Exploring the Link between Corporal Punishment and Children's Cruelty to Animals

Author(s): Clifton P. Flynn

Source: Journal of Marriage and the 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: 01/02/2009 17:47

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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. 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 the Family.

http://www.jstor.org
 P. FLYNN University of South Carolina Spartanburg
CLIFTON
Exploring the Link Between CorporalPunishment
and Children's Cruelty to Animals
The link between interpersonal violence and vio-
lence to animals has been suggested, but rarely
studied empirically, especially by family scholars.
This study of 267 college undergraduates exam-
ined the relationship between corporal punish-
ment 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 fre-
quently by their fathers, both as preteens and
teenagers, than males who did not perpetrate ani-
mal 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 punish-
ment and sons' childhood animal cruelty persisted
after controlling for child abuse, father-to-mother
violence, andfather's education. The implications
of the association of animal abuse and family vio-
lence and its gendered nature are discussed.
Although the link between the treatmentof animals
and the treatment of humans enjoys a long histori-
cal 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, Spar-
tanburg, SC 29303 (cflynn@gw.uscs.edu).
Key Words: animal abuse, animal cruelty, corporal punish-
ment,family violence, spanking.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (November 1999): 971-981
specific connection between violence to animals
and various forms of family violence. In fact, only
three published studies have examined this rela-
tionship directly-two focus on violence toward
children (DeViney et al., 1983; Miller & Knutson,
1997), and one focuses on battered women (As-
cione, 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 se-
rious 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 oth-
ers, both in childhood and adulthood (Felthous &
Kellert, 1986; Rigdon & Tapia, 1977; Tapia, 1977;
Tingle, Barnard, Robbins, Newman, & Hutchin-
son, 1986). Second, cruel or abusive behavior
toward animals by children may indicate serious
developmental problems or potential psycho-
pathology. 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, child-
hood cruelty toward animals may identify not only
children who may engage in future antisocial be-
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 vio-
lence 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 rela-
tionship between parent-to-child violence and an-
imal 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 As-
cione'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 com-
mission, and pain, suffering, and distress encom-
pass emotional or psychological pain (e.g., teasing,
bestiality), as well as physical pain.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR,
AND ANIMAL CRUELTY
Research on the effects of corporal punishment
on subsequent child behavior has found spanking
to be associated with delinquent or antisocial be-
havior, 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 defini-
tion excludes more severe actions that many
would view as abusive.
Straus (1991, 1994) has explained these rela-
tionships using what he calls "cultural spillover
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 en-
gage in culturally unacceptable violence.
If corporal punishment is related to aggression
against humans, then it also may be linked to vio-
lence 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 ex-
amined-delinquency, crime, interpersonal vio-
lence-tend to be behaviors that are dispropor-
tionately carried out by males.
Although the highest rates of corporal punish-
ment 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 connec-
tion between perpetrating animal cruelty and
being spanked as a teen has not been investigated.
FAMILY VIOLENCE AND ANIMAL CRUELTY
The early research on children's cruelty to animals
was based on two distinct groups: clinical samples
of psychiatric case studies of children and adoles-
cents 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 child-
hoods, 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 reported pain or suffer-
ing due to unacceptable disciplinary actions, inhu-
manely causing the death of an animal, abandoning
the animal in an unnatural or dangerous environ-
ment, 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 scapegoat-
ing, a process whereby victims of child abuse in-
flict violence on their innocent and powerless pets.
Veevers (1985) also referred to the scapegoat
function that pets may serve in their role as surro-
gate 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 rela-
tionship between physical punishment and animal
cruelty during childhood was conducted recently
by Miller and Knutson (1997). They surveyed two
different populations-convicted felons and col-
lege students-and looked at the link between
childhood exposure to animal cruelty and several
variables related to family dynamics and peer re-
lationships. 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 punish-
ment (r = .28). However, despite these findings,
the modest nature of these associations led the au-
thors to conclude that "it would be inappropriate
to consider reports of animal cruelty as a marker
of physical maltreatment or physical maltreat-
ment 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 ex-
posed 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 cruelty-
69% 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 reported kill-
ing their own pets.
One difficulty with the Miller and Knutson
(1997) study is that the variable, childhood expo-
