Effects of Childhood Adversity on Bullying and Cruelty to Animals in the United States

Abstract

This study examined effects of type of and cumulative burden of childhood adversities on bullying and cruelty to animals in the United States. Data were derived from Waves I and II of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Structured psychiatric interviews were completed by trained lay interviewers between 2001–2002 and 2003–2004. Although the effects of childhood adversity diminished with the inclusion of confounding variables, several adversities remained significant. For bullying, these included being made to do chores that were too difficult or dangerous, threatening to hit or throw something, pushing, shoving, slapping, or hitting, and hitting that left bruises, marks, or injuries. With respect to cruelty to animals, swearing and saying hurtful things, having a parent or other adult living within the home that went to jail or prison, and adult/other person fondling/touching in a sexual way were significant. The final models indicated that the cumulative burden of childhood adversities had strong effects on the increased likelihood of bullying behavior but not cruelty to animals.

Animal abuse proclivity: behavioral, personality and regulatory factors associated with varying levels of severity

“…Only one known study has examined drug use in animal abusers, and found that persons diagnosed with a lifetime drug use disorder were significantly more likely to report animal abuse than those without (Vaughn et al, 2011). Whilst this does provide evidence for the association between animal abuse and substance/alcohol abuse, it is not specific to adulthood animal abuse, as participants were asked if they have ever engaged in this behavior.…”

Addressing Nonhuman Animal Abuse in Context

“…In addition to the practical benefit of having access to more, and larger, databases to study animal cruelty w ithin the larger multi-disciplinary field of violence prevention, there also is a conceptual advantage. There has been a strong association betw een acts of animal cruelty and other types of violence, especially interpersonal violence, as well as between early onset recurrent anim al cruelty and anti-social and violent behaviors (Ascione, 2001;Ascione et al, 2007;Dadds, Whiting, & Hall, 2006;Henderson, Hensley, & Tallichet, 2011;Hoffer, 2012;Vaughn et al, 2011;Walton-Moss et al, 2005). This robust associa tion gives strong support to the position that the etiology, development, and characteristics of animal cruelty offenders will be similar to other individuals who engage in interpersonal violence (Randour & Gupta, 2013).…”

“…On the other hand, a recent study by Vaughn et al (2011) examined the effects of type of and cumulative burden of childhood adversities on bullying and cruelty to animals in the u.s. Data were derived from Waves 1 and 11 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, with a nationally representative sample of u.s. adults (N = 43,093). Trained u.s.…”

“…They found that the cumulative effects of childhood adversities had an increm ental and strong effect on bullying but not cruelty to animals. Vaughn et al (2011) note, "bullying and animal cruelty are associated with a broad array of antisocial behaviors__ yet their etiological underpin nings may n o t be the sam e" (p. 6). How can we understand these differences?…”

“…Flynn (2012) makes a contribution by organizing the research literature on animal abuse and offering a sociological analysis of it. However, he ignored some important national databases, such as Loeber, Farrington, and Petechuck (2003), and Vaughn (2011). Moreover, he at times, drew conclusions from stud ies that were lacking in data, were not robust, or were contradicted by other studies.…”