The LINKS Between Animal Abuse & Human Violence & Its Effects on the Developing Child.
by Professor Eleonora Gullone, Monash University & Malcolm Plant, European Link Coalition
The information presented here demonstrates some of the vast body of research which has been conducted showing how exposure to ALL forms of violence and aggression can not only disturb a child who witnesses such acts but can also lead the child to believe that violence and aggression are ‘normal’. This acquired aggression can then be enacted against animals, people and property. Some 30 years of research has substantiated these effects which include the links between animal abuse and domestic violence [1] and animal abuse and effects on the child [2]
This likelihood on normalisation of aggression is increased if the child has been exposed to ANY form of violence. The availability of the disproportionate number of homeless animals on the streets of Romania, categorised as ‘eradicable’ under Law 258/2013, provides a socially status diminished potential victim for ‘displaced aggression’ which exacerbates violent tendencies to be then enacted within society and potentially on his own family as the child grows to adulthood. The mechanics of these processes are evidenced here.
It has been profoundly evidenced that exposure of a child to violence and abuse can have serious psychological ramifications for the child who witnesses such acts.
In Romania significant violence against homeless animals has been identified along with violence in the dogcatching process. Such violence is exacerbated if the target can be perceived to be a member of a disliked out-group (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003)[3] or as having less social value. Categorisation of the homeless animals as ‘eradicable’ creates this condition promoted by Law 258/2013 program to address homeless animal numbers and is disproportionate to that in other European Union Member countries. Plant et al (2016). [4] As recommended by FVE, OIE and WHO, [5] a humane neutering program would significantly reduce animal numbers on the streets, reduce availability for aggression practice and enhancement and would progressively reduce a burden on the taxpayer.
The first University Study in Eastern Europe into the associations between animal abuse and inter-human violence and abuse found that 86% of the adolescent subject group had witnessed animal abuse in public. Those who perpetrated abuse significantly correlated with aggression against people and property and crucially with having been exposed to domestic violence and abuse in childhood. This suggests a Cycle of Abuse, enacted and enhance by the availability and status diminished ‘eradication’ categorised street animal. Such psychopathologies, unless resolved, could be enacted in the adolescents adulthood within his family unit and beyond.
The Council of Europe Treaty No 125 Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, ratified by Romania on August 6 2004 and entered into force on March 1 2005 includes the guidance that ‘Once the treaty enters into force in respect of a State, it becomes legally binding and the State must implement its provisions.’ [6]
We have a video which shows typical abuse on the streets of Romania. Many have declined to view this because of how it affects them emotionally..psychologically. They have the freedom of choice to protect themselves from this emotional trauma. The Children of Romania do NOT have that freedom of choice..they MUST view these events. They cannot avoid the psychological impact which this exposure has on them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8U_WUNhyDA. [7]
Because of the Government non-enactment of ratified European Conventions and ensuring that the ‘eradicable’ status diminished homeless animal numbers are not humanely reduced, children will continue to be exposed to the psychological traumas and normalisations of violence and abuse’
‘The European Union’s fundamental values are respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. These values unite all the member states – no country that does not recognise these values can belong to the Union.’
The European Social Charter is a Council of Europe treaty that guarantees fundamental social and economic rights as a counterpart to the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to civil and political rights. It guarantees a broad range of everyday human rights related to employment, housing, health, education, social protection and welfare.
The Charter lays specific emphasis on the protection of vulnerable persons such as elderly people, children, people with disabilities and migrants. It requires that enjoyment of the abovementioned rights be guaranteed without discrimination.
No other legal instrument at pan-European level can provide such an extensive and complete protection of social rights as that provided by the Charter, which also serves as a point of reference in European Union law; most of the social rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are based on the relevant articles of the Charter.
The Charter is therefore seen as the Social Constitution of Europe and represents an essential component of the continent’s human rights architecture.
Is it a fundamental human right not to be exposed to government sanctioned public violence against homeless animals considering the evidenced impact on the psychological health of children witnessing and the normalising and enactment of such abuse?
Psychological Processes
The psychological processes involved in a child’s formation of concepts includes development of ‘schemata’ or fundamental concept which is constantly modified by experiences. New information is ‘assimilated’ and the schemata modified and ‘accommodated’. Exposure to abuse and violence will be ‘assimilated into the child’s concept of interaction with living beings.[8] Piaget Similarly Bandura’s Social Learning Theory holds that people learn through observing others’ behaviour, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviours. “Most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” [9] Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Such replication explained the environmental and psychological aetiological factors of human aggression [10]
The jury is no longer out on the question about animal abuse being connected to abuse against persons. A vast body of research now exists. These findings have supported the introduction of ‘LINK‘ groups where professionals address incidents of serious animal abuse as being deemed indicative of ‘at risk‘ individuals and families and interventions are introduced. Those who are cruel to animals are more likely to engage in a range of abusive behaviours including adult violence, elder abuse, child abuse etc... Numerous examples are identified where murderers exhibited a history of severe animal abuse.[11]
From Levin, J and Arluke, A in 'The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence' ed Andrew Linzey:
"Inflicting injury, suffering or death on an animal, absent of provocation or hostility, gives an individual tremendous psychological pleasure, the malicious youngster rehearses his sadistic attacks - perhaps on animals, perhaps on other people, perhaps on both - and continues into his adult years to perpetrate the same sorts of sadistic acts on human beings. His attacks on animals are serious and personal. He chooses 'socially valued or culturally humanized animals - for example dogs and cats - against which to carry out his sadistic aims but he is likely to repeat his abusive behaviour on a variety of animals. If he later finds a socially acceptable means of compensating for his sense of powerlessness, then he might very well escape the grip of violence perpetrated against humans. If not, his early experience with animal cruelty may become a training ground for later committing assaults, rape, and even murder." [12]
Central to the concept of ‘society’ is its inter-connectedness. All elements and facets are interwoven and impact upon each other. Within a society, nothing is exclusive. Increasingly, homogeneity is deemed desirable and inter-connectedness having international impact.
Risk Factors for the Development of Animal Cruelty
Research shows that animal cruelty shares many of the aetiological pathways and risk factors that have been shown for other aggressive behaviours. The shared aetiology not only aids understanding of the co-occurrence that has been documented between animal cruelty and other aggressive and antisocial crimes [13](Gullone, 2012), it also highlights the dangers over and above those to animals that are lurking where animal cruelty offenders remain unidentified and their crimes remain unsanctioned.
Prior to discussing the risk factors that predict the development of animal cruelty, definitions of the constructs that are central to this review will be discussed. Of particular note is the conceptualisation that has evolved over the past decade that aggressive behaviours mostly occur within the context of other antisocial behaviours including: lying, stealing, destruction of property, burglary, sexual assault and other violent crimes [14](Hartup, 2005). Significant co-occurrence has been noted between aggressive behaviour, most notably physical aggression and other forms of antisocial behaviour. Much empirical work (e.g., Farrington, 1991) [15], has shown that “the frequency and variety of antisocial acts are the best predictors of more serious forms of antisocial behaviour, including violence.” (Dishion, French, & Patterson, 2005; p. 422).[16]
Thus, animal cruelty and other aggressive behaviours are specific forms of antisocial behaviours that have been shown to co-occur along with other forms of antisocial behaviours. However, other antisocial behaviours can primarily be differentiated from human aggression and animal cruelty behaviours on the basis that these latter behaviours have as their fundamental motivation the deliberate intention to cause harm or injury to other sentient beings. This is clearly indicated in the definitions below.
Defining Human Aggression
According to Dodge, Coie, and Lynam (2006),[17] aggression can be defined as behaviour that aims to harm or injure another or others. Similar definitions have been put forth by others. For example, Anderson (2002)[18] has defined aggression as behaviour performed by a person (the aggressor) with the immediate intention of harming another person (the victim). The perpetrator (aggressor) must believe that the behaviour will harm the victim and that the victim is motivated to avoid that intended harm.
