Programs & Campaigns
Resensitizing
Society: Understanding the Connection Between Violence Toward
Human and Nonhuman Animals
by Theodora Capaldo, Ed.D., DABPS, DABFE
and Lorin Lindner, Ph.D., M.P.H.
(JULY/AUGUST 1999) In the United States today, violence
in many forms is on the rise. Domestic violence, for example,
has reached such alarming proportions that the figures about
to be quoted may well seem unbelievable. There are now an
estimated three to four million women abused by their partners
annually, with violence continuing to increase in frequency
and intensity. Jacquelyn Campbell, Ph.D. reports that "25-40%
of all women in the United States" have been physically assaulted
by a spouse or male partner (Aber, 1995). Judith Herman, Ph.D.,
equates violent homes with "small, hidden concentration camps
created by tyrants ... and society's denial of the unspeakable"
(Partoll, 1995). Equally alarming is the increase in violence
to children. In 1993, the National Committee to Prevent Child
Abuse estimated that three million children had been abused
or neglected and had been "turned in to social service agencies"
(De Angelis, 1993). Due to the fear of children being removed
from homes, the fear of retaliation, or myriad other reasons,
an untold number of cases go unreported. Every day in the
United States, three children die of abuse and neglect (White
& Shapiro, 1994). Child sexual abuse has increased "by
at least 300%" in the past 15 years, accounting for nearly
150,000 reported cases annually (Putnam, 1995).
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association,
even when not the actual victim of a violent act, our children
are repeatedly traumatized by being witnesses to it. Violence
occurs daily on the streets of our towns and cities, in our
schools and workplaces, and on television. In one major city,
as many as 90% of elementary school children witnessed some
form of violence. In another, 33% of children witnessed a
homicide (Groves, 1993).
Clearly, the "culture of violence" is affecting all of our
intra- and inter-personal development. In her report on the
effects of exposure to violence in young children, Joy Osofsky
advises that being a witness to violence can create aggression,
anxiety disorders such as acute and post-traumatic stress,
relational problems, and a disruption in the development of
empathy. It is no surprise, then, that she labels violence
"a public health epidemic" (Osofsky, 1995). The fact that
witnessing violence can lead to repeating it through modeling
and identification with the aggressor requires that the spotlight
be turned on a pervasive yet overlooked area of violence,
that toward animals, which (often unwittingly) permeates our
daily lives. Questions regarding who might become a perpetrator
of violence and who might be a victim can be addressed by
exploring some of the important connections between violence
toward humans and violence toward nonhuman animals, as will
be examined in this paper. Ways in which these connections
may provide keys to disempowering and dismantling our "culture
of violence" will also be suggested.
A Red Flag: The Predictive Nature of Violence to Animals
One important component in the reduction of violence in
our culture is to be aware of the forms of violence which
inundate our society yet which we tacitly condone. Violence
toward animals is one of the most allowable forms of violence
outside of the killing that occurs during wartime. Even then
the numbers do not compare, as hunting alone, just in one
year of this century, accounted for more animal deaths than
all human deaths due to war from 1860-1970 (Amory, 1974).
Another essential element in the dismantling of our culture
of violence is the understanding of the "animal" connection,
that is, knowing that violence to animals is often predictive
of violence to humans. Kellert and Felthous, for example,
compared a group of men imprisoned for a violent crime with
a group of nonviolent, non-incarcerated men. They found that
25% of the violent criminals reported "substantial cruelty"
toward animals when they were children. None of the nonincarcerated
men reported animal abuse as part of their history. (Kellert
& Felthous, 1985). Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas similarly
discovered that 36% of the men they studied who were incarcerated
for sexual homicide had abused animals in their childhood
and 46% of them had done so in adolescence, compared to virtually
none of the men who were non-incarcerated or incarcerated
for nonviolent crimes (Ressler et al. 1988). In yet another
study, 48% of convicted rapists and 30% of convicted child
molesters reported that during their childhood and adolescence
they were cruel and abusive to animals, a far greater percentage
compared to convicted drug addicts with no history of violence
(Tingle et al. 1986). Finally, Ascione concludes that histories
of cruelty to animals have been reported in 30% of convicted
child molesters; 36% of assaultive women offenders; 46% of
incarcerated sexual homicide perpetrators; 48% of convicted
rapists; and 58% of adult murderers (Ascione, 1993).
