161

Animal Interpersonal

Abuse

in Childhood Violence in

and Families

Later

Support

for

P. Flynn1 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH Clifton

CAROLINA

SPARTANBURG

A survey of university students tested whether committing animal abuse violence against during childhood was related to approval of interpersonal children and women in families. Respondents who had abused an animal as children or adolescents were significantly more likely to support even after controlling for frequency of childhood corporal punishment, biblical literalism, and gender. Those who had perpetrated spanking, race, animal abuse were also more likely to approve of a husband slapping his wife. Engaging in childhood violence against less powerful beings animalsmay generalize to the acceptance of violence against less powerful members of families and societywomen and children. This paper discusses the implications of this process. scholars have examined the link between animal abuse and violence to of humans, but only recently have researchers focused on how maltreatment animals is related to violence within families (Boat, 1995; Lockwood & Ascione, 1998). These few studies have looked at how animal abuse in families may be a sign of other forms of violence, such as child abuse (DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983) or wife abuse (Ascione, 1998). Arkow (1996) argues that childhood animal cruelty may identify not only those who currently live in violent families but also those who may engage in future antisocial behavior. Further, Ascione ( 1992, 1993) animal cruelty, as well as various other forms of suggests that experiencing violence in families, may interfere with the development of empathy in children. has begun on the connection between animal cruelty and violent Exploration behavior in families. No studies, however, have examined whether animal abuse committed as a youth is related to later approval of violence against women and children in families. Animal Abuse Several

Earlier studies, using samples of aggressive criminals (Felthous & Kellert, 1986; Kellert & Felthous, 1985) or troubled youth (Rigdon & Tapia, 1979; Tapia, 1971)

162

have found an association between animal abuse in childhood and later violent behavior. This phenomenon was essentially characteristic of males with harsh childhoods, often including violence inflicted by their fathers. A more recent study (Miller & Knutson, 1997) found a significant correlation between physical punishment and animal abuse for two populations-violent criminals and college students. Taken together, these studies provide evidence that animal abuse can serve both as a marker for children experiencing violence and abuse and as a link to future violent behavior. Thus, the childhood socialization of those who are cruel to animals may provide multiple opportunities to learn and rehearse violence. Owens & Straus (1975) examined the relationship between violence experienced as a child and acceptance of interpersonal violence as an adult. They found that committing violent acts as a child was positively related to approving interpersonal violence-including spanking a child and slapping a wife. This somewhat stronger for males than females, was not affected by relationship, socioeconomic status. If engaging in violence against humans as a child leads to more favorable attitudes toward interpersonal violence, then committing violence against animals could have a similar result. Attitudes Corporal toward Nonabusive Violence in Families

Punishment

The physical punishment of children enjoys strong normative support in this country. In 1986, 84% of Americans agreed that "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking." By 1991, only 73% agreed with administering corporal punishment. Support for spanking had declined somewhat (National Opinion Research Center, 1991). Not only do nearly three out of four Americans approve of spanking, but certain groups have demonstrated particularly favorable attitudes. Race, religion, and region have been important variables to spanking has found that related attitudes Research 1996a). (Flynn, African-Americans Protestants, those (Alvy, 1987, Flynn, 1998), conservative who believe the Bible is the literal word of God (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993; Wiehe, 1990), and Southerners (Flynn, 1994, 1996b) have shown strong support for the physical punishment of children. Husband-to-Wife Violence

In contrast to attitudes toward corporal punishment, Americans strongly opposed husbands hitting their wives. As of 1994, only 10% of Americans said that there