Defining Animal Cruelty
Animal definitions, not surprisingly, share many of the features that are common to definitions of aggression toward humans. Summarizing the different views on animal cruelty, Dadds, Turner, and McAloon (2002)[19] noted that most definitions include a behavioural dimension that can include acts of omission (e.g., neglect) or acts of commission (e.g., beating) (c.f. Brown, 1988).[21] Another key characteristic is indication that the behaviour occurred purposely, that is, with deliberateness and without ignorance. An additional definitional criterion is that the behaviour brings about physical and/or psychological harm. Incorporating these definitional criteria, Dadds (2008) [22]defined animal cruelty as a repetitive and proactive behaviour (or pattern of behaviour) intended to cause harm to sentient creatures.
Gullone (2012) [23]has elaborated further upon Dadds’ definition. According to Gullone, animal cruelty can be defined as:
behaviour performed repetitively and proactively by an individual with the deliberate intention of causing harm (i.e. pain, suffering, distress and/or death) to an animal with the understanding that the animal is motivated to avoid that harm. Included in this definition are both physical harm and psychological harm.
Given shared manifestations as reflected in their definitions, it is not at all surprising that animal cruelty and aggressive behaviours should share risk factors and aetiological pathways of development.
Individuals presenting abusive behaviour contrast with the prevailing norms of the society in which they live. All previous research has been conducted in such environments. There are however environments in which abuse is a societal norm encouraged by controlling authorities. It will be presented here of one such environment. Romania in Eastern Europe suggests a society where abuse is extensive and encouraged. We will define the rationale and framework of a society in which animal abuse is ‘socially acceptable ‘ and explore the potential ramifications.
One of the pioneers of research into the connection between animal abuse and inter-human abuse and aggression, defined animal abuse as ‘non-accidental, socially unacceptable behaviour that results in harm to and/or death of a non-human animal (Ascione 2009).[24] Subsequent research has produced a vast body of data identifying that those who abuse animals are also likely to engage in aggression patterns against humans. These findings are now being utilised by major bodies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Government of the United States of America. Research in other societies where animal abuse is NOT an accepted social norm, has provided supportive results, identifying perpetrators as being more liable to engage in aggressive practices including rape and even serial murder.
The essential factor is that an individual exhibits practices which contrast with the societal ethos in which animal abuse is ‘socially unacceptable’.
What then would be the ramifications if there were a society where animal abuse was ‘socially acceptable’? Instead of individual abuse of animals correlating with inter-human aggression and antisocial tendencies, what implications if a whole society sanctioned such abuse?
In 2013 the Romanian Government, in order to address the number of homeless animals, with Government figures claiming up to 3 million, introduced Law 258/2013 which legalised the ‘eradication’ of these animals. Animals would be captured, held in shelters and ‘euthanised’ after 14 days. Law 9/2008 which is prescriptive of animal welfare conditions and legal penalties for non-compliance, is never exercised.
The 'Making the Link' Study currently conducted in Romania, [4] Plant et al (2016) has provided initial interim results suggesting significant domestic violence and sexual abuse in the homes of children aged less than 16. A significant number of psychometric measures had ALL items scored on the lowest value. It is believed that the sensitivity of the domain of investigation may have resulted in a reluctance for some children to declare such abuse within their homes. If significant numbers of children withheld such identification, the percentages of each of the items represented in the charts below, could be much higher.
UNICEF has identified similar levels of abuse and aggression in schools. Many parents in Romania employ corporal punishment. Violence in schools, by both teachers and other children, is high by world standards, and schools are also the scene of sexual abuse and drugs (UNICEF).
In the 2010 Eurobarometer poll on violence against women [25],
-
39% of Romanian respondents said that they thought domestic violence in their country was "very common",
-
45% "fairly common",
-
8% "not very common",
-
0% "not at all common",
-
and 8% did not know/did not answer.
Victim blaming attitudes are common in Romania. In a 2013 Romanian survey, 30.9% of respondents agreed with the assertion that "women are sometimes beaten due to their own fault".[26] In the Eurobarometer survey, 58% of Romanians agreed that the "provocative behaviour of women" was a cause of violence against women.
The 'Making the Link' Study Project was created in collaboration with University of Teesside, UK, to evidence how positive change could be brought to a society by addressing the results of the unique phenomenon of the extensive numbers of homeless animals and their impact on people and society. This is a phenomenon which exists in various regions of Europe but is endemic in Romania and which uniquely has a government legitimized stray animal ‘eradication’ policy. No study has previously been conducted in such environments, and consequently impact on individual and societal health has not previously been explored.
It was found that in Bistrita, 86,3% of the children who had witnessed animal abuse in public. 65% claimed to have been emotionally affected by the experience. Such abuse has been identified as poisoning, hanging and mutilation of homeless animals. This provides a direct contrast to western societies where almost 62.3% of dog owners considered their pets to be ‘members of the family’ [27]. A survey of psychologists who practice as therapists in the USA, indicated that the overwhelming majority (87%) considered animal abuse to be a mental health issue [28]. Children (10%) who admitted to abusing animals also correlated with aggression against people and property. They identified a predilection for committing theft but also displayed reduced empathy and suicidal tendencies. Extrapolation of the study numbers over a societal time-frame of 40 years would suggest around 4,000 individuals in a typical Romanian city with a population of 60,000, exhibiting such aggressive, crime-oriented tendencies.
Phase 1 Animal abuser profile correlations:
Contemplating suicide (r=.213 p<0.01)
· Aggression (e.g. N=168), fighting (r= .202 p<.001), physically attacking people (r= .277, p< 0.01), hot temper (r= .224 p<0.01)
· Destruction of own and other's property - Own property (r=.214 p<0.01) - Other's property (r= .350 p< 0.001)
· Mood swings (r= .162 P<0.01)
· Arson (r= .208 P<0.01 )
· Theft (r= .269 P<0.01)
· Thoughts that others would think were strange ( r= .221 P<0.01)
· Think about sex too much (r= .271 P<0.01)
· Dishonesty (r = -.236 P <0.01)
· Get into many fights (r = .202 P<0.01)
Phase 2 correlations with ‘Contemplating Suicide’:
Although we are seeing some disparities between Rural and Urban and operating on a limited data set (N=60), taking correlations for ' Suicidal thoughts' in an Urban environment :
· I am cruel to animals r=.662 p < 0.01,
· Mums Partner hurts her body r=.529 p<0.01,
· Threatens her with an object such as knife or gun r=.566 p< 0.01,
· When he hurts my mum I have called for help r=.413 p<0.05,
· I worry about my mum's partner being drunk r=.571 p<0.01,
· An adult in the family has physically attacked me r=.736 p<0.01,
· Someone in my family has sexually abused me r=.406 p<0.05,
· I try to hurt or kill myself r=.485 p<0.01,
· I destroy things belonging to others r=.483 p<0.01,
· I'm afraid of school r=.413 p<0.05,
· I feel worthless r= .381 p<0.05,
· I hear voices r=.411 p<0.05,
· I start fires r=.662 p<0.01,
· I steal things at home r=.662 p<0.01,
· I have mood swings r=.422 p<0.05,
· I have a hot temper r=.498 p<0.01,
· I use drugs other than for medication ( excluding tobacco and alcohol) r=.662 p<0.01
(Items abbreviated for brevity)[29]
Not only does perpetration psychologically affect the perpetrator, but witnessing abuse also affects those who witness. The study has explored the implications for a society which is ‘different’ from the majority of North American and European societies where animal abuse is not ‘socially acceptable’. In such societies, individuals who abuse, contrast with the norms of their society. Individuals. What are the implications then if abuse is socially acceptable with diminished status, authority encouraged with potential aggression satisfying victims available on every street corner? Aggression enhancement facilities available throughout the country. This is further exacerbated by the Romanian Government stray animal control strategy of ‘eradication’. This legitimises the capture and killing after 14 days of all stray animals unless adopted. Existing Animal Welfare Laws prescribing punitive responses to animal abuse are NOT enacted. Defined legal conditions for animal shelters are patently ignored. An Animal Police force, created in theory, still awaits enactment. Passive legitimisation and encouragement of the ‘social acceptability’ of animal abuse.
