Abstract
Objectives
Estimates the prevalence of animal abuse in Nizhni Novgorod, Russia, and Lviv, Ukraine, assesses the sociodemographic characteristics of animal abusers in these cities, and provides the first empirical test of Agnew’s (Theor Criminol 2(2):177–209, 1998) theory of the causes of animal abuse.
Methods
Logistic regression and generalized structural equation models are estimated using interview data from 1435 randomly-sampled adults in 41 neighborhoods in Lviv and Nizhni Novgorod.
Results
Animal abuse was quite rare among respondents and committed mostly by males and younger individuals. Consistent with Agnew’s theory, low self-control, animal-abusing peers, justifying beliefs, and perceived benefits all were associated with statistically significantly increased likelihood of animal abuse. In addition, justifying beliefs and perceived benefits mediated a significant and substantial share of the effects of self-control and animal-abusing peers on animal abuse. Contrary to theoretical expectations, perceived costs appeared unrelated to animal abuse net of the effects of other predictors.
Conclusions
People who abuse animals appear to do so partly because, due to low self-control and exposure to animal-abusing peers, they hold beliefs justifying the behavior and perceive greater benefits associated with it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544) is the primary federal legislation pertaining to animal treatment. The initial intent of the law, renamed the Animal Welfare Act in 1970, was to protect pet owners from theft of their pets, prevent the sale or use of stolen dogs and cats, and ensure humane care and treatment of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and non-human primates in research. The US Department of Agriculture administers the Animal Welfare Act as well as the Horse Protection Act of 1970, which prohibits showing, selling, auctioning, exhibiting, and transporting sored hoses.
Soring is the practice of intentionally irritating a horse’s feet and/or legs, such as with caustic chemicals or sharp objects, to accentuate its natural gait.
Although the wording of the law does not distinguish between pets and farm animals, provisions are made for both homeless and circus animals (Rada 2017).
In 2016, a total of 1126 cases of animal cruelty were reported to NIBRS by slightly under 40% of all police agencies participating in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports Program (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2017).
Interest in this thesis can be traced as far back as the late 1800s. As noted by Irvine (2008a, p. 52), “By taking the…view that the mistreatment of animals caused cruelty to humans and by pointing out the already brutish nature of the lower classes, middle-class reformers gave their cause legislative appeal”.
Missing predictor variable values were imputed using the EM algorithm.
A low Cronbach’s alpha value is to be expected when combining different sanction types.
We do not report Cronbach’s alpha because our measures of social control cannot be expected to exhibit internal consistency given that they tap emotional attachment to different groups of people and time spent in different life domains (e.g., if people spend most of their time with family, then it is highly unlikely for them to also spend most or a lot of their time in school). Thus, we treat these measures as reflecting the cumulative amount of attachment and involvement among individual respondents rather than as indicators of unitary latent constructs.
In bivariate analyses, Vaughn et al. (2009) found lifetime prevalence rates of animal abuse in the US to be significantly lower among single persons than among married or cohabiting individuals. Including marital status in our analyses did not improve model fit or alter substantive conclusions.
Because this approach may be susceptible to reduced statistical power when the number of clusters is small (e.g., n < 50), we repeated the analysis with random intercepts to control for differences between neighborhood clusters (Stata 15.1’s melogit command with 7 numerical integration points). Findings were virtually identical.
Analyses repeated using a two-level path model yielded similar results except for increased statistical power to detect an association between strain and perceived benefits and between income and both self-control and attachment (results available upon request).
In supplementary analyses using past abuse as the outcome measure (available upon request), low attachment emerged as a significant predictor, suggesting prior cruelty toward animals is associated with reduced social bonds. Contrary to findings for projected animal abuse, no association was observed between past animal abuse and self-control.
