775
McDonald, S. E., Collins, E. A., Nicotera, N., Hageman, T. O.,
Ascione, F. R., Williams, J. H., & Graham‐Bermann, S. A.
(2015).
Children's experiences of companion animal maltreatment in
households characterized by intimate partner violence. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 50, 116–127.
McDonald, S. E., Dmitrieva, J., Shin, S., Hitti, S. A.,
Graham‐Bermann, S. A., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H.
(2017). The role of
callous/unemotional traits in mediating the association between
animal abuse exposure and behavior problems among
children exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 72, 421–432.
McDonald, S. E., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., Maternick, A.,
Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2016). Patterns of adjustment
among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A
person‐centered approach. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Trauma, 9(2), 137–152.
McEwen, F. S., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Is
childhood cruelty to animals a marker for physical maltreatment
in a
prospective cohort study of children? Child Abuse and Neglect,
38(3), 533–543.
McGreevy, P. D., Griffiths, M. D., Ascione, F. R., & Wilson, B.
(2018). Flogging tired horses: Who wants whipping and who
would walk away if whipping horses were withheld? PLoS One,

13(2), e0192843.
McGuinness, K., Allen, M., & Jones, B. R. (2005).
Non‐accidental injury in companion animals in the Republic of
Ireland. Irish
Veterinary Journal, 58(7), 392.
Merck, M. (2012). Veterinary forensics: Animal cruelty
investigations. Iowa, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Mertz‐Perez, L., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Animal cruelty:
Pathway to violence against people. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
Monsalve, S., Ferreira, F., & Garcia, R. (2017). The connection
between animal abuse and interpersonal violence: A review
from the veterinary perspective. Research in Veterinary
Science, 114, 18–26.
Moul, C., Dobson‐Stone, C., Brennan, J., Hawes, D., & Dadds,
M. (2013). An exploration of the serotonin system in antisocial
boys with high levels of callous–unemotional traits. PLoS One,
8(2), e56619.
Munro, H. M. C. (2006). Animal sexual abuse: A veterinary
taboo? The Veterinary Journal, 172, 195–197.
Munro, H. M., & Munro, R. (2008). Animal abuse and unlawful
killing e‐book: Forensic veterinary pathology. Edinburgh, UK:
Elsevier Saunders.
Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001a). “Battered pets”:
Features that raise suspicion of non‐accidental injury. Journal
of Small Animal Practice, 42(5), 218–226.
Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001b). “Battered pets”:
Non‐accidental physical injuries found in dogs and cats. Journal

of Small Animal Practice, 42(6), 279–290.
Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001c). “Battered pets”:
Sexual abuse. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 42(7), 333–
337.
Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001d). “Battered pets”:
Munchausen syndrome by proxy (factitious illness by proxy).
Journal of Small Animal Practice, 42(8), 385–389.
Newberry, M. (2017). Pets in danger: Exploring the link
between domestic violence and animal abuse. Aggression and
Violent
Behavior, 34, 273–281.
Newberry, M. (2018). Associations between different
motivations for animal cruelty, methods of animal cruelty and
facets of
impulsivity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(1), 52–78.
Patterson‐Kane, E. (2016). The relation of animal maltreatment
to aggression. In L. Levitt, G. Patronek, & T. Grisso (Eds.),
Ani-
mal maltreatment: Forensic mental health issues and evaluations
(pp. 140–158). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pizzey, E. (1974). Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Plant, M., van Schaik, P., Gullone, E., & Flynn, C. (2016). “It's
a dog's life”: Culture, empathy, gender, and domestic violence
predict animal abuse in adolescents—Implications for societal
health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0886260516659655
Pleck, E. (1987). Domestic tyranny. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.
Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in
lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual
homicide: Patterns and motives. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Sakheim, G. A., & Osborn, E. (1994). Firesetting children: Risk
assessment and treatment. Washington, DC: Child Welfare
League of America.
Sanders, C. E., & Henry, B. C. (2017). The role of beliefs about
aggression in cyberbullying and animal abuse. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 23(9), 827–840.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516689775
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516659655
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516659655
ASCIONE ET AL. 729
Scheepers, F. E., Buitelaar, J. K., & Matthys, W. (2011).
Conduct disorder and the specifier callous and unemotional
traits in
the DSM‐5. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(2),
89–93.
Schenk, A. M., Cooper‐Lehki, C., Keelan, C. M., & Fremouw,
W. J. (2014). Underreporting of bestiality among juvenile sex
offenders: Polygraph versus self‐report. Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 59(2), 540–542.
Shapiro, K., & Henderson, A. J. (2016). The identification,
assessment, and treatment of adults who abuse animals: The

