The Many Facets of Animal Cruelty

Despite it being an enormous problem, specific figures noting the exact frequencies and scope of animal cruelty in the United States do not seem to exist. However, investigators, researchers, government officials and many others have explored several different areas to attempt to pinpoint why animal cruelty is such a big problem in the United States. From the areas of general crime which statistically prove to be most connected to crime (age, gender, socioeconomic status and race), at least three of these have also been closely related to animal cruelty.

Researchers from around the country have looked at many different connections between people and animal cruelty, and it is clear that this crime cannot and does not exist within itself. As is true with all crimes, outside factors must play a part. In looking at much of the research done on animal cruelty, I have concentrated on five distinct (but interconnected) areas of research that contribute most to the problem of animal cruelty in the United States.

First, research has been done which looked at the relationship that former crimes unrelated to the crime of animal cruelty have to the attitudes one has toward animal cruelty. Secondly, as with many crimes, I posited whether or not the act of cruelty to animals can be, and is, a learned behavior. Research has been conducted in this area to suggest that those who commit the crime of animal cruelty learn it from family members, friends, and, in juveniles, fellow children of the same age as the offender.

I also thought about how family life and animal cruelty might coincide with one another. Specifically, I examined research that explored the connection between being a victim of domestic abuse and how that could play a part in that individual committing a cruel act against an animal.

Closely related to the idea of domestic violence, I also looked at the connection between an individual who witnesses an act of animal cruelty within the home, and their likelihood of performing such an act themselves.

Lastly, I examined the relationships between where someone lives (a rural area as opposed to an urban area) and their individual chances of committing a cruel act against an animal, as well as the kinds of animals that both rural and urban individuals tended to abuse.

Knowing that the goal of examining any kind of deviant act and its relationships to society should be the crime's abolishment, I began to look at what kinds of things we as individuals, either in the fields of psychology, sociology, criminology, and especially criminal justice, can do to help lessen these crimes against animals, and ideally omit the crimes from our society altogether.

Bill C. Henry, in his article "The Relationship Between Animal Cruelty, Delinquency, and Attitudes Toward the Treatment of Animals," discovered, in accordance with other researchers, that "trends in the study of animal cruelty have linked animal maltreatment to significant antisocial tendencies, particularly interpersonal violence" (Ascione, 2001 as qtd. in Henry, 2004). Furthermore, Henry called upon other research done in 1996 that proposed that those who knowingly abuse animals are at least 3 times more likely to have had that history of criminal action, namely behaviors like "theft, arson, fraud and assault" (Henry, 2004).

In his research, Henry examined college-age adults, rather than the incarcerated individuals previous researchers had chosen. Also different from previous research, Henry posited the questions he asked in a manner that seemed to allow for a broader range of responses. Since Henry was looking at attitudes and how they shape and are shaped by the action of animal cruelty, he phrased his questions as "How much would it bother you to think about...". Researching in this way, Henry's questions force respondents to look at the issue at more than face-value, and instead venture somewhat deeper into their conscience, which is, of course, where attitudes originate.

In keeping with the previous research that Henry does acknowledge, there were not many women who reported participating in animal cruelty. This seems to me to infer that, since Henry and other researchers have already established the connection between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, women don't participate in the interpersonal violence, which then breeds this malevolent attitude toward animals. Conversely, Henry found that men are more likely to report participating in acts of animal cruelty, and likewise participate in delinquent behaviors. In terms of attitudes toward animal cruelty, women reported feeling "much more concern for the well-being of animals" (2004)-a conclusion not reached by Henry concerning the males in the research.

What is interesting is that Henry examined both the act of either engaging in animal cruelty or the more passive instance of observing such an act. He discovered that the two actions did not yield drastically different results in terms of delinquent behaviors unrelated to the animal cruelty. However, in terms of animal cruelty attitudes, the results were different. In either case, those who observed versus those who participated were generally more apt to have a history of criminal behavior. Furthermore, that criminal behavior was found to have occurred in the previous year and over the course of the individual's life.

Using this conclusion, it makes sense that those who participate in committing animal cruelty do not possess the concern for the animal's well-being, since if they did have such thoughts, they would most likely realize that committing such an act is irrational. Upon observing animal cruelty, however, the individuals seemed much more affected, and this effect tended to illustrate that an individual's sense of right and wrong kicked in, and thus their attitude reflected such sense.
As I mentioned before, previous research is lax in that it assessed the delinquent behaviors of those already in prison, which would not allow the results to reflect the attitudes of a more general population. However, Henry's examination, which researched the attitudes of college-age adults within the sphere of a General Psychology course (which ought to be generalized enough so that everyone has a similar attitude toward their thoughts and feelings), is more apt to reflect general attitudes.