References
Agnew R (1998) The causes of animal abuse: a social-psychological analysis. Theor Criminol 2(2):177–209
Alleyne E, Parfitt C (2017) Adult-perpetrated animal abuse: a systematic literature review. Trauma Violence Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017708785
Animal League Defense Fund (2019) 2018 U.S. animal protection laws rankings. Retrieved 8 May 2019 from https://aldf.org/?s=ranking
Arluke A, Luke C (1997) Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts. Soc Anim 5(3):195–204
Ascione FR, McDonald SE, Tedeschi P, Williams JH (2018) The relations among animal abuse, psychological disorders, and crime: implications for forensic assessment. Behav Sci Law 36(6):717–729
Baglivio MT, Wolff KT, DeLisi M, Vaughn MG, Piquero AR (2017) Juvenile animal cruelty and firesetting behavior. Crim Behav Ment Health 27(5):484–500
Beirne P (1995) The use and abuse of animals in criminology: a brief history and current review. Soc Justice 22(1):5–31
Beirne P (1999) For a nonspeciesist criminology: animal abuse as an object of study. Criminology 37(1):117–147
Beirne P (2004) From animal abuse to interhuman violence: a critical review of the progression thesis. Soc Anim 12(1):39–65
Bright MA, Huq MS, Spencer R, Applebaum JW, Hardt N (2018) Animal cruelty as an indicator of family trauma: using adverse childhood experiences to look beyond child abuse and domestic violence. Child Abuse Negl 76(February):287–296
Burchfield KB (2017) The nature of animal crime: scope and severity in Chicago. Crime Delinq 64(14):1904–1924
Bursik RJ Jr, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime. Lexington Books, New York
Cazaux G (1998) Legitimating the entry of ‘the animals issue’ into (critical) criminology. Humanity Soc 22(4):365–385
Cazaux G (1999) Beauty and the beast: animal abuse from a non-speciesist criminological perspective. Law Soc Change 31(2):105–126
Chiesa LE (2008) Why is it a crime to stomp on a goldfish? Harm, victimhood and the structure of anti-cruelty offenses. Miss Law J 78(1):1–67
DeGue S, DiLillo D (2009) Is animal cruelty a ‘red flag’ for family violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets. J Interpers Violence 24(6):1036–1056
Eberly K (2016) The USDA is standing by while a global crisis looms. Retrieved 12 February 2017 from http://aldf.org/blog/the-usda-is-standing-by-while-a-global-crisis-looms/
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017) 2016 National incident-based reporting system. Retrieved 20 December 2017 from https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2016
Flynn CP (1999) Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children’s cruelty to animals. J Marriage Fam 61(4):971–981
Flynn CP (2012) Understanding animal abuse: a sociological analysis. Lantern Books, Brooklyn
FOM (2010) Fond “Obschestvennoe Mnenie”. Retrieved 3 October 2017 from http://www.fom.ru/
Gilinskiy Y (2006) Crime in contemporary Russia. Eur J Criminol 3(3):259–292
Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ Jr, Arneklev BJ (1993) Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30(1):5–29
Hartman C, Hageman T, Williams JH, St. Mary J, Ascione FR (2016) Exploring empathy and callous-unemotional traits as predictors of animal abuse perpetrated by children exposed to intimate partner violence. J Interpers Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516660971
Hellman DS, Blackman N (1966) Enuresis, firesetting, and cruelty to animals: a triad predictive of adult crime. Am J Psychiatry 122(12):1431–1435
Hirschi T, Gottfredson MR (1993) Commentary: testing the general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30(1):47–54
Irvine L (2004) A model of animal selfhood: expanding interactionist possibilities. Symb Interact 27(1):3–21
Irvine L (2007) The question of animal selves: implications for sociological knowledge and practice. Qual Sociol Rev 3(1):5–22
Irvine L (2008a) If you tame me: understanding our connection with animals. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Irvine L (2008b) Animals and sociology. Sociol Compass 2(6):1954–1971
Jerolmack C (2007) Animal practices, ethnicity, and community: the Turkish pigeon handlers of Berlin. Am Sociol Rev 72(6):874–894
Jerolmack C (2009a) Humans, animals, and play: theorizing interaction when intersubjectivity is problematic. Sociol Theory 27(4):371–389
Jerolmack C (2009b) Primary groups and cosmopolitan ties: the rooftop pigeon flyers of New York City. Ethnography 10(4):435–457
Kalman AG (2004) Organized economic crime and corruption in Ukraine. Final Report for the National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 20 November 2015 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/pr/204374.pdf