163

were "any situations that you can imagine in which you would approve of a husband slapping his wife's face." This represented a significant decline since 1964, when 21 % approved of a husband slapping his wife (Straus, Kaufman Kantor, & Moore, 1994). These researchers found that gender, ethnicity, region, and age all related to violence. Males, whites, Southerners, support for husband-to-wife interpersonal and younger respondents were more likely to approve of such violence. If abusing animals both socializes children to engage in violence, and inhibits the development of empathy in children, then not only is animal abuse more likely to lead to interpersonal violence,but also animal abuse may relate to more accepting attitudes toward interpersonal violence. This may be particularly true if a child who has abused animals has also been a victim of violence within the family. This study investigates the link between perpetrating animal abuse in childhood and maintaining favorable attitudes in young adulthood toward nonabusive violence against children and women in families. Specifically, are young adults who abused animals as children or adolescents more likely to support spanking children, and to approve of a husband slapping his wife? Methods Sample and Data Collection

students taking introductory psychology and Participants were 267 undergraduate sociology courses at a public southeastern university in the fall of 1997. Students completed an eighteen-page questionnaire asking about their experiences with animal abuse, their experiences with and attitudes about various forms of family information. was voluntary. violence, and certain demographic Participation in classes, the questionnaire Administered took approximately 25 minutes to the Because of items on the incomplete. potentially disturbing questionnaire, formed consent was obtained from each student. To insure students' complete anonymity, however, this process was conducted separately from the administration of the questionnaire of the sample was white (73.4%), and about one-fifth Nearly three-fourths were African-American. Over two-thirds of the respondents were female (68.4%). Most of the respondents were typical college age students at or near the beginning of their college careers. The majority of students were either freshmen (58.8%) or sophomores (24.3%). Eighty percent were under the age of twenty-one, and almost 92% were younger than twenty-five. Ninety percent were single, and 95.5% were childless.

164

Measures Animal abuse. Perpetrating animal abuse was measured using five items from the Boat Inventory on Animal-Related Experiences, formerly called the Animal-Related Miller and Knutson Trauma Inventory (Boat, 1997, personal communication). in the for use format, and that version, (1997) adapted inventory questionnaire modified, was used here. The five acts of animal abuse were (a) killing a pet; (b) killing a stray or wild animal; (c) hurting or torturing an animal to tease it or cause it pain; (d) touching an animal sexually; and (e) having sex with an animal. If the respondent admitted to committing any one of the five acts, then the respondent was considered to have perpetrated animal abuse. Items concerning killing an animal explicitly excluded killing for food ( farm animals intended for slaughter), hunting, and mercy killing, so that socially-approved behaviors were not counted as abuse. In addition, for each type of cruelty respondents were asked to report the type of animal involved, what was done to the animal, the number of separate incidents, and the age when the cruelty was first committed. For type of animal, the possible responses were (a) dogs, (b) cats, (c) other small animals (e.g., rodents, birds, reptiles, poultry), (d) large animals (horses, sheep, goats, cattle, donkey, pigs), and (e) other. The response choices for method of cruelty included (a) poisoned (gas, drugs, alcohol), (b) drowned, strangled, smothered, (c) hit, beat, kicked, threw against a wall or object, (d) shot, and (e) stabbed or poked with sharp object, burned, blew up, and castrated or mutilated genitals. For number of incidents, respondents could choose either one, two, three to five, or six or more. Finally, the possible responses for age at first incident were "2 to 5," "6 to 12," "teenager," or "adult." Attitudes toward corporal punishment. The following item measured the variable: "Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking?" Responses were coded from 0 to 3, with 3 being "strongly agree," such that a higher score indicated a more favorable attitude toward spanking. Approval of husband slapping wife. Respondents were asked whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the following statement: "I can imagine a situation in which I would approve of a husband slapping his wife." As with the spanking variable, responses were coded from 0 to 3, with 3 being "strongly agree," so that a higher score means greater approval for a wife being slapped by her husband.

