NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:
Violence Against Women. 2014 September ; 20(9): 1059–1077. doi:10.1177/1077801214549641.
ADULTHOOD ANIMAL ABUSE AMONG MEN ARRESTED FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Jeniimarie Febres,
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, 204 Austin Peay Building, Knoxville, TN
37996, P: (865) 974-3489, F: (865) 974-9530
Hope Brasfield,
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee
Ryan C. Shorey,
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Joanna Elmquist,
Department of Psychology University of Tennessee
Andrew Ninnemann,
Butler Hospital & Brown University
Yael C. Schonbrun,
Butler Hospital & Brown University
Jeff R. Temple,
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston
Patricia R. Recupero, and
Butler Hospital & Brown University
Gregory L. Stuart
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Jeniimarie Febres: jfebres@utk.edu; Hope Brasfield: hbrasfi2@utk.edu; Ryan C. Shorey: rshorey@utk.edu; Joanna
Elmquist: jelmquis@utk.edu; Andrew Ninnemann: Andrew_Ninnemann@brown.edu; Yael C. Schonbrun:
Yael_Chatav_Schonbrun@brown.edu; Jeff R. Temple: jetemple@utmb.edu; Patricia R. Recupero:
Patricia_Recupero@brown.edu; Gregory L. Stuart: gstuart@utk.edu
Abstract
Learning more about intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators could aid the development of
more effective treatments. The prevalence of adulthood animal abuse (AAA) perpetration and its
association with IPV perpetration, antisociality, and alcohol use in 307 men arrested for domestic
violence was examined. 41% (n = 125) of the men committed at least one act of animal abuse
since the age of 18, in contrast to the 3.0% prevalence rate reported by men in the general
population. Controlling for antisociality and alcohol use, AAA showed a trend towards a
significant association with physical and severe psychological IPV perpetration.
Febres et al.
Page 2
Keywords
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Intimate partner violence; Animal abuse; Male perpetrator
The prevalence of male-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV) in the United States
remains alarmingly high. Studies show that up to 55% of women are victims of IPV in their
lifetime (Black et al., 2011; Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000; Thompson et al., 2006;
Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). IPV victimization has been associated with numerous
devastating physical and mental health consequences (Black et al., 2011; Coker et al., 2002;
Follingstad, 2009; Temple, Weston, & Marshall, 2005; Zlotnick, Johnson, & Kohn, 2006).
A substantial number of women are victims of the most extreme of these consequences:
intimate partner homicide. In fact, in 2005 alone, intimate homicide accounted for the deaths
of 1,181 women in the United States (U. S. Department of Justice, 2007).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Despite the striking prevalence and devastating costs of IPV, intervention programs
designed to prevent recidivism of male-perpetrated violence have demonstrated limited
effectiveness (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004; Feder & Wilson, 2005). At the same time,
there is increasing evidence that male-perpetrated IPV is associated with an array of factors
considered to be antisocial in nature, including aggression against animals, problematic
alcohol use, and antisocial personality traits. Obtaining more information about factors
relevant to the perpetration of IPV by men could lead to a better understanding of these
individuals in order to aid in the development of more effective treatments.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
A great deal of research suggests an association between aggression perpetrated against nonhuman animals and against humans. Perhaps the most well-known illustrations of this
association have employed retrospective investigations of the perpetration of animal abuse
during adolescence or childhood. Animal abuse or cruelty is defined as “socially
unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to
and/or death of an animal” (Ascione 1993, p.228). For instance, studies using samples of
criminal offenders have found significantly higher levels of childhood animal cruelty,
particularly physical in nature, reported by those individuals who commit aggressive or
violent crimes (e.g., murder, sex offenses) than by those who commit non-aggressive crimes
or crimes deemed less aggressive (e.g., property crimes, drug-related crimes) (Kellert &
Felthous, 1985; Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001). Further, perpetrators’ methods of
aggression used against animals in childhood often mirror those used against humans in
adulthood (Wright & Hensley, 2003). The relationship between youth animal abuse and
adult interpersonal violence continues to receive empirical support. This close relationship is
reflected in the inclusion of childhood animal abuse as one criterion for Antisocial
Personality Disorder (ASPD), an adulthood disorder commonly characterized by
interpersonal aggression (Arluke, Levin, Luke, & Ascione, 1999). Also, the acceptability of
violence and the imitation of specific acts of aggression transmitted via social learning are
thought to play a similar and significant role in the perpetration of each type of aggression,
providing a further link between them (Agnew, 1998; Bell & Naugle, 2008).