Kellert SR (1993) Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: US, Japan, and Germany. J Soc Issues 49(1):53–69
Kordos J (2005) Household sample surveys in developing and transition countries. Series F No. 96. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division. United Nations, New York, pp 571–619
Levada Center (2014) The attitudes of Russians toward animals and animal set-ons. Retrieved 7 October 2017 from http://www.levada.ru/
Levitt L, Hoffer TA, Loper AB (2016) Criminal histories of a subsample of animal cruelty offenders. Aggress Violent Beh 30:48–58
MacDonald J (1961) The murderer and his victim. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield
Macmillan FD, Duffy DL, Serpell JA (2011) Mental health of dogs formerly used as ‘breeding stock’ in commercial breeding establishments. Appl Anim Behav Sci 135:86–94
Macmillan FD, Serpell JA, Duffy DL, Dohoo IR (2013) differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders. J Am Vet Med A 242(10):1359–1363
Marcus B (2003) An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures. Educ Psychol Meas 63(4):674–706
Mayer SE, Jencks C (1989) Growing up in poor neighborhoods: how much does it matter? Science 243(4897):1441–1445
McDonald SE, Dmitrieva J, Shin S, Hitti SA, Graham-Bermann SA, Ascione FR, Williams JH (2017) The role of callous/unemotional traits in mediating the association between animal abuse exposure and behavior problems among children exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse Negl 72(October):421–432
McPhedran S (2009) A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggress Violent Beh 14:1–4
Melnik G, Remez Y (2017) Six years and multiple corrections: State duma is again considering a bill on responsible treatment of animals. Parlamentskaya Gazeta. Retrieved 5 October 2017 from https://www.pnp.ru/
Merz-Perez L, Heide KM (2004) Animal cruelty: pathways to violence against people. AltaMira Press, Lanham
Miller KS, Knutson JF (1997) Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students. Child Abuse Negl 21(1):59–82
Monslave S, Ferreira F, Garcia R (2017) The connection between animal abuse and interpersonal violence: a review from the veterinary perspective. Res Vet Sci 114:18–26
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York
Parfitt C, Alleyne E (2016) Taking it out on the dog: psychological and behavioral correlates of animal abuse proclivity. Soc Anim 24:1–16
Patronek GJ (1996) Hoarding of animals: an under-recognized public health problem in a difficulty-to-study population. Public Health Rep 114:81–87
Petersen ML, Farrington DP (2007) Cruelty to animals and violence to people. Victims Offenders 2(1):21–43
Pifer L, Shimizu K, Pifer R (1994) Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Soc Anim 2(2):95–113
Pogarsky G (2004) Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology 42(1):111–135
Rada U (2017) On the changes to the Ukrainian law concerning humane treatment of animals. Retrieved 5 October 2017 from http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua
Rating (Sotsiologichna Grupa Rating) (2011) Retrieved 3 October 2017 from http://ratinggroup.ua/en/
Sanders CE, Henry BC (2017) The role of beliefs about aggression in cyberbullying and animal abuse. Psychol Crime Law 24(5):558–571
Schwartz RL, Fremouw W, Schenk A, Ragatz LL (2012) Psychological profile of male and female animal abusers. J Int Violence 27(5):846–861
Shepeleva O (2005) Law enforcement agencies and justice: what has been expected but never acquired by citizens. Neprikosnovennyj Zapas 4:42
Sorabji R (1993) Animal minds and human morals: the origins of the western debate. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Taylor N (2011) Criminology and human–animal violence research: the contribution and the challenge. Crit Criminol 19:251–263
Tittle CR, Antonaccio O, Botchkovar E, Kranidioti M (2010) Expected utility, self-control, morality, and criminal probability. Soc Sci Res 39(6):1029–1046
Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV, Antonaccio O (2011) Criminal contemplation, national context, and deterrence. J Quant Criminol 27(2):225–249
Tittle CR, Antonaccio O, Botchkovar EV (2012) Social learning, reinforcement, and criminal probability. Soc Forces 90(3):863–890
Vaughn MG, Fu Q, DeLisi M, Beaver KM, Perron BE, Terrell K, Howard MO (2009) Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Psychol Res 43:1213–1218
Vaughn MG, Fu Q, Beaver KM, DeLisi M, Perron BE, Howard MO (2011) Effects of childhood adversity on bullying and cruelty to animals in the United States: findings from a national sample. J Interpers Violence 26(17):2509–2525