Risk Factors for the Development of Animal Cruelty
Consistent with the broader literature on aggressive and other antisocial behaviour, empirical studies examining factors that are predictive of animal cruelty include a number of constitutional or biological risk factors and individual difference risk factors. Being male has been a consistently demonstrated risk factor across the developmental spectrum (Arluke & Luke, 1997; Coston & Protz, 1998).[30] Age is another important constitutional variable (Arluke & Luke, 1997; Gullone & Clarke, 2008)[31]. Environmental factors have also been shown to be important. These factors include micro-environments that can also be referred to as proximal environments such as the child’s family and parenting experiences (e.g., Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Rigdon & Tapia, 1977; Tapia, 1971).[32] Also included are macro-environments which are considered to be more distal environments such as cultural attitudes and norms (Flynn, 1999a).[33]
In his recent review, Flynn (2011) (p. 455) [34] listed what he considers to be the leading predictive factors of children’s animal cruelty. These include “
a) being a victim of physical or sexual abuse,
b) witnessing violence between one’s parents,
c) witnessing parents or peers harm animals.
Other predictors of animal cruelty that Flynn included were the experiences of being bullied or the behaviour of bullying. The research examining the proposed risk factors for the development of animal cruelty behaviours will be reviewed below beginning with biological and maturational variables.
Temperamental Predisposition
Differences in temperament (defined as an internal disposition that influences relatively stable styles of behaving over time and across situations; Schwartz, Wright, Shin, Kagan, & Rauch, 2003)[35] have been reported to be important predictors. It is noteworthy that biological predispositions are just that – predispositions. It is their interaction with environmental factors (such as family and parenting experiences – to be reviewed in the next section) that is of most significance in understanding their aetiological role.
One particularly relevant constellation of temperamental predispositions is referred to as callous-unemotional traits. In particular, experiences of abuse or neglect in childhood interfere with otherwise normative development. Such childhood experiences have been shown to serve as incubators of callous-unemotional trait development in predisposed individuals (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002).[36]
Individuals characterised by callous-unemotional traits lack a sense of guilt and empathy, and callously use others for their own gain (Frick & White, 2008).[37] Research with antisocial youth has shown that callous-unemotional traits are predictive of a higher severity, and stability of aggressive and antisocial behaviour. Youth who present with callous-unemotional traits tend to be less responsive to cues of punishment but rather tend toward a reward-dominant style. This contrasts with antisocial youth without callous-unemotional traits who tend to show less aggressive behaviour and whose behaviour tends to be reactive rather than proactive (Frick and Dickens, 2006).[38]
Sex Differences
A second important factor shown to be an important risk factor for animal cruelty is sex (and gender). Consistent with the broader antisocial behaviour literature showing that there are marked sex differences with the males outnumbering females on aggressive tendencies by a ratio of around 10 to 1 (Loeber & Hay, 1997),[39] research has shown that males are more likely to be cruel to animals. This is true for childhood (e.g., Baldry, 2005), [40]adolescence (Thompson & Gullone, 2006),[41] and adulthood (Gullone & Clarke, 2008).[42] Of note, Flynn (1999a; 1999b)[43] found that not only were males more likely to commit animal cruelty, they were also more likely to witness it.
Investigating a childhood community sample involving 268 girls and 264 boys (aged 9 to 12 years), Baldry (2005)[44] found that 35.9 percent of girls reported abusing animals compared with 45.7 percent of boys. The investigation by Thompson and Gullone (2006)[45] involving 281 adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years, found that males scored significantly higher than females on two different self-report animal cruelty questionnaires. In their study, Gullone and Robertson (2008)[46] also found that boys scored higher on measures of animal cruelty compared to girls.
Studies examining animal cruelty in adults have also found a higher prevalence amongst men compared to women. For example, in an investigation of all animal cruelty cases prosecuted in Massachusetts between 1975 and 1996, Arluke and Luke (1997) [47]found that approximately 97% of the perpetrators were male. Similarly, in Gullone and Clarke’s (2008) [48] report of Australian data for all recorded offences in Victoria for the years spanning 1994 to 2001, when broken down by age and sex, the data showed that across crime categories including animal cruelty, offenders were characteristically male. Males were also found to be over-represented across all age categories but most particularly between the ages of 18 and 35 years indicating the importance of maturational period or age.
Age Differences
As has been found for other forms of violence, late adolescence and early adulthood are the ages that are most typical for perpetrating animal cruelty for males and females, albeit with a markedly higher prevalence in males. For example, Arluke and Luke (1997) [49]reported that the average age for committing animal cruelty was 30 years. They also found that just over one quarter of the offenders were adolescents and more than half (56%) were under 30 years. In their Australian study, Gullone and Clarke (2008)[50] reported consistent findings in their examination of all recorded offences in the state of Victoria during the years between 1994 and 2001. In addition to being male, most offenders for all offences including animal cruelty, offences against the person, offences against property, and drug offences were aged between 18 and 35 years. When looking only at animal cruelty offences, there was a peak between 18 and 25 years.
In a study of 28 convicted and incarcerated male sexual homicide perpetrators, Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas (1988)[51] found that prevalence of cruelty to animals was 36% in childhood and 46% in adolescence. Of note, in their study, Arluke and Luke (1997)[52] also found differences depending on age, in the type of animal abused. Adults were more likely to be cruel to dogs whilst adolescents were more likely to kill cats. The type of cruelty also differed with shooting animals being more characteristic of adult animal cruelty and beating being more characteristic of adolescent cruelty.
The finding that there are age differences in the propensity to be cruel to animals is not surprising given the profound differences that are associated with different developmental milestones. Not only does physical strength increase as children mature, cognitive functioning and emotion regulation also develop. Emotion regulation involves processes that enable us to be aware of our emotions as well as processes that enable us to monitor, evaluate and change our emotions in order to achieve our goals in a manner that is appropriate for the particular situation. In addition to the maturation of cognitive and emotion processes with age, environmental experiences will vary in their intensity of impact depending on developmental stage, as has been shown for the witnessing of cruelty. This will be discussed in the next section.
Witnessing of Violence and Animal Cruelty
Research has consistently demonstrated the importance of witnessing aggression for the development of aggressive behaviour (e.g., Cummings, 1987; Davies, Myers, Cummings, & Heindel, 1999; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002).[53] A number of studies investigating the relationship between animal cruelty and family violence have also examined children’s witnessing of animal cruelty and children’s engagement in animal cruelty. These studies have shown that between 29% and 75% of children in violent families have witnessed the animal cruelty and between 10% and 57% have engaged in animal cruelty. Parental reports of animal cruelty in normative samples of children (children who do not come from violent homes) are typically around 10% or lower (Ascione et al., 2007).[54]
In her 2005 study, Baldry found that youth who witnessed violence between family members, or who witnessed harm to animals, were three times more likely to be cruel to animals compared to peers without such experiences. Currie (2006) [55] also reported a significant relationship between the witnessing of aggressive behaviour (domestic violence) and animal cruelty via parent-report. Mothers’ reports regarding their children’s animal cruelty were compared for a group of 94 children (47 mothers) with a history of domestic violence and 90 children (45 mothers) without a history of domestic violence. According to the mother reports, exposed children were more likely to be cruel to animals compared to children who had not been exposed to violence. Additional support for this relationship was reported by DeGue and DiLillo (2009) [56] who found that those participants who had witnessed animal cruelty were eight times more likely than those who had not, to perpetrate animal cruelty.