165

Four variables served as control variables: frequency of physical to adolescence, race, biblical literalism, and gender. Frequency punishment prior of physical punishment was measured by asking the following question: "Before you were a teenager, about how often would you say your parents (or stepparents) like spanking, slapping, or hitting you?" Possible used physical punishment, responses were never, once, twice, 3-5 times, 6-10 times, 11-20 times, or more than 20 times. Responses were coded from 0 to 6, with 0 being "never" and 6 being for each parent"more than twenty times." The question was asked twice-once of a total and the two answers were summed to get frequency preteen physical score. punishment Race was dichotomized as white or nonwhite. Biblical literalism was measured by asking respondents whether they strongly agreed, agree, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that "the Bible is the literal word of God." Responses were coded from 0 to 3, with a higher number indicating greater belief in biblical literalism. Control variables. Results Perpetrating Animal Abuse

Over one-sixth of the sample-17.6%-reported perpetrating at least one act of animal abuse. The most common form of abuse was killing a stray animal ( 13.1 %), followed by hurting or torturing an animal (6.7%), and killing a pet (2.6%). There was very little evidence of sexual acts committed on animals (see Table 1). Males were nearly four times more likely than females to have abused an animal. More than a third of males, but only one out of ten females, admitted to harming or killing an animal. Whites were somewhat more likely than nonwhites vs. 12.7%. to have committed animal abuse-19.4% Table 2 summarizes the data regarding the type of animals abused, the method of abuse used, the number of separate incidents, and age of the first incident for the three most prevalent types of animal cruelty. The most common victims of animal cruelty were small animals (rodents, birds, reptiles, and poultry), dogs, and cats. For respondents who reported killing animals, the typical victims were small animals. Of the thirty-five individuals who had killed a wild or stray animal, 77.1 % said they had killed a small animal. For those who had hurt or tortured animals, small animals s (50.0%) and dogs (44.4%) were the most likely victims. out of 47 animal abuse-33 The majority of those who had perpetrated committed only one type of abuse. About one in five (n=9) had (70.2%)-had

166

committed

two different types, 8.5% had inflicted three types of abuse, and one respondent reported committing four of the five types of animal cruelty. Almost all perpetrators, however, had abused animals on more than one occasion. Although only 35.3% said they had only killed a stray or wild animal on one occasion, nearly four out of ten had done so twice, and approximately one-fourth had killed a stray or wild animal in three or more separate incidents. Similarly, only 22.2% of those who had hurt or tortured an animal had done so only once. One-third reported two separate incidents of cruelty, one-sixth reported three to five incidents, and 27.8% reported six or more. For those who had killed a stray or wild animal (n=35), 70.6% reported that the act occurred during adolescence, with 29.4% saying they killed an animal between ages six to twelve. Half of the eighteen respondents who hurt or tortured an animal did so between the ages of six and twelve, while one-third hurt or tortured animals as teenagers. toward Spanking Children and Slapping Wives

Attitudes

As expected, corporal punishment received fairly strong support. Seventy-one percent of respondents reported that they either agreed (47.2%) or strongly agreed (23.8%) that "it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking." Not surprisingly, very little support existed for a husband slapping his wife. Only 7.2% of the students agreed (6.4%) or strongly agreed (.8%) that they could "imagine a situation in which they would approve of a husband slapping his wife." Eighty percent of respondents strongly disagreed with that statement.

167

Relationship

between

Animal

Abuse

and Attitudes

toward

Violence

Spanking. Respondents who had abused an animal during childhood had significantly more favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment (M=2.18) than those who had not perpetrated animal abuse (M=1.81, p< .05). However, there may be

