parental predictors of children's animal abuse: findings from a national and intergenerational...

http://jiv.sagepub.com/Violence

Journal of Interpersonal

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/24/0886260514527825The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0886260514527825

published online 27 April 2014J Interpers ViolenceKelly E. Knight, Colter Ellis and Sara B. Simmons

National and Intergenerational SampleParental Predictors of Children's Animal Abuse: Findings From a

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

can be found at:Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceAdditional services and information for

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/24/0886260514527825.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 27, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at INDIANA UNIV on June 4, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from at INDIANA UNIV on June 4, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/24/0886260514527825

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.apsac.org

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/24/0886260514527825.refs.html

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/24/0886260514527825.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1 –21

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514527825

jiv.sagepub.com

Article

Parental Predictors of Children’s Animal Abuse: Findings From a National and Intergenerational Sample

Kelly E. Knight, PhD,1 Colter Ellis, PhD,1 and Sara B. Simmons, MA1

AbstractThis study examines the intra- and intergenerational links between intimate partner violence (IPV) and animal abuse by analyzing a national, longitudinal, and multigenerational sample of 1,614 individuals collected by the National Youth Survey Family Study from 1990 to 2004. Using multilevel random-intercept regression modeling, parents’ own history of animal abuse is predictive of their later involvement in IPV perpetration and victimization, net of important controls. In turn, parents’ IPV violent perpetration (but not violent victimization) is predictive of their children’s history of animal abuse—measured 14 years later. Intergenerational continuity of animal abuse, however, is not significant. Implications of these findings are discussed, as are the study’s limitations, and future research directions.

Keywordsanimal abuse, serious offending, substance use, intimate partner violence, intergenerational continuity

1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:Kelly E. Knight, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, Box 2296, Huntsville, TX 77341-2296, USA. Email: [email protected]

527825 JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514527825Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceKnight et al.research-article2014

at INDIANA UNIV on June 4, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from


2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Introduction

It is widely thought that violence toward non-human animals will lead to violence toward people.1 Unfortunately, the empirical evidence supporting this association is limited. As Piper (2003) points out, popular discourse tends to infer causal relationships between animal and human abuse. The reality, however, is that these associations are complicated and difficult to test. Furthermore, it is unclear whether they exist in the general population. The current study seeks to address some of these issues by using a national, lon-gitudinal, and multigenerational sample to investigate the intra- and intergen-erational links between animal abuse and intimate partner violence (IPV).2

Studying animal abuse and its relationship to other forms of violence is important for several reasons. First, animal victims suffer unimaginable pain and horrific deaths. The Humane Society of the United States (2011) estimates that nearly one million animals a year are abused or killed within the context of IPV and that, in 2007 alone, 1,880 cases of animal cruelty rose to the level of media attention. Yet, these victims are frequently overlooked in the criminol-ogy and victimology literatures (Beirne, 1999; Lockwood & Ascione, 1998). A second reason is the correlation between animal abuse and other forms of vio-lence. Studies show that, often, perpetrators of animal violence have witnessed or themselves been victims of violence (Flynn, 1999a, 1999b; C. Miller, 2001; Thompson & Gullone, 2006). To this point, DeGue and DiLillo (2009) cau-tiously posit that animal abuse “may serve as a reliable red flag for the presence of child maltreatment or severe domestic violence” (p. 1053). Finally, research suggests that those who are violent toward animals may also become violent toward people (Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Peterson & Farrington, 2007). Scholars can trace this association to MacDonald’s (1961) “graduation hypoth-esis,” which identifies animal abuse, along with enuresis and fire setting, as characteristics associated with murderers. Although evaluations of the “gradu-ation hypothesis” are often criticized for their methodological shortcomings, the topic continues to be widely discussed in popular discourse and the research literatures (Peterson & Farrington, 2007; Piper, 2003).