Walters GD (2013) Testing the specificity postulate of the violence graduation hypothesis: meta-analyses of the animal cruelty-offending relationship. Aggress Violent Beh 18:797–802
Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
World Animal Protection (2018) Animal protection index. Retrieved 7 July 2018 from https://api.worldanimalprotection.org
Young Jacob T N, Rebellon CJ, Barnes JC, Weerman FM (2015) What do alternative measures of peer behavior tell us? Examining the discriminant validity of multiple methods of measuring peer deviance and the implications for etiological models. Justice Q 32(4):626–652
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Study Measures
Projected animal abuse |
1. In the future, if you are in a situation that, in your opinion, calls for it, and you had the opportunity to do it, how likely would you be to be cruel to live animals? |
Past animal abuse |
1. How often have you been cruel to live animals in the past 5 years? |
Beliefs justifying animal abuse |
1. Please estimate the extent to being cruel to live animals would be morally acceptable to you. |
Perceived benefits of animal abuse |
1. How often at this point in your life, you find yourself needing or wanting to be cruel to live animals? |
2. Think about the situation in which you could get away with doing it. In that situation, how gratifying or pleasing to you would it be to be cruel to live animals? |
Perceived costs of animal abuse |
1. If you were cruel to live animals tomorrow, how likely is it that people whose opinion you value would disapprove of your behavior? |
2. In your opinion, if you were cruel to live animals tomorrow, how likely is it that you would suffer some formal penalty (i.e. would be detained, fired, or fined)? |
3. If tomorrow you were to be cruel to live animals, how likely is it that you would suffer some negative consequences besides reactions from people you value or legal penalties (such as losing your job, suffering money loss, suffering retaliation from a victim, or getting in an accident)? |
Socialization |
1. Think about your friends. In your opinion, how often have your friends ever been cruel to live animals? |
Social control—attachment |
On average, how emotionally attached are you to the people around you? |
1. Family members; 2. Significant other(s); 3. Friends; 4. Neighbors |
Social control—involvement |
On average, how much time do you devote to the following? |
1. Work; 2. School; 3. Family; 4. Friends; 5. Organizations/societies/clubs/churches in which you are involved |
Strain |
How often have you experienced each of the following? |
1. Your apartment was burglarized |
2. Some of your belongings were taken from you without your permission |
3. You were physically attacked or threatened with violence by a stranger |
4. You were physically attacked or threatened with violence by somebody you know |
5. You were robbed of something by force (purse snatched, mugged etc.) on the street |
6. Your property was purposefully destroyed or vandalized by someone (car damaged, windows broken etc.). |
7. You have been sexually harassed or abused |
8. You have suffered from a serious or prolonged illness |
9. You have gotten into conflict with a friend, partner, or a family member |
10. You have had serious money issues |
11. You have had to take a job that you particularly disliked |
12. You have broken up with a close friend or intimate partner. |
13. You have lost a job you valued |
14. Someone you cared about died |
15. You have been unhappy with the place you are living (or your conditions of living) |
Self-control |
Tell me a little bit about your personality: |
1. I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think |
2. If I had a choice, I would almost always prefer to do something physical than something mental |
3. When things get complicated, I tend to quit or withdraw |
4. If things I do upset people, it’s their problem, not mine |
5. I don’t devote much thought and effort to preparing for the future |
6. I dislike really hard tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit |
7. I like to get out and do things more than I like to read and contemplate ideas |
8. The things in life that are easiest to do bring me the most pleasure |
9. I like doing risky things |
10. I’m not sympathetic to other people when they are having problems |
11. I often do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal |
12. I frequently try to avoid projects I know will be difficult |
13. I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making things difficult for other people |
14. I almost always feel better when I am on the move than when I am sitting and thinking |
15. I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run |
