Selective Battering Of The Family Companion Animal

Through interviews with victims of domestic violence, this paper studies the behaviors and attitudes of companion animal-abusing and non-companion animal-abusing perpetrators of family violence.

Review of previous studies show that not all perpetrators of domestic violence with companion animals, abuse their companion animals. In fact, previous studies show that about half of batterers living with companion animals have harmed or threatened to harm their companion animals. Animal abuse within domestic violence settings may include anything from deprivation of food, water or veterinary care to physical assaults, to killing the animal.

Flynn (2000) found that animals may be abused because they are thought of as property. Other research theorizes that companion animals may be made the scapegoat of family and household problems, or that they provide a save outlet for the discharge of aggressive feelings.

Some authors have suggested that the attitudes and behaviors of those who abuse companion animals to be similar to those of hunters; hunters and abusers have a more “dominionistic attitude toward animals believing they are distinct from and superior to animals and that they have been granted divine dominion over animals to use as they please.” Other evidence shows that some people may intentionally expose their children to abuse of companion animals to reinforce their acceptance of other activities such as hunting.

Family Cycles of Companion Animal Abuse One 1997 study found that children of abused women were twenty times more likely to have witnessed companion animal abuse than a control group. There is also concern that children tend to mimic the behavior of parents, as evidenced by a 1997 study which found that 32% of children in households with domestic abuse had imitated the abuser by hurting or killing the family companion animal.

Previous research has also indicated that victims of domestic violence are likely to delay the departure from the volatile setting because of concern for the family companion animal, as about half of animals are left behind with the batterer, according to Ascione (1998). Flynn (2000) showed that one-fourth of companion animals were left with family members or friends and one-fifth were abandoned, taken to the shelter or given away. In a separate study, Flynn (2000) found that 55% of abused women left their companion animals behind with a batterer who also abused the animals, and 50% left their companion animal behind with a non-animal abusing batterer. This study attempts to identify differences in behavior of non-companion animal abusing batterers versus companion animal-abusing batterers.

Study Findings

• 53% of respondents said abusers had harmed their companion animal.
• 90% of types of companion animal abuse reported were physical, 10% included neglect only, and 80% both threatened and did harm the family companion animal.
• Companion animal abusers were more likely to think of their companion animals as property as opposed to family members. They were significantly less likely to express affection toward their companion animals, either verbally or otherwise.
• Companion animal abusers were also found to more be more likely to make the family companion animal the scapegoat for negative situations.
• Companion animal abusers were also more likely to set unrealistic expectations for companion animals as well, and were more likely to react to more types of everyday stressors. In particular, companion animal abusers are more likely to be concerned about house cleanliness, and misbehavior by their companion animal.
• Another relationship was found to exist with the background of companion animal abusers. Non-companion animal abusers were more likely to have had a close relationship with childhood companion animals, while companion animal abusers were more likely to have had a neutral relationship. According to the victims, 21% of non-companion animal abusers were exposed to abuse of family companion animals as a child, while 50% of companion animal abusers had been exposed.

In conclusion, this study finds that the behavior and attitudes toward companion animals of those who engage in domestic violence are complex, and that some abusers are unable to distinguish between human and non-human suffering, while some terrorize human family members but leave the non-human members alone. This is clearly an area which more research is required.