More recently, research has also begun to examine the relation between animal abuse
committed as an adult and aggression against humans, including intimate partners. In a study
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 3
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
of over 3,000 women residing in 11 metropolitan cities in the U.S. who survived an
attempted intimate homicide and proxies for women who were murdered by their intimate
partners, Walton-Moss and colleagues (2005) found that women whose partners had
reportedly abused a pet were 7.6 times more likely to be victims of IPV compared to nonabused women. Studies also show that up to 75% of female victims of IPV who own pets
report that their pets were threatened or harmed by their intimate partners (Flynn, 2011). In
addition, in a study of 101 female residents of domestic violence shelters, Ascione and
colleagues (2007) found residents to be 11 times more likely to report that their partners had
hurt or killed the family pet compared to a control group of women who had not experienced
IPV. The residents whose partners reportedly abused their pet also experienced more
frequent and more severe forms of IPV. Research also shows male perpetrators of partner
aggression to be at risk of threatening to harm pets in the midst of altercations with their
female partners (Carlisle-Frank, Frank, & Nielsen, 2004). Such behavior has been
considered a form of coercion or control (Johnson, 2006; Loring & Bolden-Hines, 2004) and
is thought to intensify existing emotional abuse (Faver & Strand, 2003). For instance, in one
study, female victims of IPV reported that their partners used threats against their pets to
coerce them to commit crimes (Loring & Bolden-Hines, 2004).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The seemingly common co-occurrence of animal abuse in homes plagued by domestic
violence has led researchers to argue that animal abuse/cruelty could be a “red flag” for
family violence and, thus, they have encouraged its continued study to better understand
perpetrators in the interest of increasing detection, prevention, and intervention efforts
(Ascione, Weber, & Wood, 1997; DeGue & DiLillo, 2009; Flynn, 2000; Simmons &
Lehmann, 2007). Furthermore, the fact that up to 48% of women risk further victimization
by delaying seeking shelter, some for more than 8 weeks, and/or by returning to an abusive
partner out of concern that their partner may harm their pets (Ascione et al., 2007; CarlisleFrank et al., 2004; Volant, Johnson, Gullone, & Coleman, 2008) underscores the importance
of better understanding the relationship between adulthood animal abuse and IPV.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Previous studies of animal abuse and IPV, such as those aforementioned, are limited by the
fact that they do not control for other antisocial features that show a strong link to IPV
perpetration (e.g., problematic alcohol use). Because animal abuse is largely an antisocial
act, it may be important to control for other antisocial features in order to elucidate whether
adulthood animal abuse is uniquely associated with IPV perpetration. For example, it has
been repeatedly shown that the perpetration of psychological and physical IPV is more
common in men meeting criteria for ASPD than those who do not. In a study comprised of
men in treatment for perpetrating violence and men in the community, Hanson, Cadsky,
Harris, and Lalonde (1997) found that men who reported perpetrating aggression against
their partners were more likely to display antisocial features, including engaging in more
violence in childhood, endorsing more symptoms of Conduct Disorder, meeting criteria for
ASPD, endorsing more indicators of hostility, and being convicted of violent crimes than
men who denied aggressing against their partner. ASPD has also been found to be one of the
strongest predictors of self-reported physical violence perpetration. Edwards and colleagues
(2003) found that when they divided their sample of inmates into no-, low-, and highviolence men, only the high-violence group obtained elevated ASPD scores. In addition,
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 4
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
empirical evidence has consistently shown that problematic alcohol use increases the risk of
IPV perpetration (e.g., Foran & O’Leary, 2008; Leonard & Roberts, 1998; Stith, Smith,
Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004; Stuart, Moore, Kahler, & Ramsey, 2003). In a meta-analysis of
studies on the link between alcohol use/abuse and partner violence, Foran and O’Leary
(2008) found moderate effect sizes for the association between alcohol use/abuse and maleto-female partner violence, with some of the largest associations found when severe alcohol
problems were present. Likewise, in a sample of men arrested for domestic violence, Stuart
and colleagues (2003) found that half the sample met criteria for an alcohol-related
diagnosis and that those men who were considered hazardous drinkers scored significantly
higher on measures of violence, compared to non-hazardous drinking men. Furthermore,
alcohol use and ASPD co-occur at high rates (Grant et al., 2004; Regier et al., 1990), making
them particularly important factors to consider when examining whether animal abuse is
uniquely linked to IPV perpetration.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The current study seeks to address these gaps in the literature by assessing self-reported
adulthood animal abuse, antisocial personality traits, and alcohol use in a sample of men
arrested for domestic violence. The aims of the present study are: a) to examine the
prevalence and frequency of adulthood animal abuse perpetration in men court-referred to
Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs) and b) to simultaneously assess the association
between adulthood animal abuse, antisocial personality traits, alcohol use, and IPV
perpetration. Such an examination will further the understanding of IPV perpetrators and
inform the assessment of these men for the benefit of treatment development. Based upon
existing research (e.g., Carlisle-Frank et al., 2004), we hypothesized that adulthood animal
abuse would be endorsed by the men in our sample, and that it would be associated with
antisocial traits, alcohol use, and IPV perpetration. We further hypothesized that the
association between adulthood animal abuse and IPV perpetration would be significant
above and beyond the association between IPV perpetration, antisocial personality traits, and
alcohol use.
METHOD
Participants
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The sample consisted of 307 men arrested for domestic violence and court-referred to Rhode
Island BIPs (see Stuart et al., 2006a; 2008). Participants reported a mean age of 33.1 years
(SD = 10.2), education of 12.1 years (SD = 2.0), and annual income of $34,436 (SD
=23,272). The ethnic composition of the sample was 72.3% non-Hispanic Caucasian, 12.1%
African-American, 8.1% Hispanic, 2.0% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 1.3% Asian or
Pacific Islander, and 3.9% other. At the time of the study, 27.7% of the men were married,
29.6% were cohabiting and not currently married, 20.2% were dating, 11.7% were single,
5.9% were separated, 4.2% were divorced, and 0.3% were widowed. The average length of
the men’s current relationship was 5.6 years (SD = 5.3), length of time living with their
current intimate partner was 5.0 years (SD = 5.4), and number of children was 1.9 (SD =
2.0).
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 5
Procedure
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Participation was voluntary, no compensation was provided for completing the
questionnaires and none of the information gathered was shared with the intervention
facilitators or anyone within the criminal justice system. After obtaining informed consent,
participants were provided with a packet of questionnaires to be filled out during their
regularly scheduled batterer intervention sessions. A more detailed description of these
procedures can be obtained from Stuart and colleagues (2006a, 2008).
The mean number of batterer intervention sessions attended by participants at the time of
this study was 9.75 (SD = 7.05). Total number of intervention sessions attended was not
significantly related to any of the variables of interest in the current study, suggesting that
number of sessions attended did not affect study results.
Measures
Demographics questionnaire—Information was gathered about the participants’ age,
education, income, ethnicity, marital status, duration of current relationship, duration of
cohabitation with current partner, and number of children.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Intimate partner violence—IPV perpetration in the past year was assessed with the
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).