Graduation Hypothesis and Intragenerational Predictors

Research on the “graduation hypothesis,” sometimes called “the link” or “progression thesis,” is based on the theory that young people who are violent to animals will “graduate” to human victimization as they age. These studies propose an intragenerational link whereby an individual’s own involvement in animal abuse is predictive of their later involvement in interpersonal



Knight et al. 3

violence. These studies tend to focus on the perpetrator’s pathologies that make her or him prone to violence. Work in this tradition tends to use at-risk samples, such as aggressive children, violent offenders, and inmates (Arluke, Levin, Luke, & Ascione, 1999; Ascione, 1998; Baldry, 2005; K. D. Becker, Stuewig, Herrera, & McCloskey, 2004; Felthous, 1979; Kellert & Felthous, 1985; Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001; K. S. Miller & Knutson, 1997; Schiff, Louw, & Ascione, 1999; Tallichet, Hensley, O’Bryan, & Hassel, 2005; Tingle, Barnard, Robbins, Newman, & Hutchinson, 1998). With the excep-tion of K. S. Miller and Knutson (1997), these studies all show some relation-ship between animal abuse and violence toward people. Although each of these studies is limited in scope, together they point to a broader relationship between animal abuse and future violence (for systematic reviews, see Felthous & Kellert, 1987; Peterson & Farrington, 2007).

Flynn (2011) highlights the methodological difficulties that complicate assess-ing the “graduation hypothesis,” showing that these studies are often retrospec-tive and cross-sectional, use non-representative samples, and have vague and inconsistent definitions of animal abuse. Flynn (2011) also outlines three theo-retical objections to the “graduation hypothesis.” The first issue is that there are multiple pathways that lead to and from animal cruelty and that linkages research-ers make between animal abuse and human violence tend to be overly simplistic and lack nuance. Flynn’s second critique is that most people who abuse animals do not grow up to be violent toward people. This is especially problematic because there may be a tendency to label children who abuse animals as antiso-cial. Finally, much of the research is psychological in nature and ignores impor-tant social factors (e.g., family context) that contribute to perpetration. Flynn’s critiques evoke aspects of problem-behavior theory, which posits that risk behav-iors tend to cluster and have common psychosocial etiologies (Costa, 2008; Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Jessor & Jessor, 1977). From this perspective, animal abuse may be one of many problem behaviors co-occurring among at-risk youth making a causal link between animal and human violence difficult to measure. Despite these methodological and theoretical issues, the research does indicate that there is a relationship between animal abuse and interpersonal violence. Nevertheless, as Flynn (2011) discusses “there is desperate need for longitudinal studies if valid claims about the link are to be made and supported. And research-ers must study the link using random samples of the general population” (p. 461).

Parental and Intergenerational Predictors

Extant research that links violence toward animals and violence toward people is advanced by studies examining parental predictors of animal abuse. These studies propose an intergenerational link whereby parents’ involvement in




violence is predictive of children’s involvement in animal abuse. These studies focus on the social or family context of animal abuse perpetrators. Still, virtu-ally all of these studies suffer methodological limitations inherent in this line of research including non-representative samples, cross-sectional data, and retro-spective, single-respondent measures. That is, most studies survey one indi-vidual and ask them to report on their own behavior and the behavior of their parent or child.

Using a small convenience sample of female victims of IPV and qualitative methods, Ascione (1998) found that IPV tended to co-occur with animal abuse, and that children exposed to this type of violent environment tended to also abuse animals. Subsequent studies show that familial, intimate partner, and interparen-tal violence tends to happen at the same time as animal abuse, typically involving the abuse of pets (Ascione, 2007; DeGue & DiLillo, 2009; Flynn, 1999a, 1999b, 2000). For example, using a student sample and cross-sectional analysis, DeGue and DiLillo (2009) document the coexistence of childhood maltreatment, domes-tic violence, and animal abuse. This research shows that 60% of participants who had either witnessed or perpetrated animal abuse had also been exposed to family violence. The research also shows that 30% of participants who had been exposed to family violence experienced or perpetrated animal abuse. Although animal abuse was a stronger predictor of family violence than the reverse, both predic-tors were substantial.

Other research also supports Ascione’s (1998) suggestion that children exposed to parents’ IPV may become violent toward animals. Currie’s (2006) research looked at a sample of 47 mothers of 2 with a history of domestic violence and a comparison group of 45 mothers of 2 with no history of domestic violence. This study found that children’s animal abuse was corre-lated with their exposure to male-to-female violence. The author posit that, while the study did find both IPV exposed and unexposed children had some level of violence toward animals, those exposed to IPV were, on average, older indicating that the violence was pathological rather than developmental and exploratory. Using a cross-sectional sample of 1,400 Italian schoolchil-dren ages 9 to 11, Baldry (2003, 2005) shows that exposure to IPV and wit-nessing animal abuse is predictive of children’s animal abuse. Thompson and Gullone (2006) studied 281 adolescents, ages 12 to 18, and found that those exposed to animal abuse were more likely to themselves abuse animals. K. D. Becker et al.’s (2004) study presents the only prospective longitudinal design investigating these issues. Becker and colleagues drew a sample of women and one of their children from battered women’s shelters and a comparison sample from the general population. The study found that marital violence and harsh parenting were associated with children’s abuse of animals and that animal cruelty was related to self-reported violent crime in late adolescence (see also F. Becker & French, 2004).