There are also the "famous" cases of individual mass murderers
who "got their training," so to speak, on animals. Jeffrey
Dahmer, the cannibalistic murderer of boys and young men,
had a childhood preoccupation with killing small animals,
whose skeletons he collected. Alberto DeSalvo, the "Boston
Strangler," who raped and murdered thirteen women, trapped
dogs and cats in orange crates as a child and shot arrows
through them. The "Vampire of Düsseldorf", who was finally
convicted of the murder and rape of nine women and children
and the attempted murder of seven others, engaged in animal
torture and rape with farm animals as early as the age of
nine. Women, though far less frequently, can also be cited
as examples. Brenda Spencer, who killed two and wounded nine
San Diego school children, was known by neighbors to be fond
of setting the tails of cats and dogs on fire. In one of the
first comprehensive examinations of serial killers, Eric Hickey
describes numerous other such murderers and their victims
(Hickey, 1991).
At the same time, children are exposed to animal images
since birth and the majority grow up with an animal companion
whom they consider a member of the family. Children learn
responsibility from animals and develop the capacity for empathy
and unconditional love from them. Thus, the foundation for
the development of self-esteem is often acquired through a
child's relationship with her/his companion animal. Unfortunately,
in certain unhealthy family situations, children can also
learn that animals are even more helpless than they are, being
at the bottom of the family pyramid, and can act out their
aggression against them. Or, alternatively, they can see their
animal friends abused by other family members and either be
traumatized vicariously or learn that aggression is acceptable
behavior toward human and nonhuman animal alike (White &
Shapiro, 1994).
Clinical Manifestations of the Violence Connection
It is obvious to most clinicians that a child or adolescent
who abuses an animal is sending a clear message. That message
is that a certain percentage will "graduate" to sadistic acts
against human victims, some may be acting out their own victimization
and are attempting to alert us to their need for help, and
others are warning us of their inability to deal with their
own internal urges toward aggression. One example, from clinical
practice, is that of a woman who as an adult was still experiencing
guilt over putting a kitten in a dirty, maggot-infested garbage
can and leaving him there to suffocate or starve. This client
insightfully commented on how this act of aggression toward
a helpless animal reflected the anger she felt at her own
helplessness during years of being shifted from one foster
home to another, her sexual abuse in one of these homes and
her physical abuse for several years in another. Another client,
made to suffer at the hands of a sexually abusive father and
a vicious mother, reported that she always knew when her mother
was "going off" because she would routinely throw the child's
Siamese cat down a flight of stairs. This client related how
she, too, would abuse the cat. Through identification with
the aggressor, the victim becomes the perpetrator. The child
perpetrator of violent acts against animals may be acting
out the violence that is being perpetrated against him or
her. Understanding the "animal" connection can help alert
us not only to future violence toward humans that is likely
to occur but also to the current victimization of the perpetrator
(Gil, 1994).
Desensitization: Raising the Threshold for Violence
Even in those instances where violence toward animals is
not predictive of future or ongoing violence toward humans
it is nevertheless destructive and ought to be considered
intolerable. Violence toward animals, often dismissed as insignificant
by law enforcement officers and mental health professionals,
in fact increases our "threshold" for violence. It is part
of what increases our internal capacity to not only tolerate
but also perpetrate violence. If an individual is allowed
to exercise cruelty toward animals -- and these activities
are accepted or ignored -- it paves the way for future acceptance
of similar or even more radical acts. The steps to desensitization
and consequent empathic failure often begin with abuse to
animals. For example, a judge in Texas dismissed as "pranks"
the actions of teenage boys who tied a collie dog to a railroad
track, thereby killing her in front of the young girls to
whom she belonged. Subsequently, similar acts of violence
--not by the same youths but by others -- were reported around
the state. In one case, that of a 14-year-old boy whose killing
of cats was minimized by his mother, it was found that he
later went on to commit a premeditated sexual crime against
a child seven years younger. Early child development experts
from as far back as the 1940s and 1950s (Bowlby, 1953) were
describing patterns relating to animal cruelty which we now
incorporate into the current edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA, 1994). In order
to truly dismantle the culture of violence, we have to start
with the assumption that every violent act is unacceptable,
whether it is against a dog or against a child. Only through
such a recognition can we begin to decrease our threshold
for violence and resensitize our society.