The psychological aggression and physical assault subscales were examined for the current
study. Within these subscales, items are classified by severity level (mild or severe), with
severity defined by the risk of injury associated with each behavior. Sample items measuring
severe psychological aggression include, “Threatened to hit or throw something at my
partner” and “Destroyed something belonging to my partner”, and those measuring severe
physical assault include, “Slammed my partner against a wall” and “Punched or hit my
partner with something that could hurt”. Scores were obtained by summing the frequency of
each of the behaviors in the year before entrance into the BIP. The score for each item
ranged from 0 to 25 with higher scores indicating more frequent use of that particular act of
aggression against their intimate partner (Straus, Hamby, & Warren, 2003). The CTS2 has
demonstrated adequate reliability and is the most widely used self-report measure of IPV
(Straus et al., 1996). In the present study, the internal consistency estimates for
psychological aggression and physical assault were .76 and .78, respectively.
Animal abuse—Animal abuse perpetrated since the age of 18 was assessed using the
Aggression Toward Animals Scale (ATAS; Gupta & Beach, 2001). The ATAS was adapted
from the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) to reflect acts of aggression committed against nonhuman animals. Like the CTS2, participants rated (0=never, 1= 1 time, 2= 2 times, 3= 3–5
times, 4= 6–10 times, 5= 11–20 times, 6= more than 20 times) how frequently they
neglected (1 item), threatened (1 item), and/or physically assaulted (11 items) an animal,
with each of the 13 items asking about one type of abuse. Procedures for scoring the ATAS
were also adapted from the CTS2; each item was recoded using the midpoint for each
response. Thus, scores ranged from 0 to 25 for each item with higher scores indicating more
frequent aggression. The ATAS Total Score was calculated by summing the frequency of all
items. For exploratory purposes, to further our understanding of different forms of animal
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 6
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
abuse, we subdivided the ATAS into three different domains (i.e., Neglect, Threat, and
Physical Assault). The items corresponding to each of the three different types of animal
abuse were summed separately to provide the three ATAS domain scores. The psychometric
properties of this measure have yet to be published. However, in the present study, the
internal consistency for the ATAS Total Score was .73.
Antisocial personality traits—The Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) subscale of
the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4; Hyler et al., 1988) was used to measure
antisocial personality traits, which includes animal abuse committed before the age of 15.
The PDQ-4 is intended to be a screening instrument for a possible diagnosis of ASPD.
Sample items include (True or False): “I’ve been in trouble with the law several times (or
would have been if I was caught)” and “Lying comes easily to me and I often do it.” The
PDQ-4 has demonstrated high internal consistency (Hyler et al., 1989) and good test-retest
reliability (Trull, 1993). For the current study, the internal consistency of the PDQ-4 ASPD
subscale was .89.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Alcohol use—The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders, Aasland,
Babor, De La Fuenta, & Grant, 1993) was used to assess the quantity and frequency of
participants’ drinking, drinking intensity, symptoms of dependence and tolerance, and
alcohol-related negative consequences in the past year. This is a 10-item self-report
questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 to 40. The AUDIT has demonstrated adequate
reliability and validity (Saunders, Aasland, Amunsden, & Grant, 1993). The internal
consistency of the AUDIT for the current study was .86.
Data Analysis
The prevalence and frequency of adulthood animal abuse perpetration are presented in Table
1. Bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations for all variables are presented in
Table 2. Means and standard deviations were derived from raw scores of all the measures.
While raw scores of the PDQ-4 and AUDIT were utilized in the remaining analyses, natural
log transformations of the ATAS and CTS2 were used to correct for positively skewed
distributions. Hierarchical linear regressions were used to examine the unique variance in
IPV perpetration attributable to adulthood animal abuse. Separate models were conducted
for each type of IPV.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
RESULTS
The first aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and frequency of adulthood animal
abuse perpetration among men court-referred to BIPs. Results (presented in Table 1)
indicate that 41% (n=125/307) of the sample reported committing at least one act of animal
abuse since the age of 18. On average, these 125 men perpetrated 9.52 acts of animal abuse
(SD=13.02). Physical abuse was endorsed with the highest prevalence (n=100, 80.0%) and
frequency (M=5.65, SD=9.42), followed by threats (n=89, 71.2%; M=3.47, SD=5.94), and
neglect (n=15, 12.0%; M=0.40, SD=1.68).
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 7
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Psychological and physical IPV (overall and severe), antisocial traits, alcohol use, total
adulthood animal abuse, and physical animal abuse were all positively and significantly
correlated with each other (see Table 2).
The second aim of this study was to assess the simultaneous association between adulthood
animal abuse, antisocial traits, alcohol use, and IPV. These results are presented in Tables 3
and 4. In Table 3, in the first model, antisocial personality traits and alcohol use accounted
for 14% of the variance in the male perpetrators’ reports of severe psychological aggression
toward their partner. In the second model, a trend towards significance (p= .057) was
observed, such that the addition of adulthood animal abuse increased the proportion of
variance accounted for in severe psychological aggression perpetration to 15%.
As presented in Table 4, in the first model, antisocial personality traits and alcohol use
accounted for 14% of the variance in the male perpetrators’ reports of physical assault
toward their partner. In the second model, a trend towards significance (p= .052) was
observed, such that the addition of adulthood animal abuse increased the proportion of
variance accounted for in physical assault perpetration to 15%.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Finally, contrary to our hypothesis, adulthood animal abuse was not significantly associated
with overall psychological aggression or severe physical aggression above and beyond
antisocial personality traits and alcohol use (Tables 3 and 4).1
DISCUSSION
The goals of the current study were: a) to assess the prevalence and frequency of adulthood
animal abuse perpetration in men court-referred to BIPs and b) to simultaneously examine
the association between adulthood animal abuse, antisocial personality traits, alcohol use,
and IPV perpetration. To our knowledge, this is the first study to present such aims and, as
such, attempts to improve upon previous studies of IPV perpetration (e.g., Ascione et al.,
2007; Edwards et al., 2003; Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997; Simmons &
Lehmann, 2007; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004; Stuart et al., 2006a).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Consistent with our first hypothesis, 41% (n=125) of this sample of men reported
committing at least one act of animal abuse since the age of 18. This rate is significantly
greater than the 3.0% prevalence rate of animal cruelty reported by a nationally
representative sample of adult men in a study that drew from the 2001–2002 National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (Vaughn et al., 2009)2. In that
study, Vaughn and colleagues (2009) assessed animal cruelty through the use of one broad
question (“In your entire life, did you ever hurt or be cruel to a animal or pet on purpose?”,
1The PDQ-4 ASPD subscale includes an item that assesses for animal abuse perpetrated in childhood. A second PDQ-4 ASPD
subscale total score was calculated excluding the childhood animal abuse item. Regression analyses were repeated using this
alternative total and results did not change with this item removed. Therefore, the presence of the childhood animal abuse item on the
PDQ-4 ASPD subscale does not impact the findings for the associations between adulthood animal abuse and IPV after controlling for
antisociality and alcohol use. This provides further support for the unique nature of the association between adulthood animal abuse
and IPV.