AniCare
approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Signal, T., Ghea, V., Taylor, N., & Acutt, D. (2013). When do
psychologists pay attention to children harming animals?
Human‐
Animal Interaction Bulletin, 1(2), 82–97.
Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (2007). Exploring the link
between pet abuse and controlling behaviors in violent relation-
ships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(9), 1211–1222.
Simons, D. A., Wurtele, S. K., & Durham, R. L. (2008).
Developmental experiences of child sexual abusers and rapists.
Child
Abuse and Neglect, 32(5), 549–560.
Stern, A. W., & Smith‐Blackmore, M. (2016). Veterinary
forensic pathology of animal sexual abuse. Veterinary
Pathology,
53(5), 1057–1066.
Stupperich, A., & Strack, M. (2016). Among a German sample
of forensic patients, previous animal abuse mediates between
psychopathy and sadistic actions. Journal of Forensic Sciences,
61(3), 699–705.
Tapia, F. (1971). Children who are cruel to animals. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 2(2), 70–77.
Tedeschi, P. (2015). Methods for forensic animal maltreatment
evaluations (pp. 309–331). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Tong, L. J. (2014). Fracture characteristics to distinguish
between accidental injury and non‐accidental injury in dogs.

Veter-
inary Journal, 199(3), 392–398.
van Wijk, A., Hardeman, M., & Endenburg, N. (2018). Animal
abuse: Offender and offence characteristics. A descriptive
study. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender
Profiling. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1499
Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B.
E., Terrell, K., & Howard, M. O. (2009). Correlates of cruelty
to
animals in the United States: Results from the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.
Journal
of Psychiatric Research, 43(15), 1213–1218.
Volant, A. M., Johnson, J. A., Gullone, E., & Coleman, G. J.
(2008). The relationship between domestic violence and animal
abuse: An Australian study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
23(9), 1277–1295.
Vu, N. L., Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Rosenfield, D.
(2016). Children's exposure to intimate partner violence: A
meta‐
analysis of longitudinal associations with child adjustment
problems. Child Psychology Review, 46, 25–33.
Walker, L. E. (1980). The battered woman. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Walters, G. D. (2013). Testing the specificity postulate of the
violence graduation hypothesis: Meta‐analyses of the animal
cruelty–offending relationship. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 18(6), 797–802.
Walters, G. D. (2014). Testing the direct, indirect, and

moderated effects of childhood animal cruelty on future
aggressive
and non‐aggressive offending. Aggressive Behavior, 40(3),
238–249.
Wertz, J., Zavos, H., Matthews, T., Gray, R., Best‐Lane, J.,
Pariante, C. M., … Arseneault, L. (2016). Etiology of pervasive
ver-
sus situational antisocial behaviors: A multi‐informant
longitudinal cohort study. Child Development, 87(1), 312–325.
White, G., & Quick, L. D. (2018). Animal cruelty, domestic
violence, and social disorganization in a suburban setting.
Deviant
Behavior.. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1445442
Wilcox, D. T., Foss, C. M., & Donathy, M. L. (2005). A case
study of a male sex offender with zoosexual interests and
behav-
iours. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11(3), 305–317.
Wisch, R. F. (2017a). Table of state animal sexual assault laws.
Retrieved from https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table‐
state‐animal‐sexual‐assault‐laws
Wisch, R. F. (2017b). Domestic violence and pets: list of states
that include pets in protection orders. Retrieved from https://
www.animallaw.info/article/domestic‐violence‐and‐pets‐list‐stat
es‐include‐pets‐protection‐orders
How to cite this article: Ascione FR, McDonald SE, Tedeschi P,
Williams JH. The relations among animal
abuse, psychological disorders, and crime: Implications for
forensic assessment. Behav Sci Law.

2018;36:717–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370
https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1499
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1445442
https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-animal-sexual-
assault-laws
https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-animal-sexual-
assault-laws
https://www.animallaw.info/article/domestic-violence-and-pets-
list-states-include-pets-protection-orders
https://www.animallaw.info/article/domestic-violence-and-pets-
list-states-include-pets-protection-orders
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Aggression and Violent Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh
Animal abuse as an outcome of poor emotion regulation: A
preliminary
conceptualization
Charlotte Hannah Parfitt⁎, Emma Alleyne
Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology,
School of Psychology, University of Kent, United Kingdom
A B S T R A C T
Animal abuse is an under-reported yet prevalent form of both
passive and active forms of aggressive behavior. Its severe and
upsetting consequences are not only
experienced by the victims themselves, but also others in