The Web of Victimization
Understanding the connection between violence toward human
and nonhuman animals can help us as mental health professionals
by alerting us to a web of victimization, of which one individual
is a part. Becoming alert to the "animal piece" of a domestic
abuse situation, for example, may help us to define a whole
web of other victims in addition to the battered partner.
Companion animals are often victims in battering situations,
as are children and relatives. Not only is abuse to companion
animals often predictive of violence that may escalate to
humans in the household, animals and children are often secondary
targets once an abusive situation is established. In one study,
Ascione writes that 71% of women seeking safe-house shelter
who had companion animals observed their male partners threaten
or actually hurt or kill these animals (Ascione, 1996). Quinlisk's
survey of a similar population of women found that of the
86% of the women who had animals in their abusive homes, 80%
reported that their animals were also abused or victims of
violence at the hands of the batterers (Quinlisk, 1995). In
reverse, Hutton reported that 23 families investigated by
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
for animal abuse or neglect, 82% also had "children at risk"
according to local social service agencies (Hutton, 1981).
For example, surveys tell us that often women being battered
in a domestic situation would not leave their homes to go
to shelters because they did not want to leave their companion
animals, who were also being battered. Often, women who left
returned later because of concern for their companion animals.
To remedy situations such as these, groups are now establishing
networks of foster homes for the companion animals of women
wishing to enter safe houses where "pets" are not allowed.
Similarly, if mental health professionals worked more closely
with humane officers and animal cruelty personnel --or if
it were mandated that animal cruelty be reported by mental
health agencies --interdisciplinary teams could work hand-in-hand
in response to violent situations. Through such intensive
interventions, we start dismantling the web of violence little
by little.
Goals for A Less Violent Future
The desperation we as individuals feel when we hear about
continual cycles of violence is also felt by the field of
psychology as a profession. The American Psychological Association's
official newspaper, the Monitor, and its journal, the American
Psychologist, continually call for the profession to resolve
the problem of violence. Its voices have, for example, called
for "a national campaign to change attitudes toward violence
and tolerance for violent behavior" (Osofsky, 1995). Psychologists
understand the need for "complex solutions" for a "multifaceted
problem" and for "interdisciplinary approaches." State associations
such as the Massachusetts Psychological Association challenge
us by asking if we as clinicians are "avoiding and denying"
in our attempt to look squarely at the ugly face of violence
in our world (Partoll, 1995). In the face of the growing malignancy
of violence, psychology advises that "We need to develop a
new strategy" (O'Neill, 1995).
Social service agencies, legal systems and animal advocacy
groups are more and more concerning themselves with both human
and nonhuman animal welfare. Psychologists for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PSYETA), as one example, is committed
to helping the profession of psychology understand the connection
between violence to humans and violence to animals thereby
creating a new "strategy" in our response to violence in our
society. Compassion and understanding should not be arbitrarily
reserved for certain populations. Research, statistics, and
common sense all point to one clear conclusion: grasping the
interconnectedness of human and animal violence is essential
to curbing the rise of violence in our society. If we continue
to treat animal abuse and neglect as a "lesser" problem, we
will fail in creating a truly compassionate world. We must
all work to expand the definition of compassion and to create
a truly nonviolent world. Violence is violence, no matter
who the victim. By understanding the "animal connection" we
can move a step closer to dismantling our "culture of violence."
