Associations between different motivations for animal cruelty, methods of animal cruelty and facets of impulsivity

Abstract

Associations between specific motivations for animal cruelty, particular methods of animal cruelty and different facets of impulsivity were explored among 130 undergraduate students. Participants completed an adapted version of the Boat Inventory on Animal-Related Experiences (BIARE) which asked participants to state whether they had intentionally harmed or killed an animal, the species of animal(s) involved, their motivations for harming or killing the animal(s) and the method(s) used.Participants also completed the Impulsive Behavior scale (UPPS-P) which assesses five facets of impulsivity. Over half of the sample (55%) reported committing at least one act of animal cruelty, and dogs were the most commonly abused species of animal. The most frequently reported motivations were Prejudice, Amusement, Control (of an animal), and Retaliation (against an animal), and the most frequently reported methods were Beating/Kicking, Squashing, Throwing an object at an animal, Shooting, Drowning and Burning. Significant associations were found between particular motivations and methods, as well as between particular methods of animal cruelty and facets of impulsivity.Findings have implications for theoretical models of animal cruelty perpetration as well as offender assessment and treatment.

Children’s attitudes towards animal cruelty: Exploration of predictors and socio-demographic variations

“…We know from reviews of research into animal cruelty (e.g. Gullone, 2014aGullone, , 2014b) that there are a range of risk factors for this aberrant behaviour including, but not limited to: a lack of empathy (McPhedran, 2009); particularly low cognitive empathy (Hartman et al, 2016), characteristic of callous-unemotional traits alongside a lack of guilt or remorse, shallow affect and psychopathy (Dadds, Whiting & Hawes, 2006;Walters, 2014); impulsivity (Newberry, 2017a); adverse childhood experiences, particularly child abuse and neglect, sexual abuse and/or domestic abuse (Bright et al, 2018;McDonald et al, 2018); victimisation and bullying (including cyber-bullying); and normative beliefs about aggression (Sanders & Henry, 2018).…”

“…Studies have focused on the links between cruelty and violence (e.g., Collins et al, 2018;Monsalve, Ferreira & Garcia, 2017), and associations between cruelty and behavioural problems (e.g., Baglivio et al, 2017), and links with adverse childhood experiences (Browne, Hensley & McGuffee, 2017). Most studies have not directly focused on childhood cruelty towards animals (e.g., Levitt, Hoffer & Loper, 2016;Newberry, 2017aNewberry, , 2017bSanders & Henry, 2017;Walters, 2017). Moreover, very little research has considered differences between intentional harm and unintentional harm and neglect.…”

Animal Cruelty and Neighborhood Conditions

“…A variety of methods have been used to explore animal cruelty. Studies of domestic violence have typically involved small samples, recall interviews, and surveys with victims and perpetrators and with college students [ 2 ]. Research on incarcerated individuals, serial killers, and sadists also provides few cases and unique populations [ 36 ].…”

Animal maltreatment law: Evolving efforts to protect animals and their forensic mental health implications

“…Less prevalent in the literature is research focusing on risk factors specific to the commission of animal cruelty and its recidivism. Recent research has begun to identify risk factors for cruelty in the form of epidemiologic correlates (Vaughn et al, ) and personality characteristics, such as impulsivity (Newberry, ). Future research should focus on elaborating on the relationship between specific individual characteristics, including personality traits, mental illness, and substance abuse, and historical factors that increase an individual's risk of engaging in animal cruelty.…”