proximity (e.g., pet owners). Despite this, research and theory
focusing on the motivations for such behavior
appear to be sparse and limited in development when compared
to other types of offending behavior, such as interpersonal
violence. This article examines the
motivations that underlie animal abuse and the maladaptive
emotion regulation techniques that facilitate this type of
behavior. We focus on two specific emotion
regulation styles that have been implicated in existing
literature; that is, the mis-regulation and under-regulation of
emotions. Based on existing research and
theories, we posit that the facilitative role emotion regulation
plays in the perpetration of animal abuse is vital in our
understanding of how and why this abuse
occurs. In this article, we present a preliminary
conceptualization of animal abuse behavior that depicts emotion
regulation as a pivotal factor in key explanatory
pathways.
Animals are easy targets for interpersonal affection and
aggression.
In our society, this places them at the most vulnerable. When
people
harm animals, the abuse is underreported and convictions are
rare
(Ascione & Arkow, 1999; Daly, Taylor, & Signal, 2014; Levitt,
Hoffer, &
Loper, 2016; e.g. RSPCA, 2009). Unlike most violent crimes
committed
against people, animal abuse is difficult to prosecute because its
victims
are voiceless. As such, it is challenging to gauge its prevalence
and, in
response, develop any effective prevention or intervention
strategies
(RSPCA, 2009). Understanding the factors and processes that

can ex-
plain animal abuse behavior has significant implications for
research
and practice because, for example, animal abuse is significantly
corre-
lated with other types of offending behavior, including
interpersonal
violence (Baxendale, Lester, Johnston, & Cross, 2015; Coston &
Protz,
1998; Flynn, 2011; Hensley, Tallichet, & Dutkiewicz, 2012a;
Vaughn
et al., 2009; Walters, 2014). It has also been recognized as an
indicator
for more serious mental health problems and social skills
deficits
(Lockwood, 2002). On reviewing the animal abuse literature,
there are
some indications of regulatory processes at play given the
emotional
contexts that this abuse typically situates (e.g., Alleyne &
Parfitt, 2017).
For example, rejection sensitivity, emotional attachment,
empathy
deficits and emotional violence have all been associated with
the per-
petration of animal abuse in the literature (Flynn, 2000;
Gullone, 2012,
2014; Gupta, 2008; Hardesty, Khaw, Ridgway, Weber, & Miles,
2013;
Simmons & Lehmann, 2007; Strand & Faver, 2005).
Nonetheless, an-
imal abuse has yet to be fully conceptualized within an emotion
regulation framework.
Drawing from the wider offending literature, emotion regulation

has become one of the primary treatment targets in reducing re-
offending (Bowen et al., 2014; Garofalo, Holden, Zeigler-Hill,
& Velotti,
2016). There currently exists no single definition of emotion
regulation,
however, it can broadly be described as “all of the conscious
and
nonconscious strategies we use to increase, maintain, or
decrease one or
more components of an emotional response” (Gross, 2001, pp.
215). For
example, research has found that offenders with maladaptive
emotion
regulation styles are more likely to have an extensive history of
ag-
gression in comparison to those with adaptive regulation styles
(Roberton, Daffern, & Bucks, 2014). Findings such as these are
in-
corporated into rehabilitation programmes aimed at reducing
violent
offending, specifically by including emotion-related modules.
To offer one specific example, deficient emotion regulation has
been
identified as a causal factor in pathways to sexual offending
(Polaschek
& Ward, 2002), as well as recidivism (Hanson & Morton-
Bourgon,
2005). These findings offered an evidence base to implement
changes to
existing treatment programmes. As a result, it is recommended
to in-
corporate mindfulness exercises in sexual offender treatment
pro-
grammes (Gillespie, Mitchell, Fisher, & Beech, 2012), and the
pre-

liminary results more broadly are promising for both male and
female
offenders (Samuelson, Carmody, Kabat-Zinn, & Bratt, 2007).
Given that
animal abusers share many social and psychological
characteristics
with other types of offenders (Ascione, 1999), we might
hypothesize
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.010
Received 4 October 2017; Received in revised form 25 April
2018; Accepted 28 June 2018
⁎ Corresponding author at: Centre of Research and Education in
Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Kent,
Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United
Kingdom.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.H. Parfitt).
Aggression and Violent Behavior 42 (2018) 61–70
Available online 03 July 2018
1359-1789/ Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
T
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13591789
https://www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.avb.2018.06
.010&domain=pdf

that they may also have similar issues with emotion regulation
at some
point during the offence process.
Based on this, we propose a conceptual framework to structure
our
understanding of why and how some people harm animals. So,
in this
article, we examine the available research on animal abuse in
relation
to the underlying emotional components that facilitate this
offending
behavior. Our primary argument is that animal abuse is an
outcome of
poor emotion regulation and this can be evidenced, at least in
part, by
the existing research on the underlying motivations for the
offending.
When a person encounters a perceived conflict, we argue that
animal
abuse is a behavioral manifestation of two types of emotion
regulation,
specifically under-regulation and mis-regulation. And in
response to
these regulatory processes, maladaptive coping strategies are
employed
to counteract the cognitive dissonance. But before we embark
on the
conceptualization of animal abuse within an emotion regulation
fra-
mework, we must operationalize what we mean by animal abuse.
1. Definitional issues: Animal cruelty versus animal abuse