In terms of research like Henry's providing us with an avenue for improving the teaching within our systems of social education (psychology and sociology) and law (the criminal justice system), we cannot significantly alter the attitudes of the incarcerated (as they have already been more psychologically-altered by both the institution and their own crimes). However, in comparison, those in college who more closely represent the views of the general population are more susceptible to this type of research having an influence in shaping their future attitudes toward both general antisocial and delinquent behavior, and more specifically, the complex crime of animal cruelty.

It is clear from the research that having participated in delinquent behavior prior to committing an act of animal cruelty does make a difference. But, we must first understand where exactly does this malevolent attitude come from? Is it a learned behavior? If so, how do we humans learn to do it?
Given its relatively unique and unexplored interconnected ideas, it shouldn't be surprising that in 1979, much earlier than the birth of most of the research done on animal cruelty, C.D. Bryant described the act of animal cruelty as "among the most ubiquitous of any
This quote seems to raise an interesting, although somewhat hidden idea not yet wholly researched-that animal cruelty is a social deviance, which could be interpreted to mean that animal cruelty is not necessarily limited to a simple, yet very abnormal, interaction between an individual and an animal. Rather, this admittance brings to light the fact that the thoughts, feelings and actions of the individual participating in the cruel act against the animal must have originated from an outside source. Thus, coming from an outside source, the logical conclusion is that animal cruelty is a learned behavior. Bill C. Henry has already established from where those who commit animal cruelty could possibly get their attitudes. The next mystery that should follow is discovering from whom the individual learns.
Granted, while choosing to research inmates again raises the argument that the general populus is not represented, social learning did still occur within the minds of these imprisoned individuals, and thus ought to be examined, lest we gain nothing to pass onto future generations about how animal cruelty pervades many aspects of our lives and minds.

Before I illustrate how learning and animal cruelty coincide, I want to address the idea behind learning, specifically the theory of social learning, to help better support the connections that researchers have made between the two.

Albert Bandura is responsible for much of our understanding of the learning that occurs within a social context. Bandura posits that in order for social learning to occur, the idea must center around modeling, which in turn comes with four separate but interconnected subtexts. The first, called attention, simply hypothesizes that an individual "must pay attention to the features of the modeled behavior" (http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/bandura.htm).
The second idea Bandura came up with is called retention, which basically means that once the young individual observes the behavior, that knowledge needs to be kept within the mind of the child. The third step Bandura called reproduction, which he says happens when an individual is able to conform his or her actions to what he or she observed in the older individual.

Finally, Bandura argues that some sort of motivation must occur if the individual is going to perform a behavior that derives from learning a similar act. As he says, "these imagined incentives act as reinforcers" (http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/bandura.htm). Another important aspect of Bandura's social learning theory happens after an individual learns the behavior. This aspect has with it three other distinct parts: self observation, judgement, and self response.
Interestingly, it would seem that an individual who is thought to have learned the crime of animal cruelty certainly would possess the attention needed to model the behavior, the ability to remember the processes involved, and also enough knowledge to do the deviant behavior repeatedly. However, it is the exact motivations of this behavior that have researchers rather puzzled. In addition, I argue that an individual who participates in animal cruelty also lacks the ability to change their behavior after having done some sort of self observation, judgement, and self response.

Christopher Hensely and Suzanne Tallichet researched the idea that animal cruelty is a learned behavior, and came up with some interesting results. They discovered that if an individual saw a family member, a friend, or a neighbor perform a cruel act against an animal, then that individual would be more likely to commit future acts of cruelty, merely by observing someone else. This suggests that those around him or her most closely shape the perceptions of an individual-not necessarily within the individual's family.

Furthermore, the younger the observer, the more likely he or she is to report that a family member performed the act. If that much is true, they are then more likely to report if they witness a friend performing a cruel act against an animal. Lastly, if a young observer witnesses a friend commit an act of animal cruelty, the observer is more likely to commit future cruel acts, and will perform them more often as they get older. This suggests that an observer's friend is very influential to the individual; so much so that their abberant behavior and attitude toward animals is likely to continue past childhood. In all cases, a young observer who witnesses an act of animal cruelty done by either a family member, friend, or even a neighbor has the potential for his or her emotional and moral development to be significantly affected.

In 2006, Thompson and Gullone examined the connection that witnessing animal abuse and being in a violent household had with children and their subsequent attitudes about animal cruelty. Both authors first concluded, somewhat similarly to Hensley and Tallichet, that "through their abusive parents, children learn to perpetrate acts of violence against a more innocent and helpless victim than themselves" (2006). With their own study, they discovered that within a violent household, almost 30% of the 204 families that they examined had reports of the child witnessing the male of the house harm or kill the family pet. Surprisingly, the families outside of the family violence programs had no reports of such action. Of that 29% in the violent family situation, 19% of those children became motivated to perform the acts themselves. Again, within the community, virtually no child possessed that motivation.