Knight et al. 5

Finally, Vaughn et al. (2011) are likely the first to use nationally representative data to study parental predictors of animal abuse. Using cross-sectional data and retrospective measures, the authors evaluate the effect childhood adversity has on bullying and cruelty to animals. Unlike bullying behaviors, they do not find cumulative childhood adversity to be predictive of animal abuse. The authors, however, find parental incarceration to be a significant predictor of animal cru-elty. See also the authors’ earlier study (2009) assessing more general correlates of animal cruelty using data from the same sample.

This Study: Goals and Hypotheses

Despite the importance of understanding the link between interpersonal vio-lence and animal abuse, the extant body of research in this area is method-ologically limited and lacking nuance. The current study extends previous research by using a national, longitudinal, and multigenerational data set to investigate intra- and intergenerational links between IPV and animal abuse. Importantly, data are such that temporal order is maintained when looking at relationships related to both the “graduation hypothesis” and parental predic-tors. In addition, the current study is the first study, to date, to examine whether there is evidence for intergenerational continuity of animal abuse using independent measures from each generation, thus avoiding issues related to shared method variance. As such, the goal of this study is to test the following three hypotheses, while controlling for important confounds.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Intragenerational Predictors of Animal Abuse: Second generation (G2) parents’ early history of animal abuse is positively and significantly related to their later IPV (a) violent perpetration and (b) vio-lent victimization.Hypothesis 2 (H2): Intergenerational (Parental) Predictors of Animal Abuse: G2 parents’ IPV (a) violent perpetration and (b) violent victimiza-tion is positively and significantly related to their third generation (G3) children’s history of animal abuse.Hypothesis 3 (H3): Intergenerational Continuity of Animal Abuse: G2 parents’ early history of animal abuse is positively and significantly related to their G3 children’s early history of animal abuse.

Method

Data

The current research analyzes data obtained by the National Youth Survey Family Study (NYSFS), which is a prospective, longitudinal, and multigenerational




study originally consisting of 1,725 focal respondents and their family members. The study started in 1977 with a multistage cluster sampling design to attain a nationally representative sample of households. Approval for human-subjects research was obtained, informed consents signed, and individual interviews com-pleted on one parent and all of their children residing in the household between the ages of 11 and 17. This approach resulted in a surveyed sample of 1,683 first generation (G1) and 1,725 G2 focal respondents at Wave 1. The G2 focal respon-dents were then surveyed each year through Wave 5 (1977-1981). Beginning with Wave 6, respondents were surveyed every 3 years through Wave 9 (1984-1993). Then, respondents were surveyed annually at Waves 10 (2002) and 11 (2003). In addition, G1 respondents and G2’s spouses/partners were surveyed at Wave 11 (2003). Finally, if a G2 respondent had children, the G3 children were also surveyed at Waves 11 (2003) and 12 (2004). Altogether, the NYSFS study completed 12 waves of data collection across a 27-year time span. Participation was estimated at 73% for the eligible sample. Retention was also quite reasonable in comparison with other longitudinal studies with rates greater than—90% for Waves 2 to 4, 80% for Waves 5 to 8, and 70% for Waves 9 to 11 (Menard, 2012; Menard, Morris, Gerber, & Covey, 2011).

Analytic Sample

For the current study, the analytic sample was created in the following stages. First, we began with data from G3 children who had completed questions about their history of animal abuse, which were asked during the Wave 12 interview (G3, n = 1,286/1,297, 11 cases missing). Second, both the children’s and their parent’s data were merged together to create a stacked data set if the G2 parent had also completed questions about their history of animal abuse, asked during the Wave 11 interview (G2, n = 671/672). Third, these families were retained in the data set if the G2 parent had completed questions related to IPV during the Wave 8 interview. This wave was selected because the parent was then between the ages of 24 and 30 and likely to be married or in a romantic relationship and, therefore, able to complete questions about their involvement in IPV (G2, n = 547/671). Fourth, the G1 grandparents were not asked questions related to animal abuse and were, thus, excluded. Given these parameters, the final analytic sample included 1,614 individuals (n = 1,067 G3 children nested within n = 547 G2 par-ent households).