2A chi-square analysis comparing the prevalence of adulthood animal abuse in the current study to the prevalence of animal abuse in
the study by Vaughn and colleagues (2009) was performed and showed that animal abuse was endorsed at a significantly higher rate
(χ2(1, 19726) = 1189.53, p<.001) in the current study.
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 8
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
p. 1214), whereas in the current study, animal abuse was assessed using thirteen separate
questions about specific behaviors spanning three categories. The more comprehensive
nature of the questionnaire used in this study, in addition to the fact that this study assessed a
sample of aggressive men, could explain the higher prevalence rate found in the present
study. Further, we also found physical animal abuse to be the most prevalent and frequent
form of adulthood animal abuse, compared to neglect and threat. As such, future research on
animal abuse, IPV, and the relationship between the two may be enhanced by similarly
assessing whether acts of animal abuse were committed in adulthood and what types of acts
were committed.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The prevalence rate is also striking given that animal abuse perpetration is predominantly
recognized as a childhood phenomenon occurring within the context of Conduct Disorder
and given that the majority of the research on the relationship between animal abuse and
IPV perpetration focuses on animal abuse committed in childhood (e.g., Henderson,
Hensley, & Tallichet, 2011; Merz-Perez et al., 2001; Tallichet & Hensley, 2004). The results
of this study suggest that it may also be helpful to know if a perpetrator of IPV has
committed adulthood animal abuse, whether or not they have a childhood history of such
behavior; although, this requires further investigation given the nonsignificant trends
observed in this study. Further, by concentrating on animal abuse committed in adulthood,
these results lend support for the idea that human and animal abuse may be “linked
throughout the lifespan” (Volant et al., 2008), as well as support the deviance generalization
hypothesis which states that “individuals who commit one form of deviance are likely to
commit other forms as well, and in no particular time order” (Arluke et al., 1999). Future
research should examine the prevalence of adulthood animal abuse in additional samples of
IPV perpetrators.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Adulthood animal abuse was also positively associated with IPV perpetration. Research on
individuals’ motivations for IPV perpetration (Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1997;
Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth, Ramsey, & Kahler, 2006b) and animal abuse committed as
children and adolescents (Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Merz-Perez & Heide, 2004; Tallichet,
Hensley, & Singer, 2005) reveal areas of substantial overlap for some of the most popular
motivations, including retaliation, control, and the expression of anger. It may be that an
individual’s propensity for maladaptive coping strategies in one setting (e.g., the use of
aggression towards animals) is consistent across other settings (e.g., the use of aggression
towards intimate partners). In addition, theories of IPV (see Bell & Naugle, 2008 for review)
and animal abuse perpetration (Agnew, 1998) both identify an acceptability of general
violence, as well as knowledge of specific aggressive acts transmitted via social learning, as
influential to perpetration. Further, both individuals who perpetrate IPV and those who
perpetrate animal abuse report having various characteristics in common such as ASPD
traits, problems with impulsivity, low empathy, and involvement in other illegal behaviors
(Agnew, 1998; Ascione, 2001; Edwards et al., 2003; Gleyzer, Felthous, & Holzer, 2002;
Hanson et al., 1997; Stith et al., 2004; Schwartz, Fremouw, Schenk, & Ragatz, 2012). These
antisocial commonalities may begin to provide some explanation for the prevalence of
adulthood animal abuse perpetration in this sample and for its positive association with IPV
perpetration in this study. Additional research is needed to better understand the relationship
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 9
between both forms of aggression and, ultimately, to better understand male IPV
perpetrators.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Findings from the regression analyses did not support our hypothesis that adulthood animal
abuse would significantly predict IPV perpetration above and beyond ASPD traits and
alcohol use. Rather, we found a trend toward significance for adulthood animal abuse to be
significantly associated with the perpetration of severe psychological aggression and
physical assault above and beyond ASPD traits and alcohol use. Research shows that the
specific types of aggression used by some individuals on animals mirror the aggression they
use on human victims (Wright & Hensley, 2003). Additional research shows that male
perpetrators of IPV may threaten to harm pets in the midst of altercations with their female
partners (Carlisle-Frank et al., 2004). Such behavior is thought to intensify existing
emotional abuse (Faver & Strand, 2003) and has been considered a form of coercion or
control (Johnson, 2006; Loring & Bolden-Hines, 2004). The trends observed in this study
for the relationship between adulthood animal abuse, physical and severe psychological IPV
perpetration, paired with fact that physical aggression and threats were the most prevalent
and frequently endorsed types of adulthood animal abuse perpetration, may provide support
for a link between the types of aggression perpetrated against animals and humans. At the
same time, however, it is worth noting that the unique variance in physical and severe
psychological IPV accounted for by adulthood animal abuse was small. Therefore, future
investigations should replicate and extend these findings to examine whether these
associations exist in other samples, as well as to better understand the mechanisms
underlying these associations.