We use the terms animal abuse and animal cruelty inter-
changeably
throughout the human-animal relations literature (Gullone,
2012;
Tiplady, 2013). However, there are apparent differences
between
cruelty and abuse which need to be distinguished. For instance,
cruelty
denotes a specific motivation, such as enjoyment or sadism, but
not all
acts of animal abuse are motivated in such a way (Rowan,
1999).
Whereas, abuse can be viewed as a broader term that
encompasses
cruelty, as well as all other types of motivation. Thus, for the
sake of
clarity, the term animal abuse will be used throughout this
article to
capture the broader range of motivations and types of harm.
There are current debates and discussions on what the
components
of an animal abuse definition should entail. For example,
attitudes to-
wards, and acceptance of animal abuse vary significantly
depending on
factors such as, the species of the animal, the severity of the
abuse, the
type of abuse (i.e., psychological versus physical, passive
versus active)
and the frequency of abuse (i.e., one-off versus repeat). Thus,
the de-
finition of animal abuse has evolved over time in an attempt to
account
for these various issues, as well as the differences found when
con-

sidering particular cultural and societal norms (Akhtar, 2012).
For the
sake of simplicity, we refer to animal abuse as “all socially
unacceptable
behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering or
dis-
tress and/or death to an animal” (Ascione, 1993, pp. 83).
2. Animal abuse: setting the context
2.1. Child perpetrated abuse
To date, the literature has mostly focussed on the link between
animal abuse and human-directed aggression. There is a myriad
of
empirical studies that have focussed predominantly on the
predictive
strength of animal abuse perpetrated during childhood on
interpersonal
violence during adulthood. This has been examined in a series
of ret-
rospective studies. For instance, research utilizing offender
samples has
found significantly higher levels of reported childhood animal
abuse in
aggressive or violent criminals (e.g., murder, sexual violence),
when
compared to non-aggressive offenders (e.g., theft, fraud; Kellert
&
Felthous, 1985; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Merz-Perez, Heide,
&
Silverman, 2001). Hensley, Tallichet, and Dutkiewicz (2009)
ac-
knowledged that repeated acts of childhood animal abuse were
pre-
dictive of later recurrent acts of aggression towards humans.

Moreover,
methods of animal abuse utilized in childhood are often
reflected in
adult expressions of aggression towards humans (Henderson,
Hensley,
& Tallichet, 2011; Hensley & Tallichet, 2005; Wright &
Hensley, 2003).
For example, case studies of serial murderers examined within
this
study described sadistic behaviors, such as the mutilation and
dissec-
tion of small animals during childhood. In the majority of the
cases
examined, this was later followed by mutilation and dissection
of
human bodies. This link becomes most apparent in the
Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5) criteria for conduct disorder.
According to
the DSM-5, conduct disorder is a “repetitive and persistent
pattern of
behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-
appropriate
societal norms or rules are violated” (American Psychiatric
Association,
2013). In order to be diagnosed, a child will have to
demonstrate at
least three of the associated symptoms over the past year, which
are
encompassed in the following categories: aggression to people
and
animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness of theft, and
serious
violation of rules. Continuation of this disorder into adulthood
has been

found to be indicative of antisocial personality disorder
(Loeber,
Farrington, & Petechuk, 2003; Simonoff et al., 2004), which is
char-
acterized by irresponsible, exploitative behavior, recklessness,
im-
pulsivity and deceitfulness (Livesley, 2007).
Within the childhood animal abuse literature, a number of
factors
have also been identified which help to explain the development
of this
behavior in adults. For example, children who engage in animal
abuse
are more likely to continue this behavior into adulthood
(Tallichet &
Hensley, 2005). The authors found that the younger the
perpetrator
during their first experience of animal abuse, the more likely
they were
to continue this behavior into adulthood. Moreover, children
who are
exposed to animal abuse and/or domestic violence in their
home, are
also more likely to start abusing animals themselves (Currie,
2006;
DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983; Thompson & Gullone,
2006). In
one such study, Flynn (1999) reported that adult perpetrators of
animal
abuse were more likely to report being exposed to
harsh/punitive
parenting styles during their childhood/adolescent years than
non-an-
imal abusers.

Recently, Hensley, Browne, and Trentham (2017) examined the
social and emotional context of childhood animal abuse in order
to
explain this developmental pathway to adult interpersonal
violence.
They looked at whether, for example, feeling upset for the harm
par-
ticipants' caused animals during childhood could explain
whether they
become violent during adulthood. There data could not speak
directly
to this relationship, but this study is one of the first to directly
consider
the role of emotions as facilitator of violence escalation.
2.2. Adult perpetrated abuse
There is an emerging literature examining the link between
adult-
perpetrated animal abuse and human-directed aggression
specifically
within the context of domestic violence (Ascione, 2005). For
example,
perpetrators of domestic violence may threaten or abuse animals
to
gain coercive control over their partner (Abrahams, 2007;
Adams,
1994). A recent study by Hartman, Hageman, Williams, and
Ascione
(2015) examined 291 victims of domestic violence and found
that
11.7% of domestic abusers threatened to abuse the family pet,
in
comparison to 26% who acted on the threats of abuse. These
figures are
relatively low in relation to previous studies which have found

