Exploring the Link between Corporal Punishment and Children's Cruelty to Animals Author(s): Clifton P.

Flynn Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 971-981 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/354017 . Accessed: 27/12/2010 12:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

P. CLIFTON FLYNN University of South Carolina Spartanburg

Exploring the Link Between CorporalPunishment and Children's Cruelty to Animals

The link between interpersonal violence and violence to animals has been suggested, but rarely studied empirically, especially by family scholars. This study of 267 college undergraduates examined the relationship between corporal punishment inflicted by parents and the perpetration of animal abuse. The findings revealed that males who committed animal cruelty in childhood or adolescence were physically punished more frequently by their fathers, both as preteens and teenagers, than males who did not perpetrate animal abuse. This relationship did not hold for males spanked by mothers orforfemales spanked by either parent. Regression analyses showed that the association between fathers' corporal punishment and sons' childhood animal cruelty persisted after controlling for child abuse, father-to-mother violence, and father's education. The implications of the association of animal abuse and family violence and its gendered nature are discussed. Although the link between the treatmentof animals and the treatment of humans enjoys a long historical and philosophical tradition (DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983; Lockwood & Ascione, 1998), surprisingly little attention has been given to the

Department of Sociology, University of South Carolina, Spartanburg, SC 29303 (cflynn@gw.uscs.edu). Key Words: animal abuse, animal cruelty, corporal punishment,family violence, spanking.

specific connection between violence to animals and various forms of family violence. In fact, only three published studies have examined this relationship directly-two focus on violence toward children (DeViney et al., 1983; Miller & Knutson, 1997), and one focuses on battered women (Ascione, 1998). Boat (1995) suggested that the virtual absence of empirical research on the association between violence toward children and violence toward animals may be an ignored link in the field of child abuse and neglect. Children's cruelty to animals should receive serious attention from researchers, clinicians, and policymakers for several reasons. First, clinical studies of troubled youth and retrospective studies of physically and sexually aggressive criminals have revealed an association between childhood animal abuse and subsequent violence toward others, both in childhood and adulthood (Felthous & Kellert, 1986; Rigdon & Tapia, 1977; Tapia, 1977; Tingle, Barnard, Robbins, Newman, & Hutchinson, 1986). Second, cruel or abusive behavior toward animals by children may indicate serious developmental problems or potential psychopathology. Animal cruelty has been associated with a distortion or inhibition of empathy (Ascione, 1992, 1993), and beginning in 1987 the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition, revised) added physical cruelty to animals to the list of symptoms serving as criteria for the diagnosis of conduct disorder (Ascione, 1993). Third, childhood cruelty toward animals may identify not only children who may engage in future antisocial be-

Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (November 1999): 971-981

971

972 havior, but also those who are living in violent, dysfunctional families (Arkow, 1996; Boat, 1995). Finally,the needless sufferingand death of countless animals are major problems that deserve attention. The limited empirical evidence linking violence to children and children's cruelty to animals has focused on severe or abusive violence inflicted on children. Yet a growing body of research has revealed potential negative outcomes from what many regard as ordinary or normal use of physical force-corporal punishment. The study presented here seeks to examine the relationship between receiving corporal punishment and perpetrating animal abuse as a child or adolescent. This research is significant in several ways. It explores the relationship between parent-to-child violence and animal abuse using a nonclinical sample. It focuses on corporalpunishment, not child abuse, it looks at corporal punishment received prior to and during adolescence, and it examines the influence of the gender of both the punishing parent and the child. For the purpose of this study, I adopted Ascione's (1993) definition of animal cruelty. Ascione defined animal cruelty as "socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or distress to and/or death of an animal" (p. 228). This definition excludes socially accepted practices, such as the humane killing of farm animals, hunting, and the use of animals in research. Unintentional acts that have harmful consequences are also excluded. Behaviors that are cruel could be acts of omission as well as commission, and pain, suffering, and distress encompass emotional or psychological pain (e.g., teasing, bestiality), as well as physical pain.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR,

Journal of Marriage and the Family theory." This theory argues that the greater the level of socially approved violence in a society, the greater the level of illegitimate violence. At the individual level, the more exposure to culturally acceptable violence, the more likely one is to engage in culturally unacceptable violence. If corporal punishment is related to aggression against humans, then it also may be linked to violence toward animals. Further, previous studies that have identified an array of negative outcomes related to corporal punishment have not focused on the gender of the parent or the child. However, like animal abuse, the behaviors that are often examined-delinquency, crime, interpersonal violence-tend to be behaviors that are disproportionately carried out by males. Although the highest rates of corporal punishment are found with younger children, studies have reported that about half of children are still being hit as teenagers (Straus & Donnelly, 1993). Some of the more serious effects of receiving corporal punishment, such as depression, suicide ideation, and wife beating (Straus & Kaufman Kantor, 1994; Straus& Yodanis, 1996), have been relatedto being spanked as an adolescent. There is some evidence that adolescence is not an uncommon period for committing animal cruelty (Arluke & Luke, 1997; Miller & Knutson, 1997), yet the potential connection between perpetrating animal cruelty and being spanked as a teen has not been investigated.
FAMILY VIOLENCE AND ANIMAL CRUELTY