Implications
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Overall, this study’s findings, in combination with previous research which has shown that
many male perpetrators of IPV also perpetrate a substantial amount of general aggression
(e.g. aggression against non-intimate partners) (Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1996;
Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000) and aggression against children (Appel & Holden, 1998;
Edelson, 1999), may suggest that aggression is a pervasive way for some men to interact
with other people and their surroundings. Therefore, it is possible that this propensity for
aggression would extend to animals. With increasing evidence that aggression may be
widespread in many IPV perpetrators’ lives, (e.g., aggression against non-intimate partners,
children, and animals), interventions that focus on more general cognitive and behavioral
tendencies (Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005), such as anger control (Glancy & Saini, 2005;
Hamberger et al., 1997), deficits in social information processing (Fite et al., 2008;
Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992; Taft, Schumm, Marshall, Panuzio, & Holtzworth-Munroe,
2008), and problematic alcohol use (Stuart, O’Farrell, & Temple, 2009), rather than solely
on intimate relationship tendencies (Stuart, Temple, & Moore, 2007), may produce more
effective treatment outcomes.
In addition, the finding that the perpetration of adulthood animal abuse trended towards a
significant association with particular types of IPV lends support for the idea that by
knowing whether they have a history of perpetrating adulthood animal abuse, a better
understanding of the IPV some men perpetrate could be obtained (Ascione et al., 2007).
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 10
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Accordingly, screening for adulthood animal abuse in men mandated to BIPs may provide
more information about the nature of their aggression, in order to better tailor interventions.
Likewise, asking women in DV shelters whether their partner has abused their pets may
provide more information about the IPV they and their pets experienced, which may guide
the customization of their care and plans for permanent shelter.
Furthermore, these findings may also have policy implications for the reporting of animal
abuse and domestic violence. Inspired by research that shows that animal abuse can coexist
with domestic violence in the same home (Ascione et al., 2007; Carlisle-Frank et al., 2004;
Faver & Strand, 2003), some researchers advocate for cross-sector reporting of animal abuse
and domestic violence among such groups as veterinarians, animal protection organizations,
social service agencies, and law enforcement, to increase detection and intervention efforts
(Becker & French, 2004; DeGue & DiLillo, 2009; Long, Long, & Kulkarni, 2007). By
providing additional evidence for the relationship between both forms of aggression, this
study may further encourage information sharing. Further, increased dissemination within
these sectors of the evidence in support of this relationship could spread to individuals at
large, which may promote increased reporting of both forms of aggression and may increase
the number of perpetrators that are apprehended (Schwartz et al., 2012).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Limitations
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
When interpreting the above findings, it is important to consider the limitations of the
current study. First, the measure of animal abuse did not distinguish between companion and
non-companion animals, nor did it indicate when the animal abuse occurred. It is plausible
that there may be differences in individuals who harm companion animals and those who
seek out other animals to harm. Also, differences might be found between individuals whose
perpetration of animal abuse occurs within a limited time frame versus individuals who
continuously perpetrate aggression against animals. The creation of a measure of adulthood
animal abuse that more comprehensively evaluates the construct is needed. Second,
antisocial traits and alcohol use were assessed using self-report screening measures. While
both the PDQ-4 and AUDIT are psychometrically sound, more rigorous instruments for
evaluating such constructs might be beneficial in subsequent studies, such as the Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IX Axis II Personality Disorders (First, Gibbon, Spitzer,
Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) and the Timeline Followback Interview for Alcohol and Drug
Use (Fals-Stewart, O’Farrell, Freitas, McFarlin, & Rutigliano, 2000). Third, the use of a
comparison group of men who had not engaged in IPV would have strengthened the study
design. Fourth, conclusions about causality among the study variables are precluded by the
study’s cross-sectional design. Future research is needed to determine the specific nature of
the relationship between adulthood animal abuse and IPV perpetration. Fifth, full disclosure
of sensitive information on such topics as antisocial behaviors, alcohol use, animal abuse,
and IPV perpetration may be affected by impression management, particularly in a courtmandated sample. Further, although total number of intervention sessions attended was not
significantly related to any of the variables of interest in the current study, it is possible that
willingness to disclose socially undesirable information was nonetheless impacted by
program attendance. Therefore, subsequent studies should control for social desirability,
obtain collateral information, including partner reports, and obtain data before or closer to
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 11
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
the start of the intervention programs. Finally, the specific nature of the population studied
and the fact that the majority of the men identified as non-Hispanic Caucasian limits the
generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.
Conclusions
Despite these limitations, findings from the current study contribute to the growing literature
on adulthood animal abuse perpetration and its relationship to IPV perpetration. This sample
showed an extremely high prevalence of adulthood animal abuse compared to the
prevalence in men in the general population. In addition, after controlling for antisocial traits
and alcohol use, animal abuse committed as an adult showed a trend towards a significant
association with severe psychological and overall physical IPV perpetration. These findings
provide further evidence that aggression may be widespread in the lives of some male
perpetrators of IPV and that BIPs may benefit from more broad-based approaches that
address factors related to IPV perpetration, in addition to those specific to intimate
relationships. These findings may also have implications for policies on cross-sector
reporting of animal abuse and domestic violence. Replication and continued investigation
into these associations is needed.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Acknowledgments
FUNDING
This work was supported, in part, by grant K24AA019707 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (NIAAA) awarded to the last author. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the official views of the NIAAA or the National Institutes of Health.
The authors would like to thank Maya Gupta, Ph.D. and Steven R.H. Beach, Ph.D. for the use of their unpublished
measure of animal abuse.
Biographies
Jeniimarie Febres, M.A., is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of
Tennessee - Knoxville. She received her M.A. in psychology from the University of
Tennessee. Her research interests include correlates of intimate partner violence, perpetrator
typologies, and the social context and prevention of intimate partner violence.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Hope Brasfield, M.S., is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of
Tennessee. She received her M.S. in applied psychology from the University of South
Alabama. Her research focuses on partner abuse.
Ryan C. Shorey, M.A., is a graduate student in clinical psychology at the University of
Tennessee – Knoxville. He earned his M.A. in psychology from the University of
Tennessee. His research focuses primarily on intimate partner violence, with an emphasis on
dating violence, psychological aggression, and substance use.