Measures for G2 Parents

Animal abuse. G2 parents were asked, “When you were a child or teenager, did you hurt animals on purpose—to amuse yourself (not when you were



Knight et al. 7

hunting or getting rid of pests in the house)?” All who answered yes were asked the age at which they first abused animals. From these questions, self-reported measures for animal abuse prevalence and age of onset were cre-ated. In addition, a measure of recall years was created by subtracting respondent’s age of onset from age at interview. As described in Table 1, approximately 3% of the G2 parents report a history of animal abuse. The average age of onset was 12 (SD = 4.72) and, given that animal abuse was measured at Wave 11, the mean number of recall years was 29 (SD = 5.02). Note that the prevalence of animal abuse in this study is higher than the prev-alence of 1.8% reported by Vaughn et al. (2009) and the 1.4% reported by Vaughn et al. (2011), which are the only other nationally representative U.S. studies of animal cruelty that the authors could find.

IPV. The NYSFS asks 36 questions from the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979) to measure IPV. Violent perpetration (α = .717) and violent victimization (α = .775) variables were created, each summing 10 prevalence items, including throwing something, pushing or grabbing, slapping, hitting with a fist, hitting with an object, choking, beating, threatening with a weapon, using a weapon, or attempting to kill a partner or spouse. Variables were then transformed into annual prevalence scores (1 = any violent IPV, 0 = no violent IPV). Using these measures, 33% of the G2 parent sample report IPV violent perpetration and 34% report IPV violent victimization.

Serious offending. Past research has shown associations between delinquency and animal abuse (K. D. Becker et al., 2004), and offending and IPV (Her-rera, Wiersma, & Cleveland, 2008). As such, we control for the contempora-neous effects of serious offending by including a prospective measure based on 11 items measured at Wave 8, asking how many times in the last year the respondent had stolen something worth more than US$50, used checks ille-gally, paid for sex, stole a car, sold hard drugs, set property on fire, used force on anyone, attacked someone, been in a gang fight, and had sex against some-one’s will. The variable was then transformed into an annual prevalence score (1 = any serious offending, 0 = no serious offending).

Substance use. To account for the relationship between substance use and IPV (Campbell, 2002; Dutton et al., 2006; Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997), three types of annual self-reported substance use measures were created from Wave 8: marijuana use prevalence (one item), other drug use prevalence (five items summed, specifically, hallucinogens, amphetamines, barbiturates, heroin, and cocaine), and alcohol use frequency (one item). Given that alcohol use is both normative and highly skewed, with



8

Tab

le 1

. D

escr

iptiv

e St

atis

tics

and

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

for

G2

Pare

nt V

aria

bles

(n

=54

7).

G2

Pare

nt

Var

iabl

es:

Mea

nSD

Ran

ge1.

2.3.

4.5.

6.7.

8.9.

10 .

11.

12.

13.

14.

1.

Ani

mal

Abu

se0.

030.

160-

1—

2

.IP

V V

iole

nt

Perp

etra

tion

0.33

0.47

0-1

0.11

*—

3.

IPV

Vio

lent

V

ictim

izat

ion

0.34

0.47

0-1

0.20

**0.

61**

—

4.

Seri

ous

Offe

ndin

g0.

120.

320-

10.

12**

0.12

**0.

21—

5.

Alc

ohol

Use

Fr

eque

ncy

(ln)

2.52

1.68

0-7

0.09

*0.

070.

14**

0.19

**—

6.

Mar

ijuan

a U

se0.

220.

420-

10.

14**

0.18

**0.

23**

0.14

**0.

33**

—

7.

Oth

er D

rug

Use

0.11

0.31

0-1

0.13

**0.

15**

0.17

**0.

19**

0.28

**0.

42**

—

8.

Dev

iant

Bel

iefs

26.3

15.

8316

-42

0.12

**0.

10*

0.11

**0.

20**

0.44

**0.

33**

0.19

**—

9

.D

epre

ssio

n0.

862.

060-

130.

060.

18**

0.15

**0.

08*

0.04

0.19

**0.

20**

0.05

—

10.

Mal

e0.

420.

490-

10.

14**

-0.1

1*0.

08 t

0.18

**0.

27**

0.07

t0.

040.

20**

-0.1

1**

—

11.

Non

whi

te0.

160.

370-

1-0

.01

0.13

**0.

14**

0.12

**-0

.06

0.01

0.13

**-0

.09*

0.02

0.01

—

12.