ANDANIMAL CRUELTY Research on the effects of corporal punishment on subsequent child behavior has found spanking to be associated with delinquent or antisocial behavior, including interpersonal aggression inside and outside the family (Straus, 1991, 1994; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997). Corporal punishment, defined by Straus (1994), is "the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury,for the purpose of correction or control of the child's behavior" (p. 4). This definition excludes more severe actions that many would view as abusive. Straus (1991, 1994) has explained these relationships using what he calls "cultural spillover

The early research on children's cruelty to animals was based on two distinct groups: clinical samples of psychiatric case studies of children and adolescents that presented cruelty to animals as a main complaint (e.g., Rigdon & Tapia, 1979; Tapia, 1971) and retrospective, self-report studies of childhood animal cruelty among aggressive adult criminals (e.g., Felthous & Kellert, 1986; Kellert & Felthous, 1985). In both populations, males often reported experiencing chaotic and violent childhoods, typically at the hands of a brutalfather. DeViney et al. (1983) were the first to set out to explore the relationship between child abuse and neglect and abuse of companion animals. In their study of 53 New Jersey families identified by the state as being involved in various forms of child abuse, 88% of families with physical abuse also had animal abuse. The comparable percentage of animal abuse in families with other forms of abuse (sexual abuse, neglect, or abuse due to psychiatric illness) was 34%. Animal abuse was defined using

Corporal Punishment and Animal Cruelty four criteria:observable or reportedpain or suffering due to unacceptable disciplinary actions, inhumanely causing the death of an animal, abandoning the animal in an unnatural or dangerous environment, and neglecting the animal. In approximately two thirds of the pet-abusing homes, fathers were the abusers; in the other one third, children were the abusers. DeViney and colleagues suggested that pet abuse by children can be explained by scapegoating, a process whereby victims of child abuse inflict violence on their innocent and powerless pets. Veevers (1985) also referred to the scapegoat function that pets may serve in their role as surrogate humans in families. Although DeViney et al.'s study focused on pets, other animals could serve as scapegoats as well. Similarly, children who are physically punished frequently but who are not abused might also scapegoat animals. The only study to look specifically at the relationship between physical punishment and animal cruelty during childhood was conducted recently by Miller and Knutson (1997). They surveyed two different populations-convicted felons and college students-and looked at the link between childhood exposure to animal cruelty and several variables related to family dynamics and peer relationships. Their measure of childhood exposure to animal cruelty combined the number of acts that were both perpetrated and witnessed against any animals, including pets, wild or stray animals, and farm animals. Significant correlations were found in both groups between exposure to animal cruelty and aversive childhood experiences. For the college sample, the variable with the strongest correlation to animal cruelty was physical punishment (r = .28). However, despite these findings, the modest nature of these associations led the authors to conclude that "it would be inappropriate to consider reports of animal cruelty as a marker of physical maltreatment or physical maltreatment as a marker of exposure to animal cruelty" (p. 79). In the sample of college students, nearly half (48%) reported some exposure to animal cruelty. However, the majority (57%) of respondents exposed to animal cruelty reported only witnessing acts of cruelty. Gender was significantly related to experiencing animal cruelty. Males were twice as likely as females to report exposure to cruelty69% to 33%. One fifth of the sample reportedcommitting one or more acts of animal abuse. One in seven students reported killing stray animals, and approximately

973 10% had caused animals pain in order to tease or torturethem. Ten of the 308 students reportedkilling their own pets. One difficulty with the Miller and Knutson (1997) study is that the variable, childhood exposure to animal abuse, combined both observed and perpetratedanimal cruelty.As a result, the relationship between being physically punished and perpetratinganimal abuse was not clearly delineated. The study presented here seeks to overcome this problem by separating acts of animal cruelty that were from those that were only witnessed. perpetrated A second problematic issue is related to the measure of physical punishment.The Physical Punishment Scale of the Assessing Environments IIIForm SD was used as the measure of physical discipline. Although this scale has been shown to be both reliable and valid (Miller & Knutson, 1997), it incorporates acts of physical discipline, such as punching, kicking, and choking, that most would see as severe and potentially injurious-i.e., abusive. Thus, the relationship of milder forms of physical discipline-corporal punishment-to animal cruelty has yet to be determined. The limited empirical evidence suggests that there is a link between harsh physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty, that the majority of those who commit animal abuse are males, and that in clinical samples, males who had committed cruelty to animals during their youth often reported experiencing family violence while they were growing up, particularlyfrom their fathers. But do these relationships hold when the violence experienced by children is ordinary spanking? This study focuses on the relationship between experiencing corporal punishment as a child and engaging in animal abuse during childhood or adolescence. The following hypotheses are examined. First, I predict that males will commit animal cruelty at higher rates than females. Second, I expect to find that the more frequently corporal punishment was received, the more likely the respondent was to perpetrate animal abuse. This will be true for spanking inflicted before adolescence, as well as duringthe teenage years. Third,the relationship between receiving corporal punishment and perpetrating animal cruelty will be stronger for boys than for girls. Spanking by both fathers and mothers is examined to determine if the gender of the parentinfluences this relationship.Finally, multiple regression is utilized to determine whether any relationship between corporal punishment and animal cruelty persists after controlling for relevant variables.