JoAnna Elmquist, B.A., is a graduate student in clinical psychology at the University of
Tennessee. She received her B.A. in psychology from Trinity University. She was a research
assistant in the Family Violence Research Lab at Butler Hospital in Providence, RI from
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 12
2010–2012. Her research focuses on intimate partner violence, substance abuse, and the
relationship between intimate partner violence and substance abuse.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Andrew Ninnemann, B.A., is the Project Coordinator of the Family Violence Research Lab
at Butler Hospital in Providence, RI. Andrew graduated in 2010 with a Bachelor of Arts
degree in Psychology from Clark University. In the Family Violence Research Lab,
Andrew’s work focuses on the impact of substance abuse on marital functioning and the
genetic predictors of alcohol and violence treatment outcomes. His research interests include
intimate partner violence, substance abuse, PTSD, and the psychology of consciousness.
Andrew plans to pursue a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.
Yael C. Schonbrun, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior in
the Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Her research focuses primarily on
relationships and substance abuse, and on dissemination of evidence-based treatments for
relationship distress and substance problems.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Jeff R. Temple, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and Director of Behavioral Health and
Research in the Department of Ob/Gyn at UTMB Health. Dr. Temple’s primary focus is on
the etiology, classification, assessment, prevention, and treatment of interpersonal violence,
with a particular focus on teen dating violence.
Patricia R. Recupero, J.D., M.D. is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Alpert Medical
School of Brown University, and President and CEO of Butler Hospital in Providence, RI.
She is Board certified in Forensic Psychiatry and Addiction Psychiatry and a Past President
of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. She has written and lectured on a
variety of topics including prevention of sexual harassment, substance abuse and marital
violence, and cyber medicine.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Gregory L. Stuart, Ph.D, is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of
Tennessee-Knoxville. He is also the Director of Family Violence Research at Butler
Hospital in Providence, RI, and an Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior in
the Alpert Medical School of Brown University. His research focuses primarily on the
comorbidity of intimate partner violence and substance abuse. He is particularly interested in
interventions that address both substance use and relationship aggression.
References
Agnew R. The causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Theoretical Criminology.
1998; 2:177–209.
Appel AE, Holden GW. The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and
appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology. 1998; 12:578–599.
Arluke A, Levin J, Luke C, Ascione FR. The realtionship of animal abuse to violence and other forms
of antisocial behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1999; 14:963–975.
Ascione FR. Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for
developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos. 1993; 6:226–247.
Ascione, FR. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Juvenile Justice Bulletin. 2001.
Animal abuse and youth violence; p. 1-15.
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 13
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Ascione FR, Weber CV, Thompson TM, Heath J, Maruyama M, Hayashi K. Battered pets and
domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate partner violence and by
nonabused women. Violence Against Women. 2007; 13:354–373. [PubMed: 17420515]
Ascione FR, Weber CV, Wood DS. The abuse of animals and domestic violence: A national survey of
shelters for women who are battered. Society and Animals. 1997; 5:205–218.
Babcock JC, Green CE, Robie C. Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic
violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review. 2004; 23:1023–1053. [PubMed: 14729422]
Becker F, French L. Making the links: Child abuse, animal cruelty, and domestic violence. Child
Abuse Review. 2004; 13:399–414.
Bell KM, Naugle AE. Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a
contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review. 2008:1–12.
Black, MC.; Basile, KC.; Breiding, MJ.; Smith, SG.; Walters, ML.; Merrick, MT.; Chen, J.; Stevens,
MR. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report.
Atlanta, G.A: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; 2011. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/
NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Carlisle-Frank P, Frank JM, Nielsen L. Selective battering of the family pet. Anthrozoos. 2004; 17:26–
41.
Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I, Desai A, Sanderson M, Brandt HM, Smith PH. Physical and mental
health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine. 2002; 23:260–268. [PubMed: 12406480]
Coker AL, Smith PH, McKeown RE, King MJ. Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence
by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health. 2000;
90:553–559. [PubMed: 10754969]
DeGue S, DiLillo D. Is animal cruelty a “red flag” for family violence?: Investigating co-occurring
violence toward children, partners, and pets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2009; 24:1036–
1056. [PubMed: 18544751]
Edleson JL. The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women.
1999; 5:134–154.
Edwards DW, Scott CL, Yarvis RM, Paizis CL, Panizzon MS. Impulsiveness, impulsive aggression,
personality disorder, and spousal violence. Violence and Victims. 2003; 18:3–14. [PubMed:
12733616]
Fals-Stewart W, O’Farrell TJ, Freitas TT, McFarlin SK, Rutigliano P. The Timeline Followback
reports of psychoactive substance use by drug-abusing patients: Psychometric properties. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2000; 68:134–144. [PubMed: 10710848]
Faver CA, Strand E. To leave or to stay?: Battered women’s concern for vulnerable pets. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence. 2003; 18:1367–1377. [PubMed: 14678611]
Feder L, Wilson DB. A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can
courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2005; 1:239–262.
First, MB.; Gibbon, M.; Spitzer, RL.; Williams, JBW.; Benjamin, LS. Structured Clinical Interview for
DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders, (SCID-II). Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Press,
Inc; 1997.
Fite JE, Bates JE, Holtzworth-Munroe A, Dodge KA, Nay SY, Petit GS. Social information processing
mediates the intergenerational transmission of aggressiveness in romantic relationships. Journal of
Family Psychology. 2008; 22:367–376. [PubMed: 18540765]
Flynn CP. Why family professionals can no longer ignore violence toward animals. Family Relations.
2000; 49:87–95.
Flynn CP. Examining the links between animal abuse and human violence. Crime, Law, and Social
Change. 2011; 55:453–468.
Follingstad DR. The impact of psychological aggression on women’s mental health and behavior: The
status of the field. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2009; 10:271–289.
Foran HM, O’Leary KD. Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical
Psychology Review. 2008; 28:1222–1234. [PubMed: 18550239]
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 14
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Glancy G, Saini MA. An evidenced-based review of psychological treatments of anger and aggression.
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. 2005; 5:229–248.