sure to animal abuse, combined both observed and
perpetratedanimal cruelty. As a result, the relation-
ship between being physically punished and perpe-
tratinganimal abuse was not clearly delineated. The
study presented here seeks to overcome this prob-
lem by separating acts of animal cruelty that were
perpetratedfrom those that were only witnessed.
A second problematic issue is related to the
measure of physical punishment.The Physical Pun-
ishment Scale of the Assessing Environments III-
Form 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 ani-
mal 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 cru-
elty 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 experi-
enced 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 exam-
ined. First, I predict that males will commit animal
cruelty at higher rates than females. Second, I ex-
pect to find that the more frequently corporal pun-
ishment was received, the more likely the respon-
dent was to perpetrate animal abuse. This will be
true for spanking inflicted before adolescence, as
well as duringthe teenage years. Third,the relation-
ship 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, mul-
tiple regression is utilized to determine whether
any relationship between corporal punishment
and animal cruelty persists after controlling for
relevant variables.
974
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 in-
troductory sociology and psychology classes com-
pleted 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 broth-
ers and sisters. Approximately 90% had pets in
their childhood families, and 80% currentlyowned
pets.
Variables
Perpetration of animal cruelty. Perpetrationof ani-
mal cruelty was operationalized by asking respon-
dents whether they had committed one of five dif-
ferent 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 Animal-
Related Experiences, formerly called the Animal-
Related TraumaInventory (Boat, 1999), for use in a
questionnaire format. The inventory also includes
items that tap animal cruelty observed by the re-
spondent, as well as other experiences, such as pet
ownership history and pet loss. In an effort to elim-
inate reportingsocially sanctioned behaviors, ques-
tions 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 sepa-
rate incidents, and their age when the cruelty first
took place.
Journal of Marriage and the Family
Frequency of corporal punishment. The frequency
of corporalpunishment was assessed separately for
fathers and mothers and for two periods-the pre-
teen 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 & Don-
nelly, 1993). Following Turner and Finkelhor, the
exclusion of hitting with objects from this defini-
tion reduces the chance of including abusive behav-
iors 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 fre-
quency 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 oc-
cupation category. Eight possible responses for
parents' education were coded 0-7 and ranged from
some grade school to graduate degree. For par-
ents' occupations, possible choices included semi-
skilled or unskilled worker; skilled work such as
foreman; farmer; clerical or sales position; propri-
etor (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 variables-
child abuse and violence between parents-were
assessed. Child abuse was measured by asking re-
spondents 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
corporalpunishmentitems. Responses ranged from
never (0) to more than 20 times (6).
RESULTS
Descriptive Data on Animal Abuse
Nearly half of the sample-49%-had been ex-
posed to animal abuse (either witnessed it or perpe-
trated it). Animal cruelty had been perpetratedby
18% of the respondents, and almost 45% had wit-
nessed 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 hurt-
ing or torturingan animal to tease it or to cause it
pain were the most common acts of abuse. Sexu-
ally 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, kick-
ing, 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 per-
petratedthat one type on more than one occasion.
Nearly half of the respondents (48%) were
teens when they first abused an animal. Slightly
TABLE 1. PERCENTAGEOF RESPONDENTS
WHO COMMITTED ANIMAL CRUELTY
Type of
Animal Cruelty Males Females Total
Killed strayor
wild animal 29.8 5.0 13.1
Hurtor tortured
animal 13.1 3.8
Killed pet 6.0 1.1
Touchedanimal
sexually 2.4 1.1
Performedsex acts
with animal 2.4 .6
Perpetratedany
animalcruelty 34.5 9.3 17.6
Note: For males, n = 84; For females, n = 182. Totaln =
267.
975
over 40% were between the ages of 6 and 12 years
when they first perpetratedanimal 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
perpetratorshad committed animal abuse as ado-
lescents. Most who had killed a stray or wild ani-
mal 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 dif-
ferences 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 re-
spondents whose fathers had not completed high
school had committed animal cruelty-about twice
the rate of respondents with more-educatedfathers.
There were no differences based on mother's edu-
cation or on father's occupation. Nearly 29% of re-
spondents whose mothers had blue-collar jobs per-
petrated 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 stray animal, three times more
likely to have hurtor torturedan animal, and nearly
six times more likely to have killed a pet than
females.
Males were much more likely to have been ex-
6.7 posed to animal abuse, in general, than females.
2.6 Two thirds of male respondents had either wit-
nessed or perpetrated abusive acts against ani-
1.5 mals, but only 4 out of 10 females had witnessed
1.1
or perpetrated animal abuse. Looking at this rela-
tionship 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.
976 Journal of Marriage and the Family