In a second study, 62% of children overall that were exposed to domestic violence in their home witnessed violence upon their pet. Within the community, the percentage was only three. In looking at both studies, Thompson and Gullone concluded that witnessing animal abuse within an already violent household is much more common than researchers like Henry in 2004 had previously reported.

Positively, however, the two researchers discovered that "youths are less likely to imitate the act of cruelty when perpetrated by someone to whom they cannot relate" (Thompson and Gullone, 2006).

Cheryl L. Currie comes to the same basic conclusion in her studies as Thompson and Gullone do. But, she includes an aspect of the connection between domestic violence and animal cruelty that Thompson and Gullone did not seem to address. Currie posits that "children [in violent homes] who were cruel to animals had learned disturbing lessons about power and control" (Currie, 2006), and that these two ideas are powerful tools that can be used in interpersonal relationships.

It is clear that there are definite connections and conclusions made about animal cruelty as a learned behavior, as well as domestic violence playing a large part in shaping those children's attitudes about how to treat animals. But what about where someone lives?

Once again, Suzanne Tallichet and Christopher Hensley did some research to try and make some conclusions about this aspect of the world of animal cruelty. While perhaps not surprising, these conclusions still play an important part in our understanding.

Both researchers concluded that those in rural areas tended to take their cues from family members who abused animals. Urban residents, on the other hand, were affected more broadly, learning from both family and friends in their communities.

The next conclusion they made was actually an interesting one, because it brought to light the differences in the mindsets of rural residents versus the thoughts and feelings of urbanites. Tallichet and Hensley discovered that rural residents are less likely to purposefully abuse animals for that very same (albeit ironic) reason: they understand that the animals around them serve a purpose for their livelihood, and thus they do not tend to abuse them as urban residents may. Urban residents, they found, generally felt that animals are "unimportant and distant" (Daniels & Brehm, 2003, as quoted in Tallichet and Hensley, 2005), and treated them as such.

Not surprisingly, those like Tallichet and Hensley who have attempted to come up with ways to help the situations surrounding animal cruelty, first and foremost suggest further education for the prominent members of the affected communities. This education, they propose, ought to be focused on the worst aspects of animal cruelty, and how to better moderate and hopefully prevent such acts.

This examination of what can be done in rural and urban areas brings me to the last part of my discussion of animal cruelty: what else can be done about it, and in what specific areas? Catherine A. Faver and Elizabeth B. Strand specifically address the implications that animal cruelty, directly in connection with domestic violence, has and will have on social work in the future. Certainly furthering the education of law enforcement, teachers, parents, and other professionals who can make decisions both for the community and for their own families is atop the list of ways to improve the system of social work. Interestingly, Faver and Strand suggest that it be the social workers themselves that perform this education, since, they argue, the social workers understand and are more up to date with the research on domestic violence and animal cruelty than other professionals, and know that the "well being of animals is inextricably connected to the well being of their human counterparts and companions" (Faver & Strand, 2003). This kind of education would perhaps be most useful in improving the ongoing research of domestic violence to include more questions that deal with animal cruelty and ownership.

As for other areas within our world, like the criminal justice system, perhaps the best way we can improve our relationships with animals is further research, which I think would then allow us to better understand the relationships that each of the areas I discussed have with animal cruelty and perhaps shed more light on how the research can be improved, since much of the research acknowledges its own weaknesses.

There is an incredible amount of research on juveniles and the relationship they have with animal cruelty, and if we already understand the connections age has with the likelihood of animal cruelty occurring, perhaps we ought to strengthen juvenile laws to reflect this relationship. We need to work more closely with social workers to better understand these relationships. Perhaps then we can alter laws for juveniles to lessen their propensity for committing animal cruelty.

Lastly, in terms of both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, as well as both rural and urban residents, perhaps the best way we can change the current course of animal cruelty in all of these areas is to simply buckle down on controlling these groups, but of course first we must continue researching them to help us better understand what exactly they are doing to impact the world of animal cruelty, which would then allow us to better change our current laws and policies to help the futures of our animals.

Works Cited

Currie, Cheryl L. (2006). Animal Cruelty By Children Exposed to Domestic Violence. Child Abuse & Neglect. 30. 425-435.
Faver, Catherine A.; Strand, Elizabeth B. (2003). Domestic Violence and Animal Cruelty: Untangling the Web of Abuse. Journal of Social Work Education. 39:2. 237-253.
Henry, Bill C. (2004). The Relationship Between Animal Cruelty, Delinquency, and Attitudes Toward the Treatment of Animals. Society & Animals. 12:3. 185-207.
Hensley, Christopher; Tallichet, Suzanne 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.
Thompson, Kelly L.; Gullone, Eleonora. (2006). An Investigation Into the Association Between the Witnessing of Animal Abuse and Adolescents' Behavior Toward Animals. Society & Animals. 14:3.
Tallichet, Suzanne E.; Hensley, Christopher. (2005). Rural and Urban Differences in the Commission of Animal Cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 49:6. 711-726.