974

Journal of Marriage and the Family

METHODS

Sample and Data Collection Two hundred and sixty-seven undergraduatesat a public university in the SoutheasternUnited States served as participantsfor this study. Students in introductory sociology and psychology classes completed an 18-page questionnaire that asked about their experiences with family violence and animal cruelty. In addition, demographic information and attitudinalitems were included. The questionnaire took approximately25 minutes to complete. The sample was predominantly White (73%). About one fifth were African American. Females composed slightly more than two thirds of the sample (68%). Over 80% of the respondents were either freshmen (59%) or sophomores (24%). Eight out of 10 were younger than 21 years old, and 92% were younger than 25. The majority was single (90%) and childless (96%). Nearly 92% had brothers and sisters. Approximately 90% had pets in their childhood families, and 80% currentlyowned pets. Variables Perpetration of animal cruelty. Perpetrationof animal cruelty was operationalized by asking respondents whether they had committed one of five different acts against animals: (a) killed a pet, (b) killed a stray or wild animal, (c) hurt or torturedan animal to tease it or to cause it pain, (d) touched an animal sexually, or (e) had sex with an animal. If any of the five were reported, the respondent was considered to have committed animal cruelty. These items were taken from Miller and Knutson (1997), who adaptedthe Boat Inventoryon AnimalRelated Experiences, formerly called the AnimalRelated TraumaInventory(Boat, 1999), for use in a questionnaire format. The inventory also includes items that tap animal cruelty observed by the respondent, as well as other experiences, such as pet ownership history and pet loss. In an effort to eliminate reportingsocially sanctioned behaviors, questions specifically excluded killing for food (i.e., farm animals intended for slaughter), hunting, and mercy killing. In addition, for each type of abuse, respondents were asked to report the type of animal involved, what was done to the animal, the number of separate incidents, and their age when the cruelty first took place.

Frequency of corporal punishment. The frequency of corporalpunishment was assessed separatelyfor fathers and mothers and for two periods-the preteen years and the teenage years. Respondents were asked: "About how often would you say your father/stepfather (or mother/stepmother) used physical punishment, like spanking, slapping, or hitting you?" This operationalizationis identical to the one used by Turnerand Finkelhor (1996) and is similar to that used in other studies (Straus & Donnelly, 1993). Following Turner and Finkelhor, the exclusion of hitting with objects from this definition reduces the chance of including abusive behaviors and thus more accurately represents physical punishment that most Americans would consider "normal." Possible responses, coded 0-6, ranged from never to more than 20 times. Thus four distinct frequency measures were acquired: spanking from fathers-preteen and teen, and spanking from mothers-preteen and teen. Sociodemographic variables. To determinewhether any sociodemographic variables were related to animal cruelty, the following six characteristics were assessed for respondents: gender, race, each parent's level of education, and each parent's occupation category. Eight possible responses for parents' education were coded 0-7 and ranged from some grade school to graduate degree. For parents' occupations, possible choices included semiskilled or unskilled worker; skilled work such as foreman; farmer; clerical or sales position; proprietor (except farm); and professional. This variable was dichotomized as blue collar or white collar. The first three categories served as indicators of blue-collar occupations, and the latter three as white-collar occupations. For mother's occupation, respondents also could choose "not employed outside the home." Other forms of family violence. Any relationship between corporal punishment and animal abuse would be suspect if other forms of family violence were not taken into account. Two such variableschild abuse and violence between parents-were assessed. Child abuse was measured by asking respondents whether their parents or stepparents ever kicked, punched, bit, choked them, attacked them with a weapon, or beat them up. This item was asked separately for each parent and for two times-preteen and teen. Violence between parents was measured by asking respondents how often during their entire childhood one parent ever hit

Corporal Punishment and Animal Cruelty or threw something at the other parent. This was asked twice, once for each parent. The response categories were the same as those used with the corporalpunishment items. Responses ranged from never (0) to more than 20 times (6). RESULTS Descriptive Data on Animal Abuse been exNearly half of the sample-49%-had posed to animal abuse (either witnessed it or perpetrated it). Animal cruelty had been perpetratedby 18% of the respondents, and almost 45% had witnessed others abuse animals. The majority of those who had perpetrated abuse had also witnessed it. As can be seen in Table 1, killing a stray and hurting or torturingan animal to tease it or to cause it pain were the most common acts of abuse. Sexually abusive acts were rare in this sample. The most likely victims of abuse were small animals (e.g., rodents, birds, reptiles), dogs, and cats. Small animals, either strays or pets, were the typical victims of respondentswho killed. The most common methods of abuse were shooting and direct physical aggression-hitting, beating, kicking, or throwing an animal against a wall. Shooting tended to be employed for killing animals. Direct physical aggression was more commonly used when animals were hurt or tortured. Most respondents had only perpetrated one type of violence. Of the 47 respondents who had abused an animal, 33 (70%) had committed only one kind of abuse. However, the majority had perpetratedthat one type on more than one occasion. Nearly half of the respondents (48%) were teens when they first abused an animal. Slightly