Age

27.1

31.

9224

-30

-0.0

1-0

.13*

*-0.

12**

-0.0

20.

00-0

.09*

0.03

0.05

-0.0

70.

07t-0

.11*

*—

13

.Ed

ucat

ion

12.8

02.

096-

17-0

.06

-0.0

9*-0

.16*

*-0.

12**

0.07

-0.2

0**-

0.12

**0.

08t

-0.1

6*0.

03-0

.11*

0.20

**—

14

.Pu

blic

A

ssis

tanc

e0.

130.

330-

1-0

.03

0.13

**0.

20**

0.12

**-0

.02

0.13

**0.

07-0

.05

0.04

-0.0

70.

14**

-0.0

8 t

-0.2

1**

—

Not

e. n

=4

case

s fa

iled

to p

rovi

de a

val

id r

espo

nses

, red

ucin

g: IP

V v

iole

nt p

erpe

trat

ion

to n

=54

6 an

d pu

blic

ass

ista

nce

to n

=54

4A

bbre

viat

ions

: ln=

natu

ral l

og, S

D=

stan

dard

dev

iatio

n**

p <.

01, *

p <

.05,

t p <

.10

(2-t

aile

d)



Knight et al. 9

some respondents consuming far greater amounts than others, a natural loga-rithmic transformation was conducted to reduce the skewness and better meet the distributional assumptions needed for analyses (Osgood, Finken, & McMorris, 2002).

Deviant beliefs. Deviant attitudes and related traits may increase risk for ani-mal abuse (Agnew, 1998). As a result, we created a self-reported measure of deviant beliefs in our analysis. The measure includes 16 summed items ask-ing how wrong it is for someone the respondent’s age to cheat on their income taxes, purposely damage or destroy someone else’s property, steal something worth less than US$5, hit or threaten to hit someone without a reason, use alcohol, break into a vehicle or building to steal something, sell hard drugs, steal something worth more than US$50, get drunk once in a while, recre-ationally use prescription drugs, give alcohol to kids below 18, attack some-one intending to seriously hurt or kill them, exceed the speed limit by 10 to 20 mph, use force to get money from others, and deliberately hit or injure a spouse or partner. These Wave 8 items were reverse coded to range from 1 (an action is very wrong) to 4 (an action is not wrong at all; α = .879).

Depression. In line with prior research showing a link between depression and IPV (Campbell, Kub, Belknap, & Templin, 1997; Gleason, 1993), and between parental depression and antisocial behavior in children (Kim-Cohen, Moffitt, Taylor, Pawlby, & Caspi, 2005), a Wave 8 measure of depressive symptoms was created as a control variable. It includes 16 summed items, asking whether the respondent experienced the following symptoms during the previous 3 years: appetite loss, weight loss, weight gain, insomnia, slept too much, tired all the time, talked or moved slower, inability to be still, loss of interest in sex, trouble concentrating, slow or mixed up thoughts, felt worthless or guilty, thought about death, wanted to die, thought of suicide, and attempted suicide (α = .860).

G2 demographic controls. In an effort to limit spurious effects, this study includes several demographic control variables—all of which are associated with a host of problem behaviors (Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). G2 demographic control variables include whether the respondent was male (42%), non-White (16%), received public assistance (13%), and their education (in number of years, including college; M = 13; SD = 2.09) and age (M = 27; SD = 1.95). Unless otherwise stated, all G2 parent variables are from Wave 8. Note that, given overlap, the non-White variable for G2 parents was omitted from models that included the non-White variable for G3 children. The racial categories of non-White G2




respondents, as reported at Wave 8 in 1990, were Black (74%), Mexican American (20%), Spanish American (3%), Chicano (2%), and American Indian (1%).

Measures for G3 Children

G3 animal abuse. Fourteen years later at Wave 12 (in 2004), G3 respondents were asked about their history of animal abuse. Respondents younger than 18 were asked, “Have you ever been physically cruel to an animal and hurt it on purpose?” Respondents older than 18 were asked an equivalent question, “When you were a child or teenager, did you hurt animals on purpose—to amuse yourself (not when you were hunting or getting rid of pests in the house)?” All who answered yes were asked the age at which they first abused animals. From these questions, measures for animal abuse prevalence and age of onset were created. In addition, a measure of recall years was created by subtracting respondent’s age of onset from age at interview. As shown in Table 2, approximately 3% of the G3 children report a history of animal abuse. The average age of onset was 11 (SD = 2.98) and the mean number of recall years was 7 (SD = 4.52).