168

other factors related to attitudes toward corporal punishment that may account for this difference. To control for this possibility, a multiple regression analysis was performed (see Table 3), with four control variables in the model: the frequency of physical punishment received from both parents before age 13, the race of the belief in biblical literalism, and the respondent's s respondent (white/nonwhite), When for these factors, the difference between animal abuse gender. controlling groups remains, with those committing animal abuse still having more favorable attitudes toward spanking. The adjusted mean for spanking attitudes among those who had abused an animal was 2.13, compared with 1.82 for those who had not perpetrated animal abuse (p=.0357). Three of the four control variables were also related to attitudes toward corporal punishment, with nonwhites, significantly biblical literalists, and those who were spanked frequently as children being more supportive of spanking. Gender was not significantly related to spanking attitudes. Husband who exSlapping Wife. Because of the small number of participants of pressed any degree approval for a husband slapping his wife (n=19), this attitude variable was dichotomized as either approving or disapproving of a wife being her and a was husband, slapped by chi-square analysis performed. Respondents who had abused an animal were more likely to approve of a husband slapping his wife than those who had never committed animal abuse by three to one-15.6% compared with 5.4% (xz=5.727, p=.017). No differences based on gender were found, as only 7% of both males and females approved of a husband slapping his wife.

169

Discussion The high incidence of childhood animal abuse uncovered in this sample of college students is alarming. As a child, one out of six respondents and one in three male students were more respondents had harmed or killed an animal. Interestingly, killed a wild or animal than were to have hurt or tortured they likely to have stray an animal. Although this may seem counterintuitive at first glance, there are at least two logical explanations for such a finding. First, since small animals were the most likely type of animal to be killed, some respondents may have reported socially sanctioned behaviors, such as killing mice and rats, or snakes (i.e., "vermin") that may not be seen by themselves or others as abusive. This possibility calls attention to more precise operationalization of animal cruelty in future studies. However, a second and equally plausible explanation is that hurting or torturing an animal to tease or cause pain is a more deviant act than killing an animal, and thus it occurs less frequently. While killing animals is socially sanctioned in many circumstances, torturing animals never is. The act of torturing an animal for the thrill of inflicting pain and suffering is, in many ways, a more disturbing act, both and socially, than ending an animal's life. psychologically animal abuse during childhood is related to later approval of Committing interpersonal violence against children and women in families. The findings are consistent with the conclusions of Owens and Straus (1975), who argued that the social structure of childhood violence, including violence committed by children, violence as an adult. Although their study is related to approving interpersonal focused on violence against humans, these findings suggest that the relationship holds for childhood violence against animals as well. animal abuse during childhood was a significant predictor of Perpetrating attitudes toward corporal punishment-even after controlling for race, gender, biblical literalism, and frequency of being spanked as a child. Previous research (Straus, 1991 ) has shown that parents who approve of corporal punishment not only tend to use it more frequently, but also are more likely to be physically abusive to their children. If being cruel to animals as a child leads to later support for hitting children, then it may also make it easier to actually hit children as an adult. Given the host of potential negative outcomes associated with spanking-antisocial violence-the behavior, substance abuse, depression, interpersonal relationship between animal cruelty and support for spanking should be cause for concern (Straus, 1994).

170

Because of the small number of respondents who had both perpetrated animal abuse as children and who approved of a husband slapping his wife, the relationship between these variables should be interpreted cautiously. Nevertheless, the fact that a statistically significant result was obtained suggests that the relationship is a fairly powerful one. Ascione (1992, 1993) has argued that animal abuse could interfere with the of empathy in children. The findings from this study can be interdevelopment in preted light of this position. If cruelty to animals does cause children to be less empathic, it makes sense that they may be less troubled as young adults by parents hitting children or husbands hitting wives. Further, if abusing animals not only inhibits one's ability to show kindness and compassion, but also socializes one to use violence, then perpetrators may be more likely not only to approve intimate that some violence, but to engage in it as well. It is important to acknowledge children may start out with an empathy deficit that could cause them to approve of and employ violence against both human and nonhuman animals. Only further research can answer this question. Either way, future research should explore the link between childhood animal cruelty and later violence in families. Beyond that, social scientists should also explore how abusing animals as a child may influence adult attitudes toward hitting animals, as well as abusive treatment of animals as an adult. Even though the relationship between perpetrating animal abuse and acceptance of interpersonal violence did not differ by gender, the fact that males are nearly four times more likely to abuse animals should not be overlooked. The socialization of males includes lessons about dominance and aggression. Animal abuse offers an opportunity to rehearse dominance and aggression against less powerful beings, thereby reinforcing the beliefs that support such behaviors, particularly if the abuse is not perceived by parents or society as being a serious offense. Although not measured in this study, future researchers should examine the reaction of parents, other authority figures, and peers to youths' animal abuse. The response of significant others may play an important role in determining the effect of abusing animals on one's attitudes toward, and propensity for engaging in, interpersonal violence. Parents and others who ignore animal cruelty may contribute to a greater acceptance of violence against human and nonhuman animals. The high incidence of childhood animal cruelty also suggests that many parents are unaware of the abusive acts their children are committing against animals, and thus, of the potential long-term negative consequences for their children's development.