975 over 40% were between the ages of 6 and 12 years when they first perpetrated animal cruelty. Nearly 11% committed their first act when they were 2-5 years old. Half of the respondents who were cruel to animals during their preteen years also abused animals as teenagers. Thus, nearly two thirds of all perpetrators had committed animal abuse as adolescents. Most who had killed a stray or wild animal were in their teens, while those who had hurt or tortured an animal or killed a pet were more likely to have done so between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Other than gender, few sociodemographic differences emerged that distinguished perpetratorsof animal cruelty. Whites were somewhat more likely to commit animal abuse than non-Whites-19% vs. 13%. Respondents with less-educated fathers had higher rates of animal cruelty than those whose fathers were more educated. About one third of respondents whose fathers had not completed high school had committed animal cruelty-about twice the rate of respondents with more-educated fathers. There were no differences based on mother's education or on father's occupation. Nearly 29% of respondents whose mothers had blue-collar jobs perpetrated animal abuse. This was approximately twice the rate of respondents whose mothers held white-collar occupations (15%) or those whose mothers did not work outside the home (14%). Gender Differences in CommittingAnimal Cruelty As expected, gender differences in animal abuse emerged. Males were significantly more likely to have committed animal cruelty than females. Over one third of the males-35%-had inflicted abuse on animals, compared with only 9% of females (X2= 25.484, p = .001). Males were six times more likely to have killed a strayanimal, threetimes more likely to have hurt or torturedan animal, and nearly six times more likely to have killed a pet than females. Males were much more likely to have been exposed to animal abuse, in general, than females. Two thirds of male respondents had either witnessed or perpetrated abusive acts against animals, but only 4 out of 10 females had witnessed or perpetrated animal abuse. Looking at this relationship in another way, among females who had experienced animal abuse, three fourths had only witnessed abuse; among the males, one out of two abused animals.

TABLE 1. PERCENTAGEOF RESPONDENTS WHO COMMITTED ANIMAL CRUELTY

Type of Animal Cruelty Killed strayor wild animal Hurtor tortured animal Killed pet Touchedanimal sexually Performedsex acts with animal Perpetrated any animalcruelty

Males 29.8 13.1 6.0 2.4 2.4 34.5

Females 5.0 3.8 1.1 1.1 .6 9.3

Total 13.1 6.7 2.6 1.5 1.1 17.6

Note: For males, n = 84; For females, n = 182. Totaln = 267.

976
2. MEAN

Journal of Marriage and the Family

TABLE PRETEEN PUNISHMENT SCORES FROM BOTH PARENTS (COMBINED AND SEPARATELY)BY PERPETRATION OF ANIMAL CRUELTY, FOR TOTAL SAMPLE AND BY GENDER (STANDARD DEVIATIONS IN PARENTHESES)

Total Sample No Animal Cruelty Both parents Father Mother 5.62 (3.24) 2.56 (2.02) 3.05 (1.91) Animal Cruelty 6.96* (3.88) 3.57** (2.20) 3.43 (2.07)

Males No Animal Cruelty 5.92 (3.32) 2.93 (2.03) 2.96 (2.02) Animal Cruelty 7.68* (3.96) 4.10* (2.07) 3.68 (2.09)

Females No Animal Cruelty 5.52 (3.22) 2.43 (2.02) 3.07 (1.88) Animal Cruelty 5.76 (3.67) 2.59 (2.15) 3.18 (2.04)

Note: For the total sample,n = 218 for the no animalcrueltygroup,and n = 47 for the animalcrueltygroup.For males, n = 54 for the no animal cruelty group, and n = 29 for the animal cruelty group. For females, n = 162 for the no animalcruelty group, and n = 17 for the animalcruelty group. *p<.05. **p<.005.

Frequency of Corporal Punishment and Animal Abuse Frequency of spanking-preteen. Table 2 presents the mean scores of preteen punishment from both parents together and for each parent individually by animal abuse status. The means are given for the overall sample and separately by gender. As hypothesized, those who had abused an animal had been punished significantly more frequently by their parents than respondents who had never abused animals. This difference in frequency appears to be due to spanking by fathers. Respondents who had been cruel to animals were physically punished significantly more frequently by their fathers than respondents who had not been cruel to animals. There was no difference among the groups with regard to frequency of preteen punishment by mothers.