G3 demographic controls. Following the same strategy to include G2 demo-graphic controls, several demographic measures of the G3 children were assessed. These variables included whether the respondent was male (50%), non-White (20%), and their age (M = 18, SD = 3.72). The racial categories of non-White G3 respondents, as measured at Wave 12 in 2004, were Black (64%), Hispanic (13%), Mexican American (9%), Spanish American (0.5%), Chicano (1%), American Indian (4%), Asian American (1%), and other (7%). All were measured at Wave 12. Note that G3 children’s measure of age was omitted from models predicting their animal abuse outcomes because history of animal abuse was measured retrospectively.

Table 2. Correlation Matrix for G3 Children Variables (n =1,067).

G3 Children Variables: Mean SD Range 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Animal Abuse 0.03 0.17 0-1 — 2. Male 0.50 0.50 0-1 0.15 ** — 3. Nonwhite 0.20 0.40 0-1 0.01 0.02 — 4. Age 17.56 3.72 11-31 0.00 -0.05 0.07 * —

Note. One case failed to provide a valid response on age, reducing n=1,066Abbreviations: SD=standard deviation**p <.01, *p <.05, tp <.10 (2-tailed)



Knight et al. 11

Analytic Strategy

Two types of hypotheses are tested, each requiring a different type of analy-sis. To test intragenerational hypotheses (H1; involving data from G2 parents only), bivariate correlations were first run to assess associations between G2 predictors and G2 IPV outcomes. When significant at the .25 level, predictors were then tested in multivariate logistic regression models, calculated in SPSS (Version 20). To test intergenerational hypotheses (H2 and H3; requir-ing data from both G2 parents and G3 children), a two-level random-intercept regression strategy was used to account for the nonindependence among G3 siblings, which ranged from 1 to 7 per G2 parent household. Similar to the H1 procedures, bivariate models using multilevel logistic regression calculated in Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM, Version 6.08; with Laplace estima-tion) were first run to assess associations between G2 predictors and G3 ani-mal abuse outcomes. Again, significant predictors at the .25 level were then tested using multivariate multilevel logistic regression. Given the construc-tion of the analytic sample, missing data were minimal and, as such, case-wise deletion was used.

Results

H1: Intragenerational Predictors of IPV

Violent perpetration. We begin by assessing our first hypothesis, that G2 par-ents’ earlier history of animal abuse is related to their later IPV—for which we find considerable support. These results are summarized in the model on the left half of Table 3. After adjusting for the other intragenerational predic-tors, G2 parents’ earlier history of animal abuse significantly predicts their later IPV violent perpetration (b = 1.28, SE = 0.61, p < .05). Expressed another way, net of controls, the odds of IPV violent perpetration are 3.61 times higher among G2 parents who reported a history of animal abuse, com-pared with G2 parents who did not report a history of animal abuse. In terms of control variables, none of the concurrent problem behaviors are signifi-cantly related to IPV; depression is related (OR = 1.12, b = 0.11, SE = 0.05, p < .05), as is being male (OR = 0.50, b = −0.69, SE = 0.22, p < .01), non-White (OR = 1.95, b = 0.67, SE = 0.27, p < .05), and younger in age (OR = 0.89, b = −0.11, SE = 0.05, p < .05).

Violent victimization. Next, consider the right half of Table 3, where a similar but stronger intragenerational pattern emerges for IPV violent victimization. After adjusting for all control variables, G2 parents’ earlier history of animal




abuse significantly predicts their later violent victimization (b = 2.97, SE = 1.07, p < .01). In other words, net of controls, the odds of IPV violent victim-ization are 19.46 times higher among G2 parents who reported a history of animal abuse, compared with G2 parents who did not report a history of animal abuse. In this model, however, serious offending (OR = 2.18, b = 0.78, SE = 0.32, p < .05) and marijuana use (OR = 1.79, b = 0.58, SE = 0.27, p < .05) are also significantly related to IPV violent victimization, as is being non-White (OR = 1.78, b = 0.58, SE = 0.27, p < .05) and on public assistance (OR = 2.61, b = 0.96, SE = 0.29, p < .01).

H2: Intergenerational Predictors of Animal Abuse

Violent perpetration. Next, consider our second hypothesis, that G2 parents’ IPV violent perpetration and violent victimization is positively and significantly

Table 3. Intragenerational Model Testing Hypothesis 1: G2 Parent’s Early Animal Abuse → G2 Parent’s Later Intimate Partner Violence.

DV = G2 Parent’s IPV Violent Perpetration

DV = G2 Parent’s IPV Violent Victimization

OR b SE p OR b SE p

IV = G2 Parent’sAnimal abuse 3.61 1.28 0.61 .035* 19.46 2.97 1.07 .005**Serious offending 1.62 0.48 0.31 .124 2.18 0.78 0.32 .014*Alcohol use freq.

(ln)1.03 0.03 0.07 .704 1.07 0.07 0.07 .308

Marijuana use 1.45 0.37 0.27 .164 1.79 0.58 0.27 .032*Other drug use 1.38 0.32 0.34 .350 1.13 0.12 0.35 .736Deviant beliefs 1.03 0.03 0.02 .125 1.01 0.01 0.02 .602Depression 1.12 0.11 0.05 .016* 1.10 0.09 0.05 .061†

Male 0.50 −0.69 0.22 .002** 1.14 0.13 0.22 .535Non-White 1.95 0.67 0.27 .012* 1.78 0.58 0.27 .033*Age 0.89 −0.11 0.05 .029* 0.92 −0.09 0.05 .099†

Education 1.00 0.00 0.05 .992 0.93 −0.07 0.05 .184Public assistance 1.64 0.50 0.29 .087† 2.61 0.96 0.29 .001**Constant 3.61 1.28 1.50 .391 4.23 1.44 1.52 .342Model χ2 63.32 92.01 Nagelkerke R2 0.15 0.22 Analytic n 543 544

Note. G2 = second generation; DV = dependent variable; IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio; IV = independent variable; b = regression coefficient; ln = natural log.†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).



Knight et al. 13

related to their G3 children’s history of animal abuse—for which we find mixed support. After adjusting for the predictors that are significant at the .25 level in the bivariate models (only G2’s gender, G2’s history of animal abuse, and G3’s gender), G2 parents’ earlier history of IPV violent perpetration is predictive of their G3 children’s history of animal abuse (b = 0.976, SE = 0.46, p < .05, McFadden’s R2 = .10; G3, n = 1,062; G2, n = 528; not reported in a table).3 Stated another way, the odds of having a G3 child who reported having a history of animal abuse (at Wave 12) are 2.65 times higher among G2 parents who reported IPV violent perpetration—14 years earlier, compared with G2 parents who did not report IPV perpetration. In terms of control variables, being male is also significantly related to reporting a history of animal abuse (OR = 10.94, b = 2.39, SE = 0.67, p < .01).

Violent victimization. Using the same procedures as described above, the model testing whether G2 parents’ IPV violent victimization is related to their G3 chil-dren’s history of animal abuse (net of G2’s gender, G2’s history of animal abuse, and G3’s gender) is not statistically significant (OR = 1.62, b = 0.48, SE = 0.43, p = .27, McFadden’s R2 = .10; G3, n = 1,062; G2, n = 528; not reported in a table). In terms of control variables, having a male G2 parent respondent (OR = 0.34, b = −1.05, SE = 0.53, p < .05) and being male is also significantly related to reporting a history of animal abuse (OR = 10.94, b = 2.39, SE = 0.67, p < .01).

H3: Intergenerational Continuity of Animal Abuse

Finally, consider our third hypothesis, intergenerational continuity of animal abuse—for which we did not find support. As described above, in the model controlling for predictors that are significant at the .25 level in the bivariate mod-els (only G2’s gender, G2’s violent perpetration, and G3’s gender), G2 parents’ history of animal abuse is not related to their G3 children’s history of animal abuse (OR = 2.44, b = 0.89, SE = 0.96, p = .354, McFadden’s R2 = .10; G3, n = 1,062; G2, n = 528; not reported in a table). Note that, although this finding is not significant, this study represents the first test of intergenerational continuity of animal abuse using independent measures from each generation known by the authors. Even though G2 parents’ animal abuse was not predictive of animal abuse among their G3 children, when taken altogether the findings suggest both an intra- and intergenerational link between IPV and animal abuse. We discuss the implications of our results in the next section.