threat
rates to range between 12 and 21%, and actual acts of animal
abuse to
range from 46 to 57% in cases of domestic violence (Ascione et
al.,
2007; Carisle-Frank, Frank, & Nielsen, 2004; Faver & Strand,
2003;
Volant, Johnson, Gullone, & Coleman, 2008). Moreover,
domestic
abusers who have also engaged in animal abuse exhibit higher
rates of
sexual violence, marital rape, emotional violence and stalking
beha-
viors (Simmons & Lehmann, 2007). In some instances, victims
(i.e.,
women and children) of domestic violence can also be made to
engage
in animal abuse. For example, research has shown that
victimized
partners may be coerced into performing sexually abusive acts
with an
animal (Walker, 1979), or they may take out their anger on their
pets
(Walker, 1984), or in some extreme cases, they will kill their
own pet to
prevent it from coming to further harm at the hands of their
abusive
partner.
However, there are very few studies that have examined animal
abuse in other specific contexts explicitly and/or context-less
com-
pletely. In a study of 153 convicted animal abusers, and an
equivalent
C.H. Parfitt, E. Alleyne Aggression and Violent Behavior 42

(2018) 61–70
62
number of matched controls, Arluke, Levin, Luke, and Ascione
(1999)
found that animal abusers were more likely to have previous
criminal
records, specifically for violent offences, than non-animal
abusers. With
a similar design, Febres et al. (2014) found that animal abuse
was re-
lated to perpetration of severe psychological aggression, as well
as
physical aggression. Following studies have shown a link
between di-
rect interpersonal aggression (as opposed to displaced
aggression) and
direct animal abuse (whereby the animal is the perceived
provocateur;
Alleyne, Tilston, Parfitt, & Butcher, 2015), suggesting a
possibility of
shared characteristics between both forms of aggression (Parfitt
&
Alleyne, 2016). Walters (2013) compared reports of prior
animal
cruelty in violent and non-violent prisoners and patients and
found that
animal abuse was predictive of antisocial behavior broadly, not
vio-
lence specifically. That is, animal abuse is just as much of an
indicator
of nonviolent antisocial behavior as it is for violent antisocial
behavior.

Aside from the animal abuse and antisocial behavior link,
research
has also found animal abusers to be more likely to hold pro-
animal
abuse attitudes, have lower levels of human-directed empathy
(Erlanger
& Tsytsarev, 2012), self-report higher levels of criminal
attitudes
(specifically in relation to power orientation; Schwartz,
Fremouw,
Schenk, & Ragatz, 2012), and higher levels of the Dark Triad
traits (i.e.,
psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism; Kavanagh,
Signal, &
Taylor, 2013).
Empathy deficits have also been highlighted as a key factor
con-
tributing to the development of animal abuse behavior (Jolliffe
&
Farrington, 2004). Empathy is defined as “the reactions of one
in-
dividual to the observed experiences of another” (Davis, 1983,
p. 113).
Thus, it is made up of a cognitive element (i.e., the ability to
engage in
perspective-taking) and an emotional element (i.e., the ability to
share
the feelings of others and react appropriately; Davis, 1980). In
light of
this, empathy is a key mechanism within the development of
good
decision making and positive social interactions. Therefore,
deficits in
empathy have been linked to an increased risk of violence to

animals
and humans alike (Stanger, Kavussanu, & Ring, 2012). For
example,
those who are less concerned by animal abuse also express
lower levels
of empathy towards other people (Ascione, 1997; Henry, 2006).
In-
dividuals who are more likely to engage in animal abuse are
also more
likely to score low on empathetic concern (i.e., the ability to
experience
other-oriented emotions; Parfitt & Alleyne, 2016).
Taken together, these findings highlight the negative
implications of
animal abuse, both psychologically and behaviorally. It is
apparent
from the literature that animal abusers are a deviant and
problematic
offending group, therefore the motivations, characteristics and
cogni-
tions need further investigation to assist in the development of
effective
interventions. Whilst there is an accumulating body of research
iden-
tifying the underlying characteristics and motivations of adult
animal
abusers, less research is focused on the offence process, or even
the
regulatory processes which may inhibit or facilitate animal
abuse.
However, it is important to first understand the motivations for
animal
abuse in order to extrapolate any further processes facilitating
this
behavior (Hensley & Tallichet, 2005).