In research specifically examining the relationship between children’s aggressive behaviours and their witnessing of domestic violence, Baldry (2003) [57]found that children who engaged in bullying behaviours were 1.8 times more likely to have been exposed to domestic violence than those who were not. Similarly, in their study of 281 (113 males; 168 females) school-based adolescents ranging in age between 12 and 18 years, Thompson and Gullone (2006)[58] found that those who reported witnessing animal cruelty on at least one occasion also reported significantly higher levels of animal cruelty, compared to youth who did not witness animal cruelty. Particularly noteworthy is Thompson and Gullone’s finding that witnessing a stranger abusing an animal predicted lower levels of animal cruelty. This contrasted with the finding that witnessing animal cruelty by a friend, relative, parent, or sibling predicted higher levels of cruelty.
Hensley and Tallichet (2005) [59]reported similar findings to those of Thompson and Gullone. They not only found that inmates who reported witnessing animal cruelty were more likely to frequently be cruel to animals but also that those who witnessed a family member or a friend hurt or kill animals were more likely to commit animal cruelty with even greater frequency. The findings of these studies are consistent with Bandura’s vicarious learning theory (1983)[60] which proposes that observation of behaviour is more likely to lead to performance of the observed behaviour if the model has a meaningful relationship with the observer, or in other words if the model is a significant other. Also, consistent with Henry’s (2004a)[61]findings, it is noteworthy that those who were younger when they first witnessed someone hurt or kill animals were more likely to commit animal cruelty more frequently.
Further indicating the important aetiological role of witnessing cruelty is the study by Gullone and Robertson (2008)[62] in which the possible pathways of acquisition for bullying and for animal cruelty behaviours were investigated. It was found that each type of behaviour was significantly predicted by the witnessing of animal cruelty. Thus, this study supports the co-existence of animal directed aggression and human directed aggression in youth. As with Baldry’s (2005)[63] results, it also further demonstrates the importance of observational learning (Bandura, 1978).[64] In this case the observation of animal cruelty, as a pathway for the development of different aggressive behaviours was demonstrated.
Others (e.g., Flynn, 1999b; 2000; Henry, 2004b; Hensley & Tallichet, 2005) [65] have examined this relationship by asking undergraduate students or imprisoned males about their childhood experiences and behaviours. A study by Henry (2004a)[66] involved 169 university students who were asked about exposure to, and perpetration of, animal cruelty. Results indicated that animal cruelty was witnessed on at least one occasion by 50.9% of participants. Also, the witnessing of animal cruelty before the age of 13 years age was associated with higher perpetration rates (32%) compared to the witnessing of animal cruelty at 13 years or later (11.5%).
Witnessing significant others such as parents abusing animals has been demonstrated to play a large role in attitude formation for the child, contributing to the development of beliefs that aggressive and violent behaviours are somewhat normative, thereby supporting the development of what has been, in the general aggression
literature, referred to as normative beliefs (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003).[67] As has been consistently reported in the human aggression literature, children’s beliefs about aggression are correlated with those of their parents (Huesmann, Eton, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984)[68] as well as those of their peers (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997).[69]
In other research, Deviney, Dickert, and Lockwood (1983) [70]studied 53 families who had companion animals in their home and who met New Jersey legal criteria for child abuse and neglect. They found that compared to the general population, there were higher rates of animal cruelty in families where there was substantiated child abuse or neglect. Observations during home interviews revealed that companion animals were abused or neglected in 60% of these families. When the sample was classified according to type of abuse (physical abuse - 40%; sexual abuse - 10%; neglect -58%), for an alarming 88% of
In 1977, Rigdon and Tapia conducted a follow-up study of Tapia’s (1971) [71] study in an attempt to determine whether the presence of cruelty to animals as a significant clinical feature provides information that is of prognostic value. The original data reported in 1971 were collected between 2 and 9 years earlier. Five of the original 18 children were not able to be located for this follow-up study. The detailed case by case analysis revealed that of the 13 cases followed up, 8 were still cruel to animals as many as 9 years later. The authors concluded that “Most of these children are the products of a chaotic home situation with aggressive parents who administered harsh corporal punishment.” and that “The most effective form of therapy seemed to be removal from or a significant change in the chaotic home environment.” (p. 36).
In the earliest published investigation of the aetiology of animal cruelty by children, Tapia (1971) [72] reported an analysis of 18 child cases of cruelty to animals selected from the clinic files of the Child Psychiatry Section of the University of Missouri’s School of Medicine. In all selected cases, cruelty to animals was either the chief complaint or one of the referring complaints. Among the cases, there was a high male prevalence. The children were of normal intelligence and young in age, spanning from 5 to 15 years with half of the cases being between 8 and 10 years. A chaotic home environment with aggressive parental models was the most common factor across the cases. On the basis of the case analysis, Tapia concluded that cruelty to animals occurs in conjunction with other hostile behaviour including bullying and fighting, lying, stealing and destructiveness, and that a chaotic home environment, together with aggressive parent models are common factors.
Risky families include overt family conflict, expressions of negative affect and low nurturance and warmth. Risky parents are cold, unsupportive or neglectful. Risky parenting and risky family environments leave children vulnerable to the development of psychological and physical disorders. It is important to emphasise the interactional role played by both environment and biology. Whilst certain biologically-based characteristics, such as temperament are predictive of development along an antisocial behaviour trajectory, children whose aggression increases as they develop, rather than following the normative decreasing pathway, may also be expressing a learnt survival behaviour for their particular circumstance. This is highlighted by research showing the intergenerational transmission of aggression such as that described below.
Across different assessment methodologies, including retrospective reporting, a significant relationship between the experiencing of abuse in childhood (mostly within the family environment) and engagement in animal cruelty has emerged. Other factors placing children at risk of developing aggressive and antisocial behaviours, including animal cruelty behaviours, are those that characterise risky families (Repetti, et al., 2002).[73]
Family and Parenting Experiences
Of course, it is not only the witnessing of aggression and violence that contributes to the learning of behaviour and to the formation of attitudes and beliefs, the actual experiencing of behaviour is likely to contribute to learning and attitude formation even more powerfully. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that a relationship has been found between children’s experiences of abuse and neglect and their engagement in animal cruelty. The next section will review the research looking at the relationships between family and parenting experiences and children’s animal cruelty.
In sum, the above studies demonstrate the importance of witnessing animal cruelty (i.e. an aggressive behaviour) for the learning of, and engagement in, aggressive behaviour. Children who witness or directly experience violence or aggression have been documented to be more likely to develop ways of thinking and behaving that support aggression (Guerra, Huesmann, & Spindler, 2003)[74] and a tendency to behave aggressively (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003).[75] Given that studies have consistently reported that children exposed to domestic violence are more likely to engage in acts of animal cruelty than children who have not been exposed to domestic violence (Baldry, 2005;, et al., 2004; Flynn, 2000; Hensley & Tallichet, 2005), [76] it can be concluded that witnessing or experiencing of violence and/or aggression are important pathways for the development of these behaviours.
Whilst research has shown that witnessing significant others behave in an aggressive manner serves as a powerful pathway of acquisition, observing media violence also has a significant effect on attitudes and behaviours (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003).[77] A large and robust body of research has consistently shown that exposure to media violence predicts an increase in aggressive thoughts, desensitization to later violence exposure and reductions in physiological arousal following violence exposure. It also predicts an increased acceptance and endorsement of violent behaviour (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; Anderson et al., 2010; Greeson & Williams, 1986; Hansen & Hansen, 1990). [78] There is strong empirical evidence indicating that exposure to real life or media violence plays a strong role in the formation of cognitions related to aggression and violence (Flynn, 1999b),[79] as well as the development of aggressive behaviour (e.g. Baldry, 2005; Becker, Stuewig, Herrera, McCloskey, 2004; Currie, 2006; Gullone & Roberston, 2008; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Thompson & Gullone, 2006).[80] families displaying physical abuse, cruelty to animals was also present. As many as two-thirds of the companion animals in these homes were abused by the fathers in the family, and one-third were abused by the children in the family.