TABLE2. MEANPRETEEN
PUNISHMENT
SCORESFROMBOTHPARENTS(COMBINEDANDSEPARATELY)BY PERPETRATION
OFANIMALCRUELTY,
FORTOTALSAMPLEANDBY GENDER(STANDARDDEVIATIONS
IN PARENTHESES)

Total Sample Males Females

No Animal Animal No Animal Animal No Animal Animal

Cruelty Cruelty Cruelty Cruelty Cruelty Cruelty
Both parents 5.62 6.96* 5.92 7.68* 5.52 5.76
(3.24) (3.88) (3.32) (3.96) (3.22) (3.67)
Father 2.56 3.57** 2.93 4.10* 2.43 2.59
(2.02) (2.20) (2.03) (2.07) (2.02) (2.15)
Mother 3.05 3.43 2.96 3.68 3.07 3.18
(1.91) (2.07) (2.02) (2.09) (1.88) (2.04)
Note: For the total sample, n = 218 for the no animal cruelty group, and n = 47 for the animal cruelty group. 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 animal cruelty
group, and n = 17 for the animalcruelty group.
*p < .05. **p < .005.

Frequency of Corporal However, when analyzed separately for each

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 ap-
pears to be due to spanking by fathers. Respon-
dents who had been cruel to animals were physi-
cally 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.
gender, we see a more specific relationship. When
punishment scores from both parents are com-
bined, 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 fa-
thers' spanking. Males who committed abuse
against animals were spanked significantly more
often by their fathers than those who had not com-
mitted 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 perpetra-
tion of animal abuse held primarily for sons who
were spanked by their fathers.

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

50
0
a
E
to
40

0)
30

0)

.0
20
a
0.

0 4I I I I l

Never Once Twice 3-5 6 - 10 11 - 20 Over 20

Number of Times Spanked Before Age 13

-- MalesSpankedby Father --- MalesSpankedby Mother

--- FemalesSpankedby Father -- FemalesSpankedby Mother
Corporal Punishment and Animal Cruelty 977

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 perpe-
tration 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 cor-
poral 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 parent is con-
sidered, 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 ani-
mal 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, com-
pared with 23% who were not hit as teens by their
fathers. The relationship between receiving corpo-
ral 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 cor-
poral 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 frequent use of violence by
fathersmay also be related to socioeconomic status.
To control for these potentially confounding vari-
ables, a series of regression analyses was run to
predict animal cruelty by males. (Comparable re-
gression 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