3. Motivations for animal abuse
One of the areas that has received the most attention in the
litera-
ture has been the underlying motivations for the perpetration of
animal
abuse. From qualitative interviews with offenders who reported
com-
mitting acts of animal abuse, Kellert and Felthous (1985)
developed a
classification scheme consisting of nine motivations for
committing
animal abuse. Based on these statements, they found that animal
abu-
sers' motivations were as follows: (1) to control (e.g., striking a
dog to
stop it from barking); (2) retaliation (e.g., kicking a dog
because it
urinated on the carpet); (3) prejudice against a specific
species/breed
(e.g., the belief that cats are not worthy of moral consideration);
(4)
expression of aggression through an animal (e.g., running
illegal animal
fights); (5) enhancement of one's own aggression (e.g., owning
‘fighting’ dog breeds to impress others); (6) shocking people for
amu-
sement (e.g., social media fads such as swallowing a live
goldfish); (7)
retaliating against another person/revenge (e.g., harming a
disliked
persons' pet); (8) displacement of aggression from a person to
an animal
(e.g., lashing out at a pet due to frustration provoked by your

boss at
work); and finally, (9) sadism (tendency to derive pleasure from
in-
flicting suffering, injury or death on an animal). Kellert and
Felthous
(1985) however, did not distinguish the age of animal abuse
perpe-
tration so although they were interviewed as adults, some could
have
been reporting on incidents which occurred during childhood.
More recently, Arluke (2002) conducted interviews with 25
college
students, asking about their involvement in and motivation for
animal
abuse perpetration. The majority of participants reported
committing
these acts because they were risky, with the main motivation
being the
thrill of ‘getting away with it’. Later on, Hensley and Tallichet
(2005)
conducted a similar study on 112 inmates. When asked to
indicate
motivations for animal abuse, 48% reported committing the acts
out of
anger, 33% reported that they were motivated by fun, 22%
reported
that they were motivated by a prejudice or because they wanted
to
control the animal, 14% reported that they were motivated by
revenge
or sexual gratification, and the remainder were too unclear to
cate-
gorize effectively. Once again, the authors did not distinguish
the age of
animal abuse perpetration, so their data cannot speak to any

explicit
developmental processes. Following this, Hensley, Tallichet,
and
Dutkiewicz (2011) conducted a study to examine the potential
impact
demographic and situational factors may have had on the
motivations
for animal abuse identified in the previous study. They found
that acts
committed out of anger were less likely to be covered up or
cause upset
to the perpetrator. However, these acts were more likely to re-
occur.
Acts committed to shock others were more likely to be carried
out alone
and in urban areas, and sexually driven acts were more likely to
be
covered up and re-occur.
More recent attempts have been made to understand the
underlying
motivations for incidents of animal abuse. Levitt et al. (2016)
examined
criminal histories of 150 animal abusers and found 21% of
incidents
resulted from animals' misbehavior, 7% resulted from
retaliation
against the animal, 8% resulted from retaliation against another
person,
and 13% resulted from a domestic dispute. Similarly, Newberry
(2018)
examined the associations between motivations for animal
abuse,
methods and impulsivity in a sample of undergraduate students.
Out of
the 130 participants who took part in the study, 55% reported

engaging
in at least one act of animal abuse. The most commonly reported
mo-
tivations were prejudice, amusement, control, and retaliation.
There exists one known article which presents a social
psychological
model of animal abuse (Agnew, 1998). There are two parts to
this
model. The first describes the individual-level factors which
increase
the likelihood of an individual engaging in animal abuse. These
include:
(1) being unaware of the consequences of their behavior on the
animals;
(2) not thinking that their behavior is wrong; and (3) believing
that
they benefit from the behavior. The second part of the model
describes
a further set of factors which have both direct and indirect
effects on
animal abuse. These include: (1) individual traits (e.g.,
empathy), (2)
socialization (e.g., taught beliefs, behavioral
reinforcement/punish-
ment), (3) strain or stress level (e.g., strain/stress provoked by
the
animal), (4) level of social control (e.g., attachment to the
animal,
commitment to school/family), and (5) nature of animal (e.g.,
animals
similarity to us). Focusing specifically on the individual traits
described
by the model, Agnew highlights impulsivity, sensation-seeking,
irrit-
ability and low self-control as major influencers for animal

abuse. He
suggests that such traits largely originate from socialization,
specifically
poor socialization as a child. But what this model does not
explicitly
account for is the role of emotions (and the regulation of these
emo-
tions) in the facilitation of this offending behavior. For
example, so-
cialization experiences that are dysfunctional and/or abusive
could,
arguably, breed resentment and other types of negative
emotions. How
that child copes with those emotions, in addition to the
normalization
(2018) 61–70
63
of animal abuse behavior, could be what explains whether the
child (or
in future, the adult) goes on to engage in animal abuse. Whilst
this
model does well to set out the social and developmental factors
related
to animal abuse, it certainly leaves room for developing our
under-
standing of the process variables that facilitate this type of
behavior.
Taking into account this research, a number of common themes
emerge that we can build on to explain why adults harm