16. I sometimes find it exciting to do things for which I might get into trouble |
17. I will try to get the things I want even when I know it’s causing problems for others |
18. I lose my temper pretty easily |
19. Often, when I’m angry at people I feel more like hurting them than talking to them about why I am angry |
20. Sometimes, I will take a risk just for the fun of it |
21. When I’m really angry, other people better stay away from me |
22. Excitement and adventure are more important to me than security |
23. When I have a serious disagreement with someone, it’s usually hard for me to talk calmly about it without getting upset |
Empathy |
Your relationships with parents/caregivers. Growing up: |
1. You were emotionally attached to your parents or caregivers |
2. Your parents/caregivers were supportive of you (e.g., helped you do things important to you, spent enough time with you, offered sympathy when needed etc.) |
When you were growing up, how often did your parents/caregivers do the following? |
3. Yell at you or argue with you |
4. Physically punish you |
Appendix 2: Bivariate Correlations (N = 1435)
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Abuse | 1.000 | |||||||
2. Past Abuse | .505* | 1.000 | ||||||
3. Male | .139* | .156* | 1.000 | |||||
4. Age | − .052 | − .071* | − .099* | 1.000 | ||||
5. Education | .013 | − .005 | .038 | − .178* | 1.000 | |||
6. Ukraine | .075* | .087* | .053* | .056* | .163* | 1.000 | ||
7. Beliefs | .444* | .426* | .129* | − .033 | − .027 | .098* | 1.000 | |
8. Benefits | .403* | .431* | .125* | − .050 | .014 | .108* | .300* | 1.000 |
9. Costs | − .059* | − .047* | − .082* | .071* | .028 | − .126* | − .080* | − .072* |
10. Self-control | − .199* | − .173* | − .191* | .236* | .191* | .073* | − .192* | − .212* |
11. Empathy | − .062* | − .054* | − .038 | − .002 | − .005 | − .035 | − .044 | − .076* |
12. Peers | .335* | .407* | .116* | –.062* | –.002 | –.083* | .301* | .458* |
13. Strain | .100* | .110* | − .035 | .134* | − .090 | .115* | .103* | .170* |
14. Attachment | − .061* | − .102 | − .118 | − .012 | .080* | .106* | − .047 | − .071* |
15. Involvement | .018 | − .016 | .009 | − .341* | .172* | .208* | .002 | .019 |
Variable | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Abuse | |||||||
2. Past Abuse | |||||||
3. Male | |||||||
4. Age | |||||||
5. Education | |||||||
6. Ukraine | |||||||
7. Beliefs | |||||||
8. Benefits | |||||||
9. Costs | 1.000 | ||||||
10. Self-control | .152* | 1.000 | |||||
11. Empathy | − .062* | .010 | 1.000 | ||||
12. Peers | –.087* | –.220* | –.043* | 1.000 | |||
13. Strain | .087* | − .193 | − .050* | .221* | 1.000 | ||
14. Attachment | .132* | .163* | − .173* | − .046 | .038 | 1.000 | |
15. Involvement | .001 | − .065* | − .032 | .065* | .015 | .262* | 1.000 |
Appendix 3: Path Model Estimates of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Theoretical Mediators on Proximal Causes and the Direct Effects of Theoretical Mediators and Proximal Causes on Projected Animal Abuse, Controlling for Past Animal Abuse (N = 1435; n = 41)
Predictor | Beliefs | Benefits | Costs | Animal abuse | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct | Beliefs | Benefits | ||||||
Indirect | Total | Indirect | Total | |||||
Theoretical mediators | ||||||||
Self-control | − .030*** (.009) | − .015* (.006) | .030*** (.008) | − .028* (.012) | − .034** (.012) | − .062*** (.018) | − .003** (.001) | − .031** (.012) |
Empathy | − .039 (.043) | − .037 (.020) | − .049 (.044) | − .053 (.046) | ||||
Socialization (Peers) | .616*** (.172) | 1.147*** (.208) | − .375* (.173) | .316 (.234) | .690*** (.207) | 1.006** (.388) | .252*** (.071) | .568* (.239) |
Strain | .006 (.011) | .012 (.008) | .043** (.016) | − .004 (.014) | ||||
Attachment | − .012 (.039) | − .018 (.015) | .083* (.037) | − .002 (.041) | ||||
Involvement | − .038 (.048) | − .014 (.030) | .025 (.040) | .037 (.051) | ||||
Past Animal Abuse | 2.020*** (.237) | 1.959*** (.310) | 2.264*** (.450) | 4.223*** (.530) | .352*** (.106) | 2.310*** (.285) | ||
Proximal causes | ||||||||
Justifying beliefs | 1.121*** (.173) | |||||||
Perceived benefits | .220*** (.044) | |||||||
Perceived costs | − .014 (.054) | |||||||
Intercept | − .743*** (.211) | − .105 (.450) | − 3.112*** (.175) | |||||
Cut point 1 | 3.375*** (.575) | |||||||
Cut point 2 | 5.316*** (.591) | |||||||
Cut point 3 | 6.985*** (.647) | |||||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hughes, L.A., Antonaccio, O. & Botchkovar, E.V. The Crime of Animal Abuse in Two Nonwestern Cities: Prevalence, Perpetrators, and Pathways. J Quant Criminol 36, 67–94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09417-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09417-w