Associations between different motivations for animal cruelty, methods of animal cruelty and facets of impulsivity

ABSTRACT

Associations between specific motivations for animal cruelty, particular methods of animal cruelty and different facets of impulsivity were explored among 130 undergraduate students. Participants completed an adapted version of the Boat Inventory on Animal-Related Experiences (BIARE) which asked participants to state whether they had intentionally harmed or killed an animal, the species of animal(s) involved, their motivations for harming or killing the animal(s) and the method(s) used. Participants also completed the Impulsive Behavior scale (UPPS-P) which assesses five facets of impulsivity. Over half of the sample (55%) reported committing at least one act of animal cruelty, and dogs were the most commonly abused species of animal. The most frequently reported motivations were Prejudice, Amusement, Control (of an animal), and Retaliation (against an animal), and the most frequently reported methods were Beating/Kicking, Squashing, Throwing an object at an animal, Shooting, Drowning and Burning. Significant associations were found between particular motivations and methods, as well as between particular methods of animal cruelty and facets of impulsivity. Findings have implications for theoretical models of animal cruelty perpetration as well as offender assessment and treatment.

KEYWORDS:

• Animal cruelty
• animal abuse
• motivations
• methods
• impulsivity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 It is surprising that this has not been examined before because although early research argued that impulsivity is a unidimensional construct (e.g. Barratt, 1959; Jackson, 1984; Tellegen, 1982; Guilford & Zimmerman, 1949), the prevailing view for some time has been that impulsivity is multidimensional in nature (e.g. Parker, Bagby, & Webster, 1993; Reynolds, Ortengren, Richards, & de Wit, 2006; Rochat, Billieux, Gagnon, & Van der Linden, 2017; Tonnaer, Cima, & Arntz, 2016; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001).

2 On request of the Research Ethics Committee, and in keeping with Henry (2004), the BIARE was adapted to exclude questions relating to sexual contact with animals.

3 It was not possible to compare UPPS-P scores for those who reported perpetration of animal cruelty for the motivation of either Retaliation Against a Person, Displacement of Aggression, Sadistic Pleasure, Expression of Aggression Through an Animal, or Enhancement of One’s Own Aggression as not enough participants reported these motivations. Given that research has found that animal cruelty motivated by the desire to retaliate against another person is significantly associated with arrest histories for interpersonal violence (Levitt et al., 2016) it is not surprising that only a small percentage of the student sample reported motivations which involved another person in some way. In addition, four of the methods (Trapped, Stabbed, Deliberately Did Not Feed, and Strangled) were reported by a very small number of participants (four participants, two participants, two participants, and one participant, respectively) and so these methods were excluded from the analyses since the group sizes were too small for analysis. This is consistent with prior research on animal cruelty which has found that the frequencies of many acts were too small to permit analysis (e.g. Miller & Knutson, 1997).

4 Although a qualitative question was included on the BIARE (‘What happened after [the act of cruelty]?’ the majority of participants did not respond to this question and so these data were not analyzed.

5 Several participants did not provide qualitative information in response to the question ‘What happened afterwards?’ and so percentages are not provided here.