animals.
Specifically, much of the research has found that people may
engage in
animal abuse out of anger or in pursuit of excitement/fun
(Agnew,
1998; Hensley & Tallichet, 2005; Kellert & Felthous, 1985).
Both sce-
narios are indicative of poor emotion regulation, whereby the
resulting
behavior appears to be the outcome of impulsiveness (i.e.,
“rapid,
spontaneous, unplanned, and maladaptive” behavior; Enticott,
Ogloff,
& Bradshaw, 2006; Newberry, 2018) or effortful control
(Eisenberg,
Smith, & Spinrad, 2011). For example, in some instances, it
appears
individuals engage in animal abuse because of a perceived
threat (ei-
ther from the animal itself or another individual) and have
difficulty in
regulating their emotions resulting in an aggressive outburst
towards
the animal. On the other hand, some individuals are able to plan
their
opportunity to engage in animal abuse (perhaps motivated by
their
desire to have fun) demonstrating an extraordinary level of
emotion
regulation. These contrasting examples have been supported by
existing
studies. Ramírez and Andreu (2006) found a link between
impulsivity
and aggressive behavior, including animal abuse. Similarly,
Newberry
(2018) looked explicitly at the different facets of impulsivity

and found
various associations between this construct and motivations and
methods of animal abuse. In contrast, Parfitt and Alleyne (2017)
found
a link between animal abuse proclivity and effective anger
regulation.
These relationships present a conundrum because there is
evidently a
relationship between an individual's ability to regulate (whether
ef-
fectively or ineffectively) their emotions and animal abuse
behavior,
but there is yet to be a conceptual framework to explain why
and how
this occurs.
4. Emotion regulation and animal abuse perpetration
To date, there is a developing body of literature which has
linked
difficulties with emotion regulation with a variety of
maladaptive be-
haviors, including but not limited to, substance misuse (Bonn-
Miller,
Vujanovic, & Zvolensky, 2008; Kun & Demetrovics, 2010),
self-harm
(Buckholdt, Parra, & Jobe-Shields, 2014; Gratz & Tull, 2010),
elevated
aggression (Roberton et al., 2014), aggressive behavior (Gratz,
Paulson,
Jakupcak, & Tull, 2009; Tager, Good, & Brammer, 2010),
sexual de-
viance (Tull, Weiss, Adams, & Gratz, 2012), and disordered
eating be-
haviors (Selby, Ward, & Joiner, 2010). So far, the role of
regulatory

processes has not been examined in relation to the perpetration
of an-
imal abuse, which is surprising given that animal abuse
(perpetrated by
children and adults) has been linked to a variety of deviant
behaviors,
suggesting possible shared characteristics with other types of
offending
groups (Ascione, 2005). Deficits in empathy are also evidenced
in the
animal abuse literature, which is broadly the understanding of
emo-
tions experienced by others (Gupta, 2008; Dadds, Whiting, &
Hawes,
2006; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Ramírez & Andreu, 2006).
Thus, it
can be argued, theoretically, that difficulties in emotion
regulation
comprise a significant explanatory factor in the perpetration of
animal
abuse.
As mentioned previously, only one psychological theory of
animal
abuse has been proposed in the existing literature. Agnew's
(1998) so-
cial-psychological theory draws on existing criminological
theories in-
cluding social learning theory, strain theory and control theory
to help
explain why individuals engage in animal abuse. Due to the
evidenced
overlap between animal abuse and other types of antisocial
behavior
(specifically interpersonal), other theoretical approaches from
the

criminological literatures may also lend support towards
explaining
animal abuse with consideration of the experiences of emotions,
the
processing of self and others' emotions, and the regulation of
emotions.
For example, rational choice theory (Becker, 1968) suggests
that perpe-
trators willingly choose whether to commit an offence or not
based on a
rational consideration of the costs and benefits of the intended
beha-
vior. Based on this theory, an individual would engage in
animal abuse
on the basis that it will be rewarding, profitable, or satisfy a
need more
effectively than a noncriminal behavior could. However, this is
based
on the assumption that those who engage in antisocial behavior
are no
different to those who do not (Kubrin, Stucky, & Krohn, 2009).
Therefore, individual differences in personalities which may
cause
particular behaviors, such as animal abuse, are not fully
considered.
Specifically, the different emotion regulation strategies which
may take
effect in a given situation which determine whether or not
someone
engages in animal abuse are overlooked in this approach.
Another well-cited theory, social learning theory, argues that
in-
dividuals' behaviors are determined by what they learn from
their en-

vironments. For example, some learn by observing prototypical
models
of behavior, or they learn by observing the punishment and
reinforce-
ment of certain behavior, but simply put, we learn the beliefs,
attitudes,
and behaviors we are most exposed to (Agnew, 1998). A
substantial
body of evidence also links poor child-rearing environments
with
abusive behavior towards animals as an adolescent/adult
(Becker,
Stuewig, Herrera, & McCloskey, 2004; Felthous, 1980; Hensley
&
Tallichet, 2005). According to Wright and Hensley (2003),
individuals
engage in animal abuse because they are frustrated, so to release
this
frustration they redirect their aggression towards an animal who
is
considered weaker and less likely to retaliate. Children raised in
hostile
home environments may also be more likely to model their care-
givers
abusive behavior, and through the process of modeling and
reinforce-
ment, they learn to become abusive towards humans and animals
alike
(Hensley et al., 2012a). Overall, social learning theory does
better ac-
counting for childhood acts of animal abuse as opposed to adult
acts.
Additionally, it struggles to fully explain opportunistic
offending which
has not previously been observed. However, the presence of
frustration