In their work comparing criminal (aggressive versus non-aggressive) and non-criminal retrospective reports of childhood experiences and abuse behaviours, Kellert and Felthous found that domestic violence and particularly paternal abuse and alcoholism, were common factors among aggressive criminals who had a history of childhood animal cruelty (Felthous, 1980; Felthous & Kellert, 1986; Kellert & Felthous, 1985).[81] According to Kellert and Felthous (1985), [82]the family and childhood experiences of many of the aggressive criminals were particularly violent. The domestic violence in the families of the aggressive criminals was most strongly characterised by paternal violence. Of note, three quarters of the aggressive criminals reported repeated and excessive child abuse compared to 31% of the non-aggressive criminals and 10% of the non-criminals. Among the non-aggressive criminals and non-criminals who were cruel to animals, reports of being physically abused as children were common. As many as 75% of non-criminals who reported experiences of parental abuse also reported being cruel to animals.
In a study by Ressler, Burgess, Hartman, Douglas, and McCormack (1986),[83] 36 convicted sexually-oriented killers were interviewed about their childhood histories. The offenders who were sexually abused in childhood or adolescence were significantly more likely than those who were not abused to report a number of aggressive behaviours including cruelty to animals, cruelty to other children, and assaultive behaviour toward adults.
In research examining the relationships between childhood experiences and animal cruelty, Miller and Knutson (1997)[84] compared the self-reports of 314 inmates in a corrections department with those of a group of undergraduate university students. They found modest associations between animal cruelty and punitive and acrimonious childhood histories. On this basis, the authors concluded that there is an association between punitive childhood histories and antisocial behaviour.
Also based on retrospective self-reports, Flynn’s (1999b)[85] study involved 267 undergraduate students. The results showed a relationship between corporal punishment by parents and the perpetration of animal cruelty. Those who had perpetrated animal cruelty were physically punished more frequently before their teenage years compared to those who had never been cruel to an animal. Also, more than half of male teenagers who were hit by their fathers reported perpetrating animal cruelty.
Ascione, Friedrich, Heath, and Hayashi (2003) [86] also examined the associations between children’s cruelty to animals and physical abuse. In addition, they looked at the relationship between animal cruelty and parental physical fighting. Three groups of children (1. sexually abused group; 2. psychiatric sample with no sexual abuse; 3. control group) aged between 6 and 12 years were involved in the study. Cruelty to animals was associated with a history of abuse and the association was stronger for children who had been physically abused and those who had witnessed domestic violence.
A more recent study by Duncan, Thomas, and Miller (2005) [87] yielded converging findings through the assessment of charts of boys (aged 8 to 17 years) with conduct problems. The children’s histories were also examined to identify the occurrence of physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, paternal alcoholism, paternal unavailability, and domestic violence. Children were grouped according to whether they had or had not been cruel to animals. It was found that children who were cruel to animals were twice more likely to have been physically and/or sexually abused or to have been exposed to domestic violence compared to children who were not cruel to animals.
In sum, these findings of research examining the relationships between childhood animal cruelty and parenting and family experiences are consistent with those from the larger literature relating to the development of antisocial behaviour. Such research, for example, has shown that within homes where there is greater family instability, more conflict, and problematic parenting strategies (i.e., physical punishment), children are more likely to develop along the trajectory of childhood-onset antisocial behaviour, also noted as being the more problematic trajectory with regard to stability of aggression and severity of aggression.
As victims of abuse, children experience a sense of powerlessness that, at a very basic level is likely to be experienced as a threat to survival. Identifying with their abuser enables a transformation from a sense of powerlessness to one of being in control (Marcus-Newhall, Pederson, Carlson, & Miller, 2000). [88] For a child, those who are more vulnerable than oneself are likely to be small animals. Thus it is the animals who are the vulnerable others to whom aggression can be displaced.
Displacement of Aggression
Displaced aggression constitutes a form of aggression against others (human or non-human animals) who did not play a direct role in the precipitating event (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000; Pederson, Gonzales, & Miller, 2000). [89] Displaced aggression increases if the target of such aggression provides even a minor trigger or the slightest of provocations (e.g. a dog barking). Displaced aggression also increases if the target can be perceived to be a member of a disliked out-group (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003) [90] or as having less social value (e.g. a non-human animal).
There are instances when animal cruelty by children constitutes the displacement of aggression from humans to animals that occurs through the child’s identification with their abuser. Indeed, displaced aggression has been included as one of the nine motivations for animal cruelty reported by Kellert and Felthous (1985).[91]
In addition to environmental variables including family and parenting influences, research has examined the important role played by cognitive constructs in better understanding the development of antisocial and aggressive behaviours. Such constructs include knowledge structures and aggressive scripts.
Cognitive Errors, Aggressive Cues, and Exposure to Violence
Cognitive structures are proposed to develop largely as a consequence of learning experiences. It would be expected therefore that individuals who experience or observe abuse in their formative years learn aggressive behaviours, hostile perceptions, attributions, and expectation biases. They are also more likely to learn callous attitudes and processes to enable disengagement from normative empathic reactions, reactions that would otherwise serve as aggression inhibitors.
Thus, in environments that are sympathetic to antisocial behaviours, the development of aggressive scripts and normative beliefs related to aggression, is promoted. Over time, through genetic and experiential or environmental factors, individuals develop neural pathways associated with these knowledge structures and behavioural scripts. Once stored in memory, these structures and scripts influence information processing, perceptions and behaviour (Anderson, 2002; Huesmann, 1988).[92] Processes play a role that is specifically relevant to aggressive emotion related
Knowledge Structures
Knowledge structures influence perception at multiple levels and in complex ways. They influence judgements and behaviour, and they incorporate emotions. For example, when a knowledge structure containing the emotion of anger is activated, anger will be experienced. Highlighting the broad-ranging role played by knowledge structures in everyday life, Anderson and Bushman (2002) [93] note that knowledge structures influence the situations that an individual will seek out as well as those that they will avoid.
With increased use and over time, knowledge structures tend to become automatic in their influence and so increasingly function outside of conscious awareness (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Todorov & Bargh, 2002).[94] Also, over time knowledge structures become much more rigid and resistant to change. In relation to aggression-related knowledge structures, it is generally agreed upon that the hardening begins to take place at around ages 8 or 9 years. Another important cognitive construct is referred to as a script.
Script Theory
Script theory was proposed by Huesmann (1986).[95] Scripts are proposed to define situations and also to guide behaviour. Once scripts have been learned, they are available for retrieval at subsequent times as guides for behaviour. Scripts have been defined as “sets of particularly well-rehearsed, highly associated concepts in memory” (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; p. 31).[96] They involve causal links, goals and action plans. The processing of social cues is guided by scripts which are stored in memory and are the evolved representational product of experience. They influence selective attention to cues, the perception of stimuli and the consequent decisions made on the basis of those perceptions. Script theory has proven useful for explaining the generalisation of learning processes across different situations as well as the automatization of perception-judgement-decision-behavioural processes (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).[97]
Huesmann (1988) [98] proposed that during the early developmental years, children acquire memory scripts which influence their perception of acceptable actions and their likely consequences. Research has shown that the most accessible social scripts for both aggressive children and adults are aggressive ones (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003).[99] When compared to non-aggressive children, aggressive children are more likely to attend to aggressive social cues (Gouze, 1987).[100] Aggressive children are also less likely to rely on external cues but more on their own stereotypes (Dodge & Tomlin, 1987) [101] and they are more likely to describe their social relationships using such constructs (Stromquist & Strauman, 1991).[102]
Shedding some light on the ways in which particular experiences can influence the development of particular information processing pathways, and consequently the selective attention to particular cues, Pollak and Tolley-Schell (2003)[103] found that physically abused children are more likely to selectively attend to angry faces and to demonstrate reduced attention to happy faces. Such children also demonstrate difficulty disengaging from angry faces. Of additional concern, it is not only children who are abused or who directly experience violence who develop beliefs and scripts that support aggression and a tendency to behave violently but also children who witness abuse or violence (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003).[104]
In sum, cognitive constructs including knowledge structures and behavioural scripts are useful for understanding why, when compared to non-aggressive individuals, aggressive individuals are more likely to perceive hostility in situations even where there is none. This tendency, referred to as a Hostile Attribution Bias, is particularly pronounced in ambiguous situations (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge et al., 2006). [105]In relation to animal cruelty, aggressive children may be more likely to attribute hostile intentions to animals since cues provided by animals are often more ambiguous than those provided by humans (Dadds, 2008).[106] Such misattribution can also explain adult aggression toward animals. Although empirical research is required to confirm such processes, they are a logical extension of the Hostile Attribution Bias findings in relation to humans.
In addition to the cognitive constructs involved in understanding the underlying processes of aggressive and antisocial behaviours, there are processes underpinned more strongly by emotions. These will be discussed below in the next section.
The Development of Empathy and Emotion Regulation
A number of behavior (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000).[107] Of particular relevance are the emotion-related competencies and strategies involved in regulating emotions.
From as early as one year of age, aggression, particularly peer-directed aggression, becomes evident. By the time children have begun school, their aggression levels begin to decrease. Some theorize that this decrease coincides with an increase in interpersonal skills and emotion regulation competencies including effortful control (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; Eisenberg, Champion, & Ma, 2004; Keenan & Shaw, 1997).[108] Other developing abilities at this time include perspective-taking (Selman, 1980), [109] empathy (Zahn-Waxler, et al., 1979),[110] and emotion processing (Schultz, Izard, & Bear, 2004).[111] According to Ascione, Thompson, and Black (1997),[112] motivations driving young children’s animal cruelty including curiosity and exploration likely occur as a consequence of younger children not yet having internalised society’s values regarding the appropriate treatment of animals.
It is not surprising that the development of empathy and emotion regulation competencies predicts a decrease in aggressive behaviours while the compromised development of these competencies places children at risk of developing antisocial behaviours, including engaging in animal cruelty. Moreover, those children most at risk are likely to be that sub-group of children with Conduct Disorders who also present with callous-unemotional traits and an inability to experience guilt (Hastings, Zhan-Waxler, Robinson, Usher, & Bridges, 2000; Luk, Staiger, Wong, & Mathai, 1999).[113] These children tend to initiate and engage in persistent antisocial acts, including displays of aggression toward both people and animals (Miller, 2001).[114] At this extreme end of the antisocial behaviour continuum, a lack of empathy and guilt in addition to an interpersonal style characterised by callousness are predictive of Psychopathy (Frick & White, 2008).[115]
Thus, whilst low levels of empathy constitute a risk factor for antisocial and aggressive behaviour (McPhedran, 2009),[116] higher levels of empathy can be a protective factor against the development of these behaviours. Empathic and prosocial youths are more inclined to treat their companion animals humanely (Poresky 1990; Vidovic, Stetic and Bratko 1999).[117] Several empirical studies have demonstrated the importance that empathy has for interpersonal relationships and behaviours, including those with animals. For example, Poresky’s (1990)[118] study assessed the relationship between bonds with companion animals and empathy levels among 38 children ranging in age from 3 to 6 years. As expected, children who had a strong bond with their companion animal scored higher on empathy than children who did not have companion animals.
In a related study, Vidovic, Stetic and Bratko (1999) [119] assessed companion animal ownership and socio-emotional development among a sample of 826 youths ranging in age from 10 to 15 years. Participants who scored higher than average on a companion animal attachment scale yielded significantly higher scores on both empathy and prosocial orientation than those who scored lower than average. A more recent study involving 381 13 to 18 year-olds by Thompson and Gullone (2008) [120] yielded supporting findings. These researchers examined the associations between empathy and prosocial as well empathy and antisocial behaviours. Behaviours toward humans and animals were investigated. As predicted, low empathy was found to be a significant predictor of antisocial behaviours and high empathy was found to be a significant predictor of prosocial behaviours towards both humans and animals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, what is most apparent from the above review is that the risk factors, not surprisingly, for animal cruelty are not different to those for other aggressive and antisocial behaviours. What is also clear is that the co-occurrence of animal cruelty with other antisocial and aggressive behaviours is cause for significant concern in a number of regards. When a child or adolescent is found to have abused an animal, one needs to ask oneself, not only what other aggressive behaviours might this individual be engaged in, but also what is happening in this individual’s life? Is he/she a victim of child abuse, is he/she living in circumstances of domestic violence, and/or what is the aggression or violence that he may have been witness to?
Of significance is the finding that cruelty to animals was significantly associated with all assessed antisocial behaviours. Specifically, strong associations were found between animal cruelty and lifetime alcohol use disorders, conduct disorder, antisocial, obsessive–compulsive, and histrionic personality disorders, pathological gambling, and a family history of antisocial behaviour.
Animal cruelty has also been identified as one of the earliest indicators of what are referred to externalizing disorders, including Conduct Disorder as well as a predictor of the development of aggression along a more severe trajectory (Frick et al., 1993; Luk et al., 1999).[121] Striving for its early identification would therefore seem to be of significant priority as such would provide an optimal opportunity for engaging preventative strategies.
The focus of preventative strategies should be guided by the risk factors reviewed in this work. Processes involved in the development of aggressive behaviours, most particularly the development of cognitive structures such as normative beliefs and aggressive scripts through exposure to antisocial behaviours, need also be addressed. On the basis of the reviewed research, it is reasonable to conclude that legalised aggression has an influence on young people’s development of relevant cognitive structures, and consequent aggressive behaviours. This would particularly be the case for individuals with a vulnerable disposition (e.g., a temperament characterised by callous-unemotional traits) toward the development of such behaviours, or those within a vulnerable environment or “risky” family.
There is much research to suggest that children who witness violence are more likely to commit similar acts in adulthood (Farrell, Mehari, Kramer-Kuhn, & Goncy, 2014; Murrell, Merwin, Christoff, & Henning, 2005).[122]
Childhood witnessing of cruelty increases the risk of maladaptive behaviors, such as the perpetration of violence towards humans and animals; these behaviors may manifest during childhood or adulthood (Daly & Morton, 2008; Flynn, 1999; Miller & Knutson, 1996).[123] The mechanisms behind these behaviours include desensitization, decreased empathy, learned maladaptive coping, and unresolved anger, fear, and resentment (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001; Dutton, 2009; Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008).[124]
Internalizing symptoms of witnessing animal cruelty include depression, anxiety, withdrawal, post-traumatic symptoms, and victimization at school (Daly & Morton, 2008; Girardi & Pozzulo, 2015; McDonald, Graham-Bermann, Maternick, Ascione, & Williams, 2016).[125]
For most individuals, the potential psychological discomfort caused by such conflicting messages may be managed through the use of cognitive mechanisms (e.g., vilifying the recipients, obscuring personal agency or cognitively reconstructing the conduct) that enable individuals to disengage self-sanctions for engaging in reprehensible behaviour (Bandura, 1983).[126] However, for young people whose attitudes are undergoing processes of formation, such contradiction and inconsistency can only serve as barriers to the development of empathy and compassion. It follows that if we cultivate a culture of compassion toward our non-human citizens, current and future generations will benefit through reduced antisocial and violent behaviour toward all sentient beings.
Given the enormous volume of incontrovertible evidence presented here showing the associations between animal abuse and human violence, it has been demonstrated that this serves to identify ‘at risk’ individuals where such abuse contrasts with the norms of a society. In societies where significant public animal abuse has been identified, because of this phenomenon, an alert arises of an effectively an ‘at risk’ national culture with endemic animal abuse providing an aggression enhancement facility which as has been shown, is likely to be enacted against people and property, children or vulnerable women.
Categorisation of the homeless animals as ‘eradicable’ diminishes their social status and invites displaced aggression. Children who witness enactment of this aggression and abuse can desensitise with empathy erosion and begin to accept violence and aggression as normal. They will then act accordingly against people and property.
In the complexity of this issue, a singular solution emerges. By introducing a national sterilization program, the numbers of homeless animals would progressively reduce. This would remove a ‘displaced aggression’ facility for aggression enhancement. It would also make such nations compliant with Council of Europe Convention and EU Fundamental Values. It would reduce the Cycles of Abuse which are identified to be enacted by subsequent generations and it would reduce violence and aggression within the home and within society.
Bibliography
[1] Ascione, FR & Arkow P (1999) Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention Purdue University Press, 1999
Peterson LP & Farrington DP (2007) Victims and Offenders Volume 2 2007- Issue 1 pp 21-43
Ascione, F.R. (1998) Battered women's reports of their partners and their childrens cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1 (1),119-133
Boat, B (2002)‘Empathy as an indicator of emotional development ’in The link between animal abuse and human violence‘ (ed) Linzey, A, Sussex Academic Press Boat, B (2002)
Wright, J and Hensley, C (2003) ‘The tangled web of animal abuse: The links between cruelty to animals and human violence, in R Lockwood and FR Ascione(eds) Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence West Lafayette, IN: Perdue University Press, 1998
[2] Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2006). An investigation into the association between the witnessing of animal abuse and adolescents’ behavior toward animals. (3), 221-243
Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2008). Empathic correlates of witnessing the inhumane killing of an animal: An investigation of single and multiple exposures. , (3), 243-255.
Beetz, AM (2009) Animal abuse and exposure to interparental violence in Italian youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18 (3), 258-281
Bandura. A (1973) , Aggression: A social learning theory analysis ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1973
Flynn, C. P. (1999). Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. , (2), 161-172.
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 & Neglect, 21(1), 59-82.
Girardi, A., & Pozzulo, J. D. (2015). Childhood Experiences with Family Pets and Internalizing Symptoms in Early Adulthood. Anthrozoös, 28(3), 421-436.
McDonald, S. E., Graham-Bermann, S. A., Maternick, A., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2016). Patterns of adjustment among children exposed to intimate partner violence: a person-centered approach. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 9(2), 137-152.
Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(3), 298.
Dutton, D. G. (2000). Witnessing parental violence as a traumatic experience shaping the abusive personality. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 3(1), 59-67.
Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 797-810.
Flynn, C. P. (2011). Examining the links between animal abuse and human violence. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(5), 453-468.
Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human relations, 38(12), 1113-1129.
Merz-Perez, L., Heide, K. M., & Silverman, I. J. (2001). Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(5), 556-573.
Wright, J., & Hensley, C. (2003). From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the graduation hypothesis. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 47(1), 71-88.
[3] Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view.: In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. (pp. 296-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
[4] Plant et al (2016). “It’s a Dog’s Life”: Culture, Empathy, Gender, and Domestic Violence Predict Animal Abuse in Adolescents—Implications for Societal Health
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Vol 34, Issue 10
[5] https://www.fve.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/004-Stray-dogs-position-paper-adopted.pdf https://www.oie.int/ https://www.who.int/
[6] https://rm.coe.int/16802f5aff FAQ Item 3 https://rm.coe.int/168007a67d
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8U_WUNhyDA.
[8] Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[9] Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press
[10] Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[11] Neustatter, A (1998) ‘Killers‘ animal instincts: The sadistic fantasies thet drive serial killers have their roots in childhood – There is a compelling link with cruelty to animals, The Independent, 13 October
[12] From Levin, J and Arluke, A in 'The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence' ed Andrew Linzey:
[13] Gullone, E. (2012). Animal cruelty, Antisocial Behaviour and Aggression: More than a link. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., Hampshire.
[14] Hartup, W.W. (2005). The development of aggression. In R.E. Tremblay, W.W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental Origins of Aggression (pp. 3-22). Guilford Press: New York.
[15] Farrington, D.P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and later life outcomes. In D.J. Peplar & H.K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
[16] Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 421-471). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
[17] Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behaviour in youth. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development, pp. 719-788). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc
[18] Anderson, C.A. (2002). Aggression. (p. 68-78). In E. Borgatta & R. Montgomery (Eds). The Encyclopedia of Sociology. (2nd Ed.), New York: MacMillan.
[19] Dadds, M. R., Turner, C. M., & McAloon, J. (2002). Developmental links between cruelty to animals and human violence. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Counselling, 35, 363-382
[21] Brown, L. (1988).Cruelty to animals: The moral debt. London: Macmillan
[22] Dadds, M.R. (2008). Conduct problems and cruelty to animals in children: What is the link? In F.R. Ascione (ed). The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 111-131). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
[23] Gullone, E. (2012). Animal cruelty, Antisocial Behaviour and Aggression: More than a link. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., Hampshire.
[24] Ascione, F. R. (2009). Examining children’s exposure to violence in the context of animal abuse. In A. Linzey (Ed.), The link between animal abuse and human violence (pp. 106-115). Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.
[25] http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_344_en.pdf
[26] http://www.inscop.ro/august-2013violenta-in-familie-i/
[28] Schaefer, K. D., Hays, K. A., & Steiner, R. L. (2007). Animal abuse issues in ther-apy: A survey of therapists’ attitudes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 530-537.
Animal Abuse Issues in Therapy: A Survey of Therapists' Attitudes Professional Psychology Research and Practice 38(5):530-537 · October 2007
[29] https://www.europeanlinkcoalition.com/cycles-of-abuse
[30] Arluke, A., & Luke, C. (1997). Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts, 1975-1996. Society and Animals, 5, 195-204.
Coston, C., & Protz, C.M. (1998). Kill your dog, beat your wife, screw your neighbour’s kids, rob a bank? A cursory look at an individuals’ vat of social chaos resulting from deviance. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 26, 153- 158.
[31] Arluke & Luke, 1997;Gullone, E., & Clarke, J. (2008). Human-Animal Interactions: The Australian Perspective. In F. Ascione (Ed.), The International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty (pp. 305-335). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press
[32] Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38(12), 1113-1129.
Rigdon, J. D., & Tapia, F. (1977). Children who are cruel to animals: A follow-up study. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 8, 27-36.
[33] Flynn, C. P. (1999a). Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. Society and Animals, 7, 161-172.
[34] , Flynn, C.P. (2011). Examining the links between animal abuse and human violence. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55, 453-468.
[35] Schwartz, C.E., Wright, C.I., Shin, L.M., Kagan, J., & Rauch, S.L. (2003). Inhibited and ininhibited infants "Grown Up": Adult amygdalar response to novelty. Science, 300, no. 5627, 1952-1953.
[36] Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-366.
[37] Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callousunemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 359-375.
[38] Frick, P.J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 8, 59-72.
[39] Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410
[40]Baldry, A. C. (2005). Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15, 97-110
[41] Thompson, K.L., & Gullone, E. (2006). An investigation into the association between the witnessing of animal abuse and adolescents’ behavior toward animals. Society and Animals, 14, 223-243.
[42] Gullone, E., & Clarke, J. (2008). Human-Animal Interactions: The Australian Perspective. In F. Ascione (Ed.), The International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty (pp. 305-335). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
[43] , Flynn, C.P. (1999b). Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children's cruelty to animals. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61, 971-981.
[44] Baldry, A. C. (2005). Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15, 97-110.
[45] Thompson, K.L., & Gullone, E. (2006). An investigation into the association between the witnessing of animal abuse and adolescents’ behavior toward animals. Society and Animals, 14, 223-243.
[46] Gullone, E., & Robertson, N. (2008). The relationship between bullying and animal abuse in adolescents: The importance of witnessing animal abuse. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 371-379.
[47] Arluke, A., & Luke, C. (1997). Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts, 1975-1996. Society and Animals, 5, 195-204
[48] Gullone, E., & Clarke, J. (2008). Human-Animal Interactions: The Australian Perspective. In F. Ascione (Ed.), The International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty (pp. 305-335). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
[49] Arluke, A., & Luke, C. (1997). Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts,1975-1996. Society and Animals, 5, 195-204.
[50] Gullone, E., & Clarke, J. (2008). Human-Animal Interactions: The Australian Perspective. In F. Ascione (Ed.), The International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty (pp. 305-335). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
[51] Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1986). Murderers who rape and mutilate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 273-287.
[52] Arluke and Luke (1997)[n49]
[53] Cummings, E.M. (1987). Coping with background anger in early childhood. Child Development. 58, 976-984.
Davies, P.T., Myers, R.L., Cummings, E.M., & Heindel, S. (1999). Adult conflict history and children’s subsequent responses to conflict: An experimental test. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 610-628.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479.
Maughan, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Impact of child maltreatment and interadult violence on children's emotion regulation abilities and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1525-1542.
[54] Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M., & Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women, 13, 354-373.
[55] Currie, C. L. (2006). Animal cruelty by children exposed to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 425-435.
[56]DeGue, S., & DiLillo, D. (2009). Is animal cruelty a "red flag" for family violence?: Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1036-1056.
[58] Thompson and Gullone (2006){n45}
[59] Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2005). Animal cruelty motivations: Assessing demographic and situational influences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1429-1443.
[60]Bandura. A (1973) , Aggression: A social learning theory analysis ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1973
[61] Henry, B. C. (2004a). Exposure to animal abuse and group context: Two factors affecting participation in animal abuse. Anthrozoos, 17, 290-305.
[62] Gullone and Robertson (2008)[n46]
[63]Baldry, A. C. (2005). Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15, 97-110
[64] Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, Summer, 12-29.
[65] Flynn, 1999b; 2000; Henry, 2004b; Hensley & Tallichet, 2005)
[66] Henry, B. C. (2004a). Exposure to animal abuse and group context: Two factors affecting participation in animal abuse. Anthrozoos, 17, 290-305.
[67] Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view.: In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. (pp. 296-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
[68] Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). The stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1120 1134.
[69]Huesmann, L.R., & Guerra, N.G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72, 408-419.
[70] Deviney, E., Dickert, J., & Lockwood, R. (1983). The care of pets within child abusing families. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4, 321-329.
[71]Tapia, F. (1971). Children who are cruel to animals. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 2, 70-77.
[72] Tapia (1971 ibid
[73]Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330-366.
[74] Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Spindler, A. (2003). Community violence exposure, social cognition, and aggression among urban elementary school children. Child Development, 74, 1561-1576
[75]Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view.: In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. (pp. 296-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc
[76] Baldry, A. C. (2005). Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15, 97-110
Flynn, C. P. (2000). Why family professionals can no longer ignore violence toward animals. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 49, 87-95
[77] Anderson & Huesmann, 2003 [n75]
[78] Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; ibid
[79] Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and
prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173
[80] Becker, K. D., Stuewig, J., Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). A study of firesetting and animal cruelty in children: Family influences and adolescent outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 905-912
Currie, C. L. (2006). Animal cruelty by children exposed to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 425-435
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479.
Thompson & Gullone, 2006).[n2]
[81] 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 & the Law, 14, 55-69.
Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among
criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38(12), 1113-1129.
[82] Kellert and Felthous (1985),[ibid]
[83] Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W., & Douglas, J.E. (1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
[84] 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, 59-82.
[85] Flynn, C.P. (1999b). Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children's cruelty to animals. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61, 971-981.
[86] Ascione, F. R., Friedrich, W. N., Heath, J., & Hayashi, K. (2003). Cruelty to animals in normative, sexually abused, and outpatient psychiatric samples of 6- to 12- year-old children: Relations to maltreatment and exposure to domestic violence. Anthrozoos, 16, 194-212.
[87] Duncan, A., Thomas, J. C., & Miller, C. (2005). Significance of family risk factors in development of childhood animal cruelty in adolescent boys with conduct problems. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 235-239.
[88] Marcus-Newhall, A., Pederson, W.C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 670-689.
[89] Pederson, W.C., Gonzales, C., & Miller, N. (2000). The moderating effect of trivial triggering provocation on displaced aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 913-927.
[90] Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view.: In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. (pp. 296-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
[91] Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38(12), 1113-1129.
[92] Anderson, C.A. (2002). Aggression. (p. 68-78). In E. Borgatta & R. Montgomery
(Eds). The Encyclopedia of Sociology. (2nd Ed.), New York: MacMillan.
Huesmann, L. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24
[93] Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
[94] Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
Todorov, A., & Bargh, J.A. (2002). Automatic sources of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 53-68.
[95] Huesmann, L. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125-139
[96] Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
[97] Anderson & Bushman, 2002) ibid
[98] Huesmann, L. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24.
[99] Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view.: In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. (pp. 296-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc
[100] Gouze, K.R. (1987). Attention and social problem solving as correlates of aggression in preschool males. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 181-197.
[101] Dodge, K.A., & Tomlin, A. (1987). Utilization of self-schemas as a mechanism of attributional bias in aggressive children. Social Cognition, 5, 280-300.
[102] Stromquist, V.J., & Strauman, T.J. (1991). Children's social constructs: Nature, assessment, and association with adaptive versus maladaptive behavior. Social Cognition. 9, 330-358.
[103]Pollak, S.D., & Tolley-Schell, S.A. (2003). Selective Attention to Facial Emotion in Physically Abused Children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 323–338.
[104] Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view.: In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. (pp. 296-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
[105] Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51. Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children’s adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101
[106] Dadds, M.R. (2008). Conduct problems and cruelty to animals in children: What is the link? In F.R. Ascione (ed). The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 111-131). West
Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press
[107] Lemerise, E.A. and Arsenio, W.F. (2000) An Integrated Model of Emotion Processes and Cognition in social Information Processing. Child Development, 71, 107-118.
[108] Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view.: In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds). The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. (pp. 296-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc
Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., & Ma, Y. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: An
emerging construct. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 236-259.
[109] Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic Press
[110] ( Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. A. (1979). Child rearing and children's prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50(2), 319-330.
[111] Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., & Bear, G. (2004). Children's emotion processing: Relations to emotionality and aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 16 371- 387
[112] Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (1997). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motivations. Anthrozoos, 10, 170-179.
[113] ( Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., Usher, B., & Bridges, D. (2000). The development of concern for others in children with behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 36, 531-546.
Luk, Staiger, Wong, & Mathai, 1999) Luk, E. S., Staiger, P. K., Wong, L., & Mathai, J. (1999). Children who are cruel to animals: A revisit. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 33,29-36.
[114] Miller, C. (2001). Childhood animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(5), 735-749.
[115] Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callousunemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 359-375.
[116] McPhedran, S. (2009). A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 1-4
[117] Poresky, R. H. (1990). The Young Children's Empathy Measure: Reliability, validity and effects of companion animal bonding. Psychological Reports, 66, 931-936.
Vidovic, V. V., Stetic, V. V. and Bratko, D. (1999). Pet ownership, type of pet and socio-emotional development of school children. Anthrozoos, 12, 211-217.
[118] Poresky RH (1990) ibid
[119] Vidovic, Stetic and Bratko (1999[n117]
[120] Thompson and Gullone (2008)[n10]
[121] Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Tannenbaum, L., & et al. (1993). Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A meta-analytic review of factor analyses and cross-validation in a clinic sample. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 319-340
Luk, E. S., Staiger, P. K., Wong, L., & Mathai, J. (1999). Children who are cruel to animals: A revisit. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 29-36.
[122] Farrell, Mehari, Kramer-Kuhn, & Goncy, 2014; The Impact of Victimization and Witnessing Violence on Physical Aggression Among High‐Risk Adolescents Child DevelopmentVolume85, Issue4July/August 2014 Pages 1694-1710
[123] Flynn, C. P. (1999a). Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. Society and Animals, 7, 161-172.Miller & Knutson, 1996