References
- Aber, C. (1995). Battering in the womb. Massachusetts
Psychological Association Quarterly, V. 38, No. 4, p. 8.
- American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.
Washington, DC: APA
- Amory, C. (1974) Man Kind? Our Incredible War on Wildlife.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
- Ascione, F.R. (1993) Children who are cruel to animals:
A review of research and implications for developmental
psychopathology. Anthrozoos, V. 1, No. 4, 1993, 226-247.
- Ascione, F.R. (1996) Domestic violence and cruelty to
animals. Latham Letter. Vol. 17, No. 1, 1996, 1-16.
- Bowlby, J. (1953). Child care and the growth of love.
Baltimore, MD: Pelican Books.
- De Angelis, T. (1993). Research documents trauma of abuse.
Monitor: The Journal of the American Psychological Association,
V. 26, No. 4, p. 34.
- Gil, E. (1994). Animals and Children: A Clinician's View.
Animals Agenda, V. 14, No. 2, p. 20.
- Groves, B.M., Zuckerman, B., Marans, S., & Cohen,
D. (1993) Silent victims: Children who witness violence,
Journal of the American Medical Association, V. 269, No.
2, p. 262-73.
- Hickey, E.W. (1991). Serial murderers and their victims.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.
- Hutton, J.S. (1981). Animal abuse as a diagnostic approach
in social work. Paper presented at the International Conference
on the Human/Companion Bond, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
- Kellert, S.R. & Felthous, A.R. (1985). Childhood
cruelty toward animals among criminals and non-criminals.
Human Relations, V. 38, p. 1113-1129.
- O'Neill, M. (1995). Who are the batterers? An interview
with Andrew Klein, Ph.D., Chief Probation Officer of the
Quincy court. Massachusetts Psychological Association Quarterly,
V. 38, No. 4, p.9.
- Osofsky, J. (1995). The effects of exposure to violence
on young children. American Psychologist, V. 50, No. 9,
p. 786.
- Partoll, S.F. (1995). Domestic Violence: The alarm rings
softly. Massachusetts Psychological Association Quarterly,
V. 38, No. 4, p. 1.
- Putnam, F. (1995). As cited in De Angelis, T. Research
documents trauma of abuse. Monitor: Journal of the American
Psychological Association, V. 26, No. 4, p. 34.
- Quinlisk, A. (1995). 1994/1995 survey results, La Crosse,
W.: Domestic Violence Intervention Project.
- Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W., & Douglas, J.E. (1988).
Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
- Tingle, D., Barnard, G.W., Robbins, L. Newman, G., &
Hutchinson, D. (1986). Childhood and adolescent characteristics
of pedophiles and rapists. International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 9, p. 103-116.
- White, K. & Shapiro, K. (1994). The culture of violence.
The Animals Agenda, V. 14, No. 2, p. 22.
About the authors
Theodora Capaldo, Ed.D, DABPS, DABFE is a Massachusetts
licensed psychologist and health service provider. She has
been in private practice for over 20 years. She is a member
of the American Psychological Association. She is a member
of the American College of Forensic Examiners and a Diplomate
of the American Board of Psychological Specialties. Her special
interest is in forms of violence toward animals tolerated
by our society. She has also taught and served as director
of counseling at several New England colleges. She is past
President of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PSYETA). Currently she is President of the New England Anti-Vivisection
Society (NEAVS), one of the oldest animal organizations in
the country based in Boston, Massachusetts.
Lorin Lindner, Ph.D., M.P.H. is a clinical psychologist
and a public health educator who has been in private practice
for the past 11 years in Los Angeles. She is an adjunct faculty
member at Santa Monica College. Her specialty interests are
forensic psychology, issues of violence, and chemical dependency.
She is also the clinical director of New Directions, a comprehensive
drug and alcohol rehabilitation program for homeless veterans.
Dr. Lindner serves as Vice President of the Board of Directors
of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which
focuses on interrupting our culture's cycles of violence by
teaching compassion and empathy.
space.
|