PercentageWho PerpetratedAnimal Cruelty

Spankedby Spanked Spanked
Fatheror Mother by Father by Mother
Total sample Yes No Yes No Yes No
n (108) (153) (69) (194) (85) (179)
24.1* 13.1 33.3** 12.4 21.2 15.6
Males Yes No Yes No Yes No
n (35) (47) (28) (56) (26) (56)
45.7 25.5 57.1** 23.2 46.2 28.6
Females Yes No Yes No Yes No
n (72) (106) (40) (138) (59) (122)
12.5 7.6 15.0 8.0 10.2 9.0
*p<.05. **p<.005.
978
TABLE 4. REGRESSION ANALYSES OF MALES' ANIMAL CRUELTY-UNSTANDARDIZED
Model 1
Variable b Beta
Father'sspanking-preteen .051 .222*
Hit by fatheras teen - -.356
Abused by parents -.053 -.041
Fatherhit mother .321 .230*
Father'seducation -.067 -.225*
Note: n = 80.
*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.005.
during preteen years was included with the con-
trol variables. In the second model, whether the re-
spondent 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 rela-
tionship between the father's use of corporal pun-
ishment 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 pre-
adolescent was significantly related to the respon-
dent's perpetrationof animal cruelty, after control-
ling 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 covari-
ates are considered, F(4, 75) = 5.304, p = .0008.
Among the control variables, only father's educa-
tional level reaches statisticalsignificance, although
father-to-motherviolence approaches significance
(p = .07). This model explained 22% of the vari-
ability 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 father before 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 fre-
quently 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 cor-
poral punishment variables in the model, only 1%
of additional variability was explained, F(5, 74) =
4.408, p = .0014.
Journal of Marriage and the Family
AND STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS
Model 2 Model 3
b Beta b Beta
- -.024 .104
.354*** .314 .312**
-.091 -.070 -.010 -.076
.274 .196 .277 .198
-.091 -.304*** -.090 -.291**
DISCUSSION
Exposure to the abusive treatmentof animals dur-
ing childhood was surprisingly widespread in this
sample of Southern undergraduatestudents. About
half of the respondents had witnessed or perpe-
trated animal abuse. For male respondents, the in-
cidence was even higher-two thirds had been ex-
posed to (had witnessed or perpetrated)some form
of cruelty, and about one third had committed abu-
sive 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, com-
pared with 49% in the study presented here. Ap-
proximately 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 aggres-
sion. Cruelty to animals may provide some males
the opportunity to rehearse these skills. Further,if
males' cruelty is rewarded by 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 parent-
to-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 particularly significant 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., spank-
ing. Equally important was the fact that this asso-
ciation 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 ado-
lescence. 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 & Felt-
hous, 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 demon-
strate 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 greaterbecause it is po-
tentially harsher,inflicted by the less-involved par-
ent, 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 compas-
sion 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 oppor-
tunity 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 addi-
tion, 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 perpe-
trated animal abuse. The direction of the associa-
tion 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 adoles-
cence. 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' child-
hoods. 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 strong-
est 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 parent and the
perpetratorof violence against an animal may not
only compound personality problems, but it may
doubly reinforcethe instrumentaluse of violence. In
other words, males may learn that violence is appro-
priate when they are physically hit by their fathers
and when they get the chance to rehearse interper-
sonal violence on animals.As Veevers (1985) noted,
animal abuse may provide the training ground for
violence in adult relationships. Research is needed
to examine the link between the perpetrationof ani-
mal abuse and futureinterpersonalviolence.
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 ani-
mals 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 re-
lationship between violence toward children and
animal abuse. It may be that violence toward ani-
mals 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, includ-
ing violence toward animals, and thus are more apt
to be physically punished. Either way, the combi-
nation of perpetratinganimal cruelty and receiving
corporalpunishment may provide a heightened op-
portunity for learning to approve of and engage in
violence and may compound negative develop-
mental effects associated with both experiences.
Second, because the sample is a convenience
sample of college students at a Southernuniversity,
generalizations must be made cautiously. Southern-
ers, in general, tend to have more favorable atti-
tudes 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 information about cor-
poral punishment or animal abuse. It may be that
both corporal punishment and animal cruelty are
characteristicof a region where there is strong ap-
proval 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 influ-
enced the findings. The definition included the in-
tentional 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 exam-
ined 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 pos-
sibility. 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 be-
tween 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 in-
vestigation. 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 vio-
lence has been linked to animal cruelty. Future re-
search should examine the consequences of abus-
ing 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 en-
danger both human and nonhuman animals.
NOTE
This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the
Teaching and Productive Scholarship Fund of the Uni-
versity of South Carolina Spartanburg.The author would
like to thank Barbara Boat for furnishing a copy of the
Boat Inventory on Animal-Related Experiences and
Karla Miller and John Knutson for providing their ques-
tionnaire adaptation of that inventory. The author also
gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Jill Jones
and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-
ments on earlier versions of this article.
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 Vio-
lence 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.Anthrozods,5, 176-191.
Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals:
A review of research and implications for develop-
mental psychology. Anthrozois, 6, 226-247.
Ascione, F. R. (1998). Battered women's reports of their
partners' and their children's cruelty to animals. Jour-
nal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 119-133.
Baron, L., & Straus,M. A. (1988). Culturaland economic
sources of homicide in the United States. The Socio-
logical 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 ani-
mals: 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 interven-
tion (pp. 83-100). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univer-
sity 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. Interna-
tional 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 liv-
ing creatures generalized? Bulletin of the American
Academy of Psychiatry Law, 14, 55-69.
Flynn, C. P. (1994). Regional differences in attitudes to-
ward 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 North-
eastern and Southern college students. Journal of
Family Violence, 11, 59-80.
Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cru-
elty toward animals among criminals and noncrimi-
nals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-1129.
Lockwood, R., & Ascione, F R. (1998). Cruelty to ani-
mals and interpersonal violence: Readings in re-
981
search and application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University Press.
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.
Rigdon, J. D., & Tapia, F. (1977). Children who are
cruel to animals-a follow-up study. Journal of Oper-
ational 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 pun-
ishment of adolescents by American parents. Youth
and Society, 24, 419-442.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980).
Behind closed doors. New York: 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 subse-
quent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pe-
diatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761-767.
Straus, M. A., & Yodanis, C. L. (1996). Corporal pun-
ishment 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, F. (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
characteristicsof pedophiles and rapists. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 103-116.
Turner,H. A., & Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal punish-
ment as a stressor among youth. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 58, 155-166.
Veevers, J. E. (1985). The social meanings of pets: Al-
ternative roles for companion animals. Marriage and
Family Review, 8, 11-30.
Vermeulen, H., & Odendaal, J. S. J. (1993). Proposed ty-
pology of companion animal abuse. Anthrozoos, 6,
248-257.
Wauchope, B., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Physical punish-
ment and physical abuse of American children: Inci-
dence rates by age, gender, and occupational class. In
M. A. Straus& R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in
Americanfamilies: Riskfactors and adaptations to vio-
lence in 8,145families (pp. 133-148). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.