Gleyzer R, Felthous AR, Holzer CE. Animal cruelty and psychiatric disorders. Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2002; 30:257–265. [PubMed: 12108563]
Grant BF, Stinson FS, Dawson DA, Chou P, Ruan WJ, Pickering RP. Co-occurrence of 12-month
alcohol and drug use disorders and personality disorders in the United States: Results from the
National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General
Psychiatry. 2004; 61:361–368. [PubMed: 15066894]
Gupta, M.; Beach, SRH. Aggression toward animals scale. 2001. Unpublished scale
Hamberger LK, Lohr J, Bonge D, Tolin D. A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers
and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims. 1996; 11(4):277–292. Retrieved
from http://www.springerpub.com/product/08866708. [PubMed: 9210273]
Hamberger LK, Lohr JM, Bonge D, Tolin DF. An empirical classification of motivations for domestic
violence. Violence Against Women. 1997; 3:401–423. [PubMed: 12349146]
Hanson RK, Cadsky O, Harris A, Lalonde C. Correlates of battering among 997 men: Family history,
adjustment, and attitudinal differences. Violence and Victims. 1997; 12(3):191–208. Retrieved
from http://www.springerpub.com/product/08866708. [PubMed: 9477536]
Henderson BB, Hensley C, Tallichet SE. Childhood animal cruelty methods and their link to adult
interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2011; 26:2211–2227. [PubMed:
21282117]
Holtzworth-Munroe A. Social skill deficits in maritally violent men: Interpreting the data using a
social information processing model. Clinical Psychology Review. 1992; 12:605–617.
Holtzworth-Munroe A, Meehan JC, Herron K, Rehman U, Stuart GL. Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe
and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2000;
68:1000–1019. [PubMed: 11142534]
Hyler SE, Rieder RO, Williams JBW, Spitzer RL, Hendler J, Lyons M. The Personality Diagnostic
Questionnaire: Development and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Disorders. 1988;
2:229–237. Retrieved from http://www.guilford.com/cgi-bin/cartscript.cgi?page=pr/
jnpd.htm&dir=periodicals/per_psych&cart_id=.
Hyler SE, Rieder RO, Williams JBW, Spitzer RL, Lyons M, Hendler J. A comparison of clinical and
self-report diagnoses of DSM-III personality disorders in 552 patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry.
1989; 30:170–178. [PubMed: 2920552]
Johnson MP. Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence
Against Women. 2006; 12:1003–1018. [PubMed: 17043363]
Kellert SR, Felthous AR. Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals.
Human Relations. 1985; 38:1113–1129.
Leonard KE, Roberts LJ. The effects of alcohol on the marital interactions of aggressive and
nonaggressive husbands and their wives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1998; 107:602–615.
[PubMed: 9830248]
Long DD, Long JH, Kulkarni SJ. Interpersonal violence and animals: Mandated cross-sector reporting.
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare. 2007; 34:147–164.
Loring MT, Bolden-Hines TA. Pet abuse by batterers as a means of coercing battered women into
committing illegal behavior. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 2004; 4:27–37.
Merz-Perez, L.; Heide, KM. Animal cruelty: Pathway to violence against people. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira; 2004.
Merz-Perez L, Heide KM, Silverman IJ. Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against
humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2001; 45:556–
573.
Murphy, CM.; Eckhardt, CI. Treating the abusive partner: An individualized cognitive-behavioral
approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005.
Regier DA, Farmer ME, Rae DS, Locke BZ, Keith SJ, Judd LL, Goodwin FK. Comorbidity of mental
disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse: Results from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area
(ECA) Study. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990; 264:2511–2518.
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 15
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Amundsen A, Grant M. Alcohol consumption and related problems among
primary health care patients: WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with
Harmful Alcohol Consumption: I. Addiction. 1993; 88:349–362. [PubMed: 8461852]
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, De La Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use
Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons
with Harmful Alcohol Consumption: II. Addiction. 1993; 88:791–804. [PubMed: 8329970]
Schwartz RL, Fremouw W, Schenk A, Ragatz LL. Psychological profile of male and female animal
abusers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2012; 27:846–861. [PubMed: 22007108]
Simmons CA, Lehmann P. Exploring the link between pet abuse and controlling behaviors in violent
relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2007; 22:1211–1222. [PubMed: 17704464]
Stith SM, Smith DB, Penn CE, Ward DB, Tritt D. Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and
victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2004; 10:65–
98.
Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2):
Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues. 1996; 17:283–316.
Straus, MA.; Hamby, SL.; Warren, WL. The Conflict Tactics Scales Handbook. Los Angeles, CA:
Western Psychological Services; 2003.
Stuart GL, Meehan JC, Moore TM, Morean M, Hellmuth J, Follansbee KW. Examining a conceptual
framework of intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic violence. Journal
of Studies on Alcohol. 2006a; 67:102–112. Retrieved from http://www.jsad.com/. [PubMed:
16536134]
Stuart GL, Moore TM, Hellmuth JC, Ramsey SE, Kahler CW. Reasons for intimate partner violence
perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women. 2006b; 12:609–621. [PubMed:
16777948]
Stuart GL, Moore TM, Kahler CW, Ramsey SE. Substance abuse and relationship violence among
men court-referred to batterers’ intervention programs. Substance Abuse. 2003; 24:107–122.
[PubMed: 12766378]
Stuart GL, O’Farrell TJ, Temple JR. Review of the association between treatment for substance misuse
and reductions in intimate partner violence. Substance Use and Misuse. 2009; 44:1298–1317.
[PubMed: 19938919]
Stuart GL, Temple JR, Follansbee KW, Bucossi MM, Hellmuth JC, Moore TM. The role of drug use
in a conceptual model of intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic
violence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2008; 22:12–24. [PubMed: 18298227]
Stuart GL, Temple JR, Moore TM. Improving batterer intervention programs through theory-based
research. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007; 298:560–562. [PubMed: 17666677]
Taft CT, Schumm JA, Marshall AD, Panuzio J, Holtzworth-Munroe A. Family-of-origin maltreatment,
postraumatic stress disorder symptoms, social information processing deficits, and relationship
abuse perpetration. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2008; 117:637–646. [PubMed: 18729615]
Tallichet SE, Hensley C. Exploring the link between recurrent acts of childhood and adolescent animal
cruelty and subsequent violent crime. Criminal Justice Review. 2004; 29:304–316.