as a predictive factor for animal abuse is supportive of existing
evidence
linking ineffective anger regulation with an increased likelihood
of
animal abuse (Parfitt & Alleyne, 2017). Whilst social learning
theory
can tell us that ineffective emotion regulation develops through
social
interactions as a childhood, little is known about the role of
emotion
regulation as an adult in influencing antisocial behaviors, such
as an-
imal abuse.
Strain theory has previously been applied to the perpetration of
animal abuse (Agnew, 1998). Based on this theory, animals can
be di-
rect provocateurs or indirect provocateurs of abuse. For
example, an
animal may interfere with the perpetrators ability to achieve a
desired
goal or it may engage in unwanted behaviors. Consequently, the
per-
petrator will justify the abuse as being deserved or necessary.
Alter-
natively, some individuals may engage in animal abuse for
revenge
purposes or personal gain. For example, they would abuse an
animal as
an outlet for the aggression they have built up due to stress or
strain. In
this instance, there may be an inability to process the negative
emotions
efficiently or effectively, highlighting the importance of
considering
emotional processing in the perpetration of animal abuse.

Whilst strain
theory explores how emotions may facilitate or inhibit
antisocial be-
havior such as animal abuse, the exact role of emotional
processing
needs further clarification (Dippong & Fitch, 2017).
The violence graduation hypothesis is another proposed
theoretical
underpinning of animal abuse. Despite receiving limited
empirical
support, this hypothesis suggests that children who engage in
animal
abuse will later graduate to more serious offending towards
humans as
an adult (Arluke, Luke, & Ascione, 1999; Wright & Hensley,
2003).
Whilst some studies have found support for this developmental
trajec-
tory via retrospective self-reports (Felthous, 1980; Kellert &
Felthous,
1985; Wright & Hensley, 2003), others have found little to no
sup-
porting evidence (Beirne, 2004; Green, 2002; Walters, 2013)
and argue
that there are methodological limitations within these studies
(Thompson & Gullone, 2003).
(2018) 61–70
64
The deviance generalization hypothesis is a competing theory,

which proposes that animal abuse is just one form of many
forms of
antisocial behavior that can precede or follow any other type of
of-
fending (Arluke et al., 1999). In other words, those who engage
in
animal abuse are likely to commit other types of offending.
Engaging in
childhood animal abuse allows the individual to learn and
practice
cruelty and violence, causing them to become desensitized to
violence,
which enables them to commit later acts of violence towards
humans.
There is greater support for this hypothesis, however, it has also
been
criticized for its inability to explain why some children who
abuse
animals do not go on to commit further acts of violence, and
why some
serial murderers have no history of animal abuse (Walters,
2013;
Wright & Hensley, 2003).
The deviance generalization hypothesis developed from a much
larger criminological theory, namely self-control theory
(Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990). This theory encompasses a broader range of
develop-
mental, social and behavioral factors and posits that antisocial
behavior
is the result of low self-control. There are five important factors
which
determine criminality: (1) an impulsive personality, (2) a lack
of self-
control, (3) depleting social bonds, (4) an opportunity to engage

in
antisocial behavior, and (5) deviant behavior (Siegel &
McCormack,
2006). An individual's level of self-control is determined
throughout
early childhood and remains stable throughout life. Therefore,
child-
rearing and school experience are key factors in developing
self-control.
If parents and teachers monitor children's behavior, recognize
deviant
behavior and address it accordingly, appropriate levels of self-
control
will develop. However, if this is not achieved, individuals will
develop
poor self-control and struggle to resist the short-term gains that
anti-
social behavior might otherwise provide (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990).
According to the authors, such individuals are self-centered,
have a low
threshold for frustration, take risks, become aggressive quickly,
lack
empathy and lack diligence. Based on this, one can see how a
provo-
cation from an animal may result in an aggressive outburst
towards the
animal. However, self-control theory has further to go in
addressing the
exact process of self-, or emotion-regulation, in the causation or
pre-
vention of an aggressive behavioral outcome, such an animal
abuse.
Similarly, the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard,
Miller,

Media Globalization Case Study Critiques Perspectives

Media Globalization Case Study Critiques Perspectives

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Media Globalization Case Study Critiques Perspectives

Similar to Media Globalization Case Study Critiques Perspectives (17)

More from roushhsiu

More from roushhsiu (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Media Globalization Case Study Critiques Perspectives