171

Ending animal abuse will have important consequences for the well-being of children and women. Efforts to stop the cruel treatment of animals are likely to contribute to the decreased tolerance for interpersonal violence, and thus to lessening the actual incidence of violence against women and children. But just as important, as Solot (1997) reminds us, attention to violence toward animals is needed not just because it is related to violence toward humans. Rather, such efforts will help to end the needless suffering of innocent animals, and thus contribute to achieving a nonviolent society for all living beings. Note 1. Correspondence should be sent to Clifton P. Flynn, Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina Spartanburg, Spartanburg, SC 29303, or e-mail to cflynn@gw.uscs.edu. I wish to thank Jill Jones, Kenneth Shapiro, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. References Alvy, K. T. (1987). Black parenting: Strategies for training. New York: Irvington. Arkow, P. (1996). The relationships between animal abuse and other forms of family violence. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 12, 29-34. Ascione, F. R. (1992). Enhancing children's attitudes about the humane treatment of animals: Generalization to human-directed empathy. Anthrozoos, 5, 3, 176-191. Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychology. Anthrozoos, 6, 4, 226-247. Ascione, F. R. (1998). Battered women's reports of their partners' and their children's cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 119-133. Boat, B. W. (1995). The relationship between violence to children and violence to animals: An ignored link? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 2, 229-235. DeViney, E., Dickert, J., & Lockwood, R. (1983). The care of pets within child abusing families. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4, 4, 321-329. Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative protestantism and support for corporal punishment. American Sociological Review, 58, 131-144. Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1986). Violence against animals and people: Is aggression against living creatures generalized? Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 14, 1, 55-69. Flynn, C. P. (1994). Regional differences in attitudes toward corporal punishment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 314-324. Flynn, C. P. (1996a). Normative support for corporal punishment: Attitudes, correlates, and implications. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 1, 47-55.

172

Flynn, C. P. (1996b). Regional differences in spanking experiences and attitudes: A comparison of northeastern and southern college students. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 59-80. Flynn, C. P. (1998). To spank or not to spank: The effect of age of child and situation on support for corporal punishment. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 21-37. Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38, 12, 1113-1129. Lockwood, R., & Ascione, F. R. (1998). Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence: Readings in research and application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Miller, K. S., & Knutson, J. F. (1997). Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 1, 59-82. National Opinion Research Center (1991). General social surveys, 1972-1991 cumulative codebook. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Owens, D. J., & Straus, M. A. (1975). The social structure of violence in childhood and approval of violence as an adult. Aggressive Behavior, 1, 193-211. Rigdon, J. D., & Tapia, F. (1977). Children who are cruel to animals: A follow-up study. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 8, 1, 27-36. Solot, D. (1997). Untangling the animal abuse web. Society and Animals, 5, 257-265. Straus, M. A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and violence and other crime in adulthood. Social Problems, 38, 133-154. Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books. Straus, M. A., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Moore, D. W. (1994). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence from 1968 to 1994. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Tapia, F. (1971). Children who are cruel to animals. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 2, 2, 70-77. Wiehe, V. R. (1990). Religious influence on parental attitudes toward the use of corporal punishment. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 173-186.