Tallichet SE, Hensley C, Singer SD. Unraveling the methods of childhood and adolescent cruelty to
nonhuman animals. Society & Animals. 2005; 13:91–107.
Temple JR, Weston R, Marshall LL. Physical and mental health outcomes of women in nonviolent,
unilaterally violent, and mutually violent relationships. Violence and Victims. 2005; 20:335–329.
[PubMed: 16180371]
Thompson RS, Bonomi AE, Anderson M, Reid RJ, Dimer JA, Carrell D, Rivara FP. Intimate partner
violence prevalence, types, and chronicity in adult women. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine. 2006; 30:447–457. [PubMed: 16704937]
Tjaden, P.; Thoennes, N. Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from
the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice;
2000. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
Trull TJ. Temporal stability and validity of two personality disorder inventories. Psychological
Assessment. 1993; 1:11–18.
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 16
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
U.S. Department of Justice. Homicide trends in the US: Intimate homicide. 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/intimatestab.htm
Vaughn MG, Fu Q, DeLisi M, Beaver KM, Perron BE, Terrell K, Howard MO. Correlates of cruelty to
animals in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and
Related Conditions. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2009; 43:1213–1218. [PubMed: 19467669]
Volant AM, Johnson JA, Gullone E, Coleman GJ. The relationship between domestic violence and
animal abuse: An Australian study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2008; 23:1277–1295.
[PubMed: 18326483]
Walton-Moss BJ, Manganello J, Frye V, Campbell JC. Risk factors for intimate partner violence and
associated injury among urban women. Journal of Community Health. 2005; 30:377–389.
[PubMed: 16175959]
Wright J, Hensley C. From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the Graduation Hypothesis.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2003; 47:71–88.
[PubMed: 12613433]
Zlotnick C, Johnson DW, Kohn R. Intimate partner violence and long-term psychosocial functioning
in a national sample of American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2006; 21:262–275.
[PubMed: 16368765]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Febres et al.
Page 17
Table 1
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Prevalence and Frequency of Animal Abuse by Type
Whole Sample (N= 307)
Animal Abusers (n= 125)
Type
Prevalence n (%)
Frequency M (SD)
Prevalence n (%)
Frequency M (SD)
ATAS Total Score
125 (40.72)
3.88 (9.52)
125 (100.00)
9.52 (13.02)
ATAS Neglect
15 (4.89)
0.16 (1.08)
15 (12.00)
0.40 (1.68)
ATAS Threat
89 (29.00)
1.41 (4.15)
89 (71.20)
3.47 (5.94)
ATAS Physical
100 (32.57)
2.30 (6.61)
100 (80.00)
5.65 (9.42)
Note. ATAS = Aggression Towards Animals Scale
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 2
1.
1. Psychological Aggression
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
—
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
2. Physical Assault
.56**
—
3. Severe Psychological Aggression
.64**
.64**
—
4. Severe Physical Assault
.37**
.78**
.53**
—
5. PDQ-4 ASPD
.29**
.29**
.33**
.23**
—
6. AUDIT
.26**
.27**
.22**
.22**
.17**
—
7. ATAS Total Score
.14*
.18**
.18**
.15**
.18**
.14*
—
8. BIP Sessions Attended
.08
−.02
.07
−.01
−.03
.06
−.04
—
M
30.00
8.00
5.31
2.17
2.66
7.77
3.88
9.75
SD
30.41
16.37
11.10
7.20
2.19
7.56
9.52
7.05
Febres et al.
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Study Variables
Note.
*
p <.05;
**
p <.01
PDQ-4 ASPD = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Antisocial Personality Disorder Scale; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Questionnaire; ATAS = Aggression Towards Animals Scale;
BIP=Batterer Intervention Program.
Page 18
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 3
B
SE B
β
PDQ-4 ASPD
.15
.03
.25***
AUDIT
.04
.01
.21***
PDQ-4 ASPD
.15
.03
.24***
AUDIT
.04
.01
.21***
ATAS Total
.09
.07
.07
PDQ-4 ASPD
.16
.03
.30***
AUDIT
.03
.01
.17**
PDQ-4 ASPD
.15
.03
.28***
AUDIT
.02
.01
.16**
ATAS Total
.11
.06
.10†
Psychological Aggression
Model 1
R2
∆R2
.13
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Model 2
.13
F
22.24
.01
Febres et al.
Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Psychological Aggression
15.43
Severe Psychological Aggression
Model 1
.14
Model 2
.15
23.74
.01
17.18
Note.
†
p =.057;
**
p <.01;
***
p <.001;
PDQ-4 ASPD = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Antisocial Personality Disorder Scale; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Questionnaire; ATAS = Aggression Towards Animals Scale.
Page 19
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 4
B
SE B
β
PDQ-4 ASPD
.15
.03
.26***
AUDIT
.04
.01
.23***
PDQ-4 ASPD
.14
.03
.24***
AUDIT
.04
.01
.21***
ATAS Total
.12
.06
.11††
PDQ-4 ASPD
.08
.02
.19**
AUDIT
.02
.01
.19**
Physical Assault
Model 1
R2
∆R2
.14
Violence Against Women. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.
Model 2
.15
F
23.91
.01
Febres et al.
Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Physical Assault
17.35
Severe Physical Assault
Model 1
.09
Model 2
.10
PDQ-4 ASPD
.07
.02
.18**
AUDIT
.02
.01
.18**
ATAS Total
.08
.05
.09
14.41
.01
10.62
Note.
††
p =.052;
**
p <.01;
***
p <.001
PDQ-4 ASPD = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Antisocial Personality Disorder Scale; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Questionnaire; ATAS = Aggression Towards Animals Scale.
Page 20