Discussion

The goal of the current study is to extend previous research on the relationship between interpersonal and animal violence. We analyze a national, longitudinal,




and multigenerational sample of parents and their children collected by the NYSFS across a 14-year period between 1990 and 2004. A multilevel random-intercept regression strategy is used to investigate intra- and intergenerational links. Notably, data are such that temporal order is maintained when looking at relationships related to both MacDonald’s (1961) “graduation hypothesis” and parental predictors reported in the literature (DeGue & DiLillo, 2009; Flynn, 2000). In addition, the current study represents the first test of intergenerational continuity of animal abuse using independent measures from each generation.

Three hypotheses are tested while controlling for theoretically and empiri-cally important confounds related to both IPV and animal abuse, including parents’ serious offending, substance use, deviant beliefs, and depression, as well as demographic factors for both generations. First, providing general support for the “graduation hypothesis,” parents’ history of animal abuse is predictive of their later involvement in IPV perpetration and victimization. Second, given that parents’ IPV violent perpetration (but not violent victim-ization) is predictive of their children’s history of animal abuse—measured 14 years later, we find support for the importance of the social environment (more broadly) and the family context (more specifically) when trying to understand why animal abuse occurs. Third, evidence for intergenerational continuity of animal abuse was not found. Nevertheless, testing whether there is a direct effect of parent’s animal abuse on their children’s animal abuse represents, at the very least, an initial attempt to address concerns raised by scholars who suggest that animal abuse may be related to genetic factors (Vaughn et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2009).

The implications of these findings are that early animal abuse is not only a risk factor for later involvement in IPV violent perpetration but also violent victimization. An important direction for future research will involve teasing out why perpetrators of animal abuse are more likely to grow up to become victims of violent IPV. When taken together, research addressing the genetic relationship underlying both delinquency and violent victimization (Vaske, Boisvert, & Wright, 2012), as well as research on assortative mating and partner selection among antisocial individuals (Knight, 2011), is telling. Youth involved in animal abuse and related forms of problem behavior early in the life course may have other risk factors, for example, low self-control (Boutwell et al., 2013), poor problem-solving skills, and attention deficits (Daigle, 2010), that place them on a developmental trajectory where they become embedded in deviant peer networks (Thornberry & Krohn, 2005). From within these networks, they may choose intimate partners who are likely violent thus increasing their own chances of becoming victimized (see a similar discussion by Franklin & Kercher, 2012).



Knight et al. 15

The current study uses data from a larger rigorously designed study that was unavoidably difficult to conduct (as is the case in non-experimental stud-ies) and expensive to implement (given a nationally representative sample of respondents followed over their life course and into the next generation). These features, however, are markedly advantageous when examining and documenting the effect of problem behavior in one generation on the next using a national sample. In fact, only one nationally representative study involving animal abuse was found in the literature (Vaughn et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2009).

As scholars have well documented, studying animal abuse is both theo-retically and methodologically challenging (Agnew, 1998; Flynn, 2011; Peterson & Farrington, 2007). Despite the current study’s strengths, it is not without exception and three limitations are important. First, in contrast to our H1 intragenerational findings linking early animal abuse to both later IPV perpetration and victimization, our H2 intergenerational finding linking par-ents’ IPV to children’s animal abuse is significant for perpetration but not victimization. The former corroborates earlier research on the cycle of vio-lence hypothesis (Widom, 1989). Future research, however, will need to explore differences in intergenerational transmission of IPV perpetration and victimization. We suspect that intergenerational effects are more complex when the outcome is victimization, which represents a behavior perpetrated by another individual. In line with this discrepancy, Hines and Saudino (2004) also found differences in heritability when considering the use and receipt of physical partner aggression.

The second limitation is the measurement of animal abuse. Only one item assesses animal abuse for each generation in the NYSFS. The wording of this item requires the G2 and G3 respondent to interpret that her or his behavior hurt or was physically cruel to the animal. In addition, these measures are retrospective. The issues associated with retrospective measures are well noted within the context of intergenerational research (Thornberry, Knight, & Lovegrove, 2012). A prevalence rather than a frequency measure is used which helps minimize the issues associated with retrospective recall (Franklin & Kercher, 2012). In addition, we calculate age of onset and the number of recall years to show that the retrospective measures are quite reasonable, especially for the G3 children (approximately 7 years). Ultimately, however, the estimates of animal abuse are likely conservative and, still, they are larger than the only other nationally representative sample studying animal abuse, and we were able to detect significant effects both intra- and intergeneration-ally. The third limitation is that models testing parental predictors of animal abuse (the second and third hypotheses) do not include covariates for G3 children’s other problem behaviors and exposure to child maltreatment.




These and other related variables were excluded to retain temporal order given that animal abuse was