However, when analyzed separately for each gender, we see a more specific relationship. When punishment scores from both parents are combined, males who had perpetrated animal cruelty had been spanked significantly more often than males who had never been abusive to animals. Once again, this difference is accounted for by fathers' spanking. Males who committed abuse against animals were spanked significantly more often by their fathers than those who had not committed animal cruelty. Frequency of spanking by mothers was not related to sons' animal cruelty. For females, there was no relationship between how often they were spanked-by both parents or by either parent-and whether they abused animals. In short, the relationship between the frequency of corporal punishment received and the perpetration of animal abuse held primarily for sons who were spanked by their fathers.

FIGURE 1. FREQUENCY OF PRETEEN SPANKING AND PERPETRATION ANIMAL CRUELTY, BY GENDER OF RESPONDENT AND PARENT OF 60

50

40 I-!

0 0

Never Never

Once Once

Twice Twice

3-5 3-5

6 -10 6 - 10

11 - 20 11 20

Over Over 20 20

Number of Times Spanked Before Age 13

Spankedby Father Females Spankedby Father --- MalesSpankedby Mother --0-- FemalesSpankedby Mother

Corporal Punishment and Animal Cruelty Figure 1 illustrates the percentages of male and female respondents committing animal cruelty for each category of spanking frequency from each parent. In general, for males spanked by their fathers, the graph reveals a positive relationship between the frequency of spanking and the perpetration of animal abuse. Nearly 60% of males who received corporal punishment more than 20 times from their fathers had abused an animal. For males hit by their mother, no real patternemerges, except that rates of animal cruelty rise at the upper end of the frequency categories of physical punishment. For females, the graph illustrates that the low rates of animal cruelty are unrelated to the frequency of receiving corporal punishment from either parent. Spanking as a teen. The distribution of frequency of teen spanking was highly skewed for both corporal punishment by fathers and mothers and for sons and daughters. As a result, spanked as a teen was dichotomized as a yes-no variable. Table 3 shows the relationship between receiving corporal punishment as a teenager and being cruel to an animal. For the entire sample, being hit as a teenager is related to committing animal cruelty. Like previous relationships,when the gender of the parentis considered, perpetrating animal abuse is linked with being hit as a teen by the father, but not by the mother. Respondents who were hit as teenagers by their fathers were nearly three times more likely than those who were not hit to have committed animal cruelty. When the gender of the child was examined, the observed differences existed only for males who were hit by their fathers. Nearly 60% of male respondentswho were physically punished as teens by their fathers perpetrated animal abuse, compared with 23% who were not hit as teens by their

977 fathers. The relationship between receiving corporal punishment as a teen and perpetrating animal abuse did not hold for males who were spanked as teens by their mothers. Being hit as a teenager by either parentwas unrelatedto females' perpetration of animal cruelty. Regression Analyses for Males Several bivariate analyses have revealed that corporal punishment by fathers during both preteen and adolescent years is related to male children's cruelty to animals. Yet fathers who frequently hit their sons also may either abuse their children or hit their wives. If so, then frequent spanking and children's cruelty to animals may more likely exist in violent homes. More frequentuse of violence by fathersmay also be relatedto socioeconomic status. To control for these potentially confounding variables, a series of regression analyses was run to predict animal cruelty by males. (Comparable regression analyses for females confirmed the results of the bivariate analyses showing no relationship between spanking and animal abuse and are not presented here.) Because of the small number of male respondents who reported that they were abused by either parent (n = 14), child abuse was operationalized as having been abused by either parent any time during childhood. Because fathers' hitting had emerged as central in the analysis, the variablefor parentalviolence was limited to whether the respondents had ever seen their father hit or throw something at their mother. Descriptive data revealed that father's education, but not occupation, was related to animal cruelty. Consequently, the 7-point education score was used and treated as a continuous variable. Three multiple regression models were run. In the first model, frequency of the father's spanking

TABLE 3. RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN BEING SPANKED AS A TEEN AND PERPETRATINGANIMAL CRUELTY

Animal Cruelty PercentageWho Perpetrated Spankedby Fatheror Mother Total sample n Males n Females n Yes (108) 24.1"* Yes (35) 45.7 Yes (72) 12.5 No (153) 13.1 No (47) 25.5 No (106) 7.6 Spanked by Father Yes (69) 33.3** Yes (28) 57.1** Yes (40) 15.0 No (194) 12.4 No (56) 23.2 No (138) 8.0 Spanked by Mother Yes (85) 21.2 Yes (26) 46.2 Yes (59) 10.2 No (179) 15.6 No (56) 28.6 No (122) 9.0

< *p< .05. **p .005.

978

Journal of Marriage and the Family

TABLE 4. REGRESSION ANALYSES OF MALES' ANIMAL CRUELTY-UNSTANDARDIZED AND STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS

Model 1 Variable Father'sspanking-preteen Hit by fatheras teen Abused by parents Fatherhit mother Father'seducation
Note: n = 80.

Model 2 Beta b .356 -.091 .274 -.091 Beta .354*** -.070 .196 -.304*** b .024 .314 -.010 .277 -.090

Model 3 Beta .104 .312** -.076 .198 -.291**

b .051 -.053 .321 -.067

.222* -.041 .230* -.225*

*p <.05.

**p < .01. ***p < .005. DIscusSION

4.408, = .0014. p

during preteen years was included with the control variables. In the second model, whether the respondent had been hit by his father as a teenager was entered. Both corporal punishment variables were enteredin the final model. Thus, three separate regression analyses were run to examine the relationship between the father's use of corporal punishment and animal cruelty, using three control variables-whether the respondent had ever been abused by either parent,whether his fatherhad ever hit his mother, and father's education level. In Model 1, the frequency of the father's use of corporal punishment on the respondent as a preadolescent was significantly related to the respondent's perpetrationof animal cruelty, after controlling for otherfamily violence and father'seducation, F(4, 75) = 3.409, p = .01. Of these variables, only child abuse was not related to committing animal cruelty. The model explained approximately 15% of the variabilityin the dependentvariable. The results from Model 2 indicate that being hit as a teenager by one's father is significantly related to perpetratinganimal abuse, even after the covariates are considered, F(4, 75) = 5.304, p = .0008. Among the control variables, only father's educational level reaches statistical significance, although father-to-mother violence approaches significance (p = .07). This model explained 22% of the variability in the perpetrationof animal abuse. In Model 3, both spanking variables are entered into the model. Being spanked by one's father as a teenager remains significant, but the frequency of being spanked by one's fatherbefore the teen years is no longer related to animal cruelty. This is likely due to the relatively strong association of the two spanking variables. Sons who were hit as teens by their fathers were punished significantly more frequently by fathers before adolescence than were sons who were never hit as teens by their fathers (4.50 vs. 2.73, t = 3.94, p = .0002). With both corporal punishment variables in the model, only 1% of additional variability was explained, F(5, 74) =

Exposure to the abusive treatmentof animals during childhood was surprisingly widespread in this sample of Southern undergraduatestudents. About half of the respondents had witnessed or perpetrated animal abuse. For male respondents, the incidence was even higher-two thirds had been exposed to (had witnessed or perpetrated)some form of cruelty, and about one third had committed abusive acts. The rates of exposure to animal abuse in this study were similar to those reported by Miller and Knutson (1997) in their study of Midwestern college students. For example, in their study, 48% had witnessed or perpetratedanimal cruelty, compared with 49% in the study presented here. Approximately 20% of respondents in each study had committed some form of animal cruelty. In both studies, about one respondent in seven had killed a stray animal. Ten percent of Miller and Knutson's respondents and about 7% of the respondents in this study had hurt or torturedan animal to tease it or to cause it pain. Approximately3% of respondents in both studies reportedthat they had killed a pet. The rate of animal abuse by males was almost four times greaterthan that of females. This finding was consistent with other studies linking males with animal cruelty (Arluke & Luke, 1997; Miller & Knutson, 1997). The socialization experience for male children emphasizes dominance and aggression. Cruelty to animals may provide some males the opportunity to rehearse these skills. Further,if males' cruelty is rewardedby peers (see Arluke & Luke) and if it is condoned or goes unpunished by parentsor others, then masculine tendencies toward violence may be reinforcedfurther. As suspected, a relationship between parentto-child violence and animal abuse was uncovered. Respondents who had perpetrated animal abuse were physically punished more frequently before adolescence than those who had never abused an animal. This is particularlysignificant because the relationship was found not for abusive violence

Corporal Punishment and Animal Cruelty toward the preteen child, but for what many would term "ordinary"or "normal"violence, i.e., spanking. Equally important was the fact that this association was found not among troubled youth or aggressive criminals, but among a nonclinical sample of college students. Further analysis revealed that this relationship cannot be fully understood without considering the gender of both the parentand the child. Perpetrating animal abuse is linked to frequent punishment by fathers of their sons, both before and during adolescence. It is male-to-male physical punishment that increases the likelihood of animal abuse. This finding is consistent with prior clinical studies of aggressive criminals and violent adolescents, studies that found that harsh punishment by fathers was associated with male perpetrators of animal cruelty (Felthous & Kellert, 1986; Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Rigdon & Tapia, 1979; Tapia, 1971). Regression analyses of animal abuse by males showed that the relationship between receiving corporal punishment from fathers and inflicting animal cruelty held, even after controlling whether the sons had suffered abuse during childhood, whether they had witnessed their father hit their mother, and the level of the father's education. These results are important because they demonstrate that the link between corporal punishment and animal cruelty cannot be explained simply by pointing to other forms of violence in the family or to socioeconomic status. Given what we know about male socialization, corporal punishment, and animal abuse, this result is not shocking. Males generally are expected to be more aggressive, males are physically punished more frequently than females, and fathers are more likely to hit sons than daughters (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998; Wauchope & Straus, 1990). Fathers, however, are generally less involved in childrearingthan mothers. Further,males are more likely to perpetrate animal abuse than females. Taken together, the impact of corporal punishment by fathers on sons may be greater because it is potentially harsher,inflicted by the less-involved parent, and it models a behavior-aggression-that males are expected to emulate. Masculine socialization includes lessons of dominance and aggression. Some boys who have been the victims of frequent corporal punishment from more powerful others-parents, especially fathers-may model this behavior in the abusive treatmentof less powerful others-animals. Such a phenomenon would fit with feminist analyses (e.g., Adams, 1994) that identify patriarchal cultural

979 support for male dominance and aggression used against women, children, and animals. If gender, empathy, and concern for animals are related, the findings presented here strongly imply that the treatmentof animals may be importantfor the development of empathy (Ascione, 1992, 1993) and thus for the future treatment of others. The high rates of animal abuse by males could greatly inhibit the development of empathy in males. Given that their socialization is less likely to focus on empathy and their structuralposition may make it less necessary, males who also abuse animals may find it difficult to show kindness and compassion toward humans. More specifically, inflicting abuse on animals may reinforce the link between physical punishment and wife beating (see Straus & Yodanis, 1996), not only by providing an opportunity to rehearse violence, but also by reducing men's ability to respond compassionately toward their intimate partners. Only further research can unravel such relationships. The findings from this study reveal that animal abuse is another example of deviant behavior that frequent corporal punishment may foster. In addition, the finding linking frequent spanking by fathers with sons' abuse of animals is consistent with cultural spillover theory (Straus, 1991, 1994). The more sons received culturally legitimate physical punishment from their fathers, the more likely they are to engage in socially unacceptable violence-namely, animal cruelty. In this study, receiving corporal punishment from fathers as a teenager was also linked with sons' committing animal cruelty. Over half of male teenagers who were hit by their fathers had perpetrated animal abuse. The direction of the association is not clear. Certainly, being spanked as a teenager could not cause sons to commit animal cruelty during their preadolescent years. However, it could be that the early perpetration of animal cruelty may contribute to a behavior pattern that elicits a physical disciplinary response from the father, even after the child has reached adolescence. Another possibility is that the relationship between teen spanking by fathers and animal abuse for males may reflect an over-reliance on physical discipline by fathers throughout their sons' childhoods. In fact, males who were hit as teenagers by their fathers also were punished significantly more frequently by their fathers before adolescence than those who were not hit as teens. This may partially explain why being hit as a teenager was the strongest predictor in the regression model and why the frequency of the father's spanking before adoles-

980 cence was no longer significant after being hit by the father as a teen was taken into account. The combined psychological effects of being both the recipient of violence from a parentand the perpetratorof violence against an animal may not only compound personality problems, but it may use doubly reinforcethe instrumental of violence. In other words, males may learn that violence is appropriate when they are physically hit by their fathers and when they get the chance to rehearse interpersonal violence on animals.As Veevers (1985) noted, animal abuse may provide the training ground for violence in adult relationships. Research is needed of to examine the link between the perpetration aniviolence. mal abuse and futureinterpersonal In addition, the findings provide supportfor the notion of scapegoating described by DeViney et al. (1983) and Veevers (1985). Although the targets were not always pets, innocent and powerless animals were more likely to be abused by those who were physically punished themselves. There are several limitations to the study. First, it is correlational in nature, making it difficult to discern causality, as well as the direction of the relationship between violence toward children and animal abuse. It may be that violence toward animals results in some children being spanked by their parents and not the other way around.Further, these findings may reflect the fact that males are more likely to engage in deviant behavior, including violence toward animals, and thus are more apt to be physically punished. Either way, the combination of perpetratinganimal cruelty and receiving corporalpunishment may provide a heightened opportunity for learning to approve of and engage in violence and may compound negative developmental effects associated with both experiences. Second, because the sample is a convenience sample of college students at a Southernuniversity, generalizations must be made cautiously. Southerners, in general, tend to have more favorable attitudes toward spanking (Flynn, 1994), and Southern college students, in particular, compared with Northeastern students, tend to have been spanked more frequently and to view their own spankings more favorably (Flynn, 1996). Southernersare also more likely to be residents of rural areas, which could increase their chances of being around animals (and thus animal abuse) and decrease their chances of being exposed to informationabout corporal punishment or animal abuse. It may be that both corporal punishment and animal cruelty are characteristicof a region where there is strong approval of violence (Baron & Straus, 1988).

Journal of Marriage and the Family Third, because the study was retrospective, it seems likely that respondents forgot instances of violence. This might be especially true for males, given that violence is likely to have been a more common experience for them. Fourth, how animal cruelty was defined, both conceptually and operationally, may have influenced the findings. The definition included the intentional maltreatmentof all types of animals (pets, strays, wild animals, and farm animals). Others have limited the scope to just companion animals and have incorporated unintentional behaviors as well (e.g., Vermeulen & Odendaal, 1993). Perhaps the abuse of companion animals should be examined apart from cruelty to noncompanion animals, given the emotional relationship between human and pet and the dependent status of the companion animal. Future studies should investigate this possibility. In addition, respondents were not asked whether they defined their actions toward animals as cruel or abusive. It seems likely that certain acts may not have been perceived as cruel by some. The systematic investigation of the link between family violence and animal abuse is a recent and needed endeavor (Lockwood & Ascione, 1998). Discovering the mechanisms by which this association operates would be a fruitful area of investigation. Research on corporal punishment has revealed negative psychological and behavioral consequences, including a greater likelihood of both approving of and engaging in interpersonal violence (Straus, 1994). Now parent-to-child violence has been linked to animal cruelty. Future research should examine the consequences of abusing animals to see if many of the same emotional, behavioral, and attitudinal outcomes associated with spanking are also associated with animal abuse. If so and if animal cruelty tends to inhibit the development of empathy, then its combination with frequent corporal punishment, particularly in the case of fathers hitting sons, may seriously endanger both human and nonhuman animals.
NOTE

Thisresearch supported, part,by a grantfromthe was in Fundof the UniTeachingand Productive Scholarship The would versityof SouthCarolina Spartanburg. author like to thankBarbara Boat for furnishing copy of the a Boat Inventory on Animal-RelatedExperiences and KarlaMillerandJohnKnutson providing for theirquesof The authoralso tionnaireadaptation that inventory. the of gratefullyacknowledges contributions Jill Jones and three anonymousreviewersfor theirhelpfulcommentson earlier versionsof thisarticle.

Corporal Punishment and Animal Cruelty

REFERENCES Adams, C. J. (1994). Bringing peace home: A feminist philosophical perspective on the abuse of women, children, and pet animals. Hypatia, 9, 63-84. Arkow, P. (1996). The relationships between animal abuse and other forms of family violence. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 12, 29-34. Arluke, A., & Luke, C. (1997). Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts, 1975-1990. Society and Animals, 5, 195-204. Ascione, F. R. (1992). Enhancing children's attitudes about the humane treatmentof animals: Generalization to human-directedempathy.AnthrozoYs, 176-191. 5, Ascione, E R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychology. Anthrozo6s,6, 226-247. Ascione, F. R. (1998). Battered women's reports of their partners' and their children's cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 119-133. Baron, L., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Culturaland economic sources of homicide in the United States. The Sociological Quarterly,29, 371-390. Boat, B. W. (1995). The relationship between violence to children and violence to animals: An ignored link? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 229-235. Boat, B. W. (1999). Abusive children and abuse of animals: Using the links to inform child assessment and protection. In P. Arkow & F. Ascione (Eds.), Child abuse, domestic violence and animal abuse: Linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention (pp. 83-100). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Day, R. D., Peterson, G. W., & McCracken, C. R. (1998). Predicting spanking of younger and older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 79-94. 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. Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1986). Violence against animals and people: Is aggression against living creatures generalized? Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 14, 55-69. Flynn, C. P. (1994). Regional differences in attitudes toward corporal punishment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 314-324. Flynn, C. P. (1996). Regional differences in spanking experiences and attitudes: A comparison of Northeastern and Southern college students. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 59-80. Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-1129. Lockwood, R., & Ascione, E R. (1998). Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence: Readings in re-

981
search and application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Miller, K. S., & Knutson, J. E (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. Rigdon, J. D., & Tapia, E (1977). Children who are cruel to animals-a follow-up study. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 8, 27-36. Straus, M. A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and violence and other crime in adulthood. Social Problems, 38, 133-154. Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books. Straus, M. A., & Donnelly, D. A. (1993). Corporal punishment of adolescents by American parents. Youth and Society, 24, 419-442. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors. "NewYork: Doubleday/Anchor. Straus, M. A., & Kaufman Kantor, G. (1994). Corporal punishment by parents of adolescents: A risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, and wife-beating. Adolescence, 29, 543-562. Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Corporal punishment by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761-767. Straus, M. A., & Yodanis, C. L. (1996). Corporal punishment in adolescence and physical assaults on spouses later in life: What accounts for the link? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 825-841. Tapia, E (1971). Children who are cruel to animals. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 2, 70-77. Tingle, D., Barnard,G. W., Robbins, G., Newman, G., & Hutchinson, D. (1986). Childhood and adolescent characteristics of pedophiles and rapists. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 103-116. Turner,H. A., & Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal punishment as a stressor among youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 155-166. Veevers, J. E. (1985). The social meanings of pets: Alternative roles for companion animals. Marriage and Family Review, 8, 11-30. Vermeulen, H., & Odendaal, J. S. J. (1993). Proposed typology of companion animal abuse. Anthrozo6s, 6, 248-257. Wauchope, B., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Physical punishment and physical abuse of American children: Incidence rates by age, gender, and occupational class. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in Americanfamilies: Riskfactors and adaptations to violence in 8,145families (pp. 133-148). New Brunswick, NJ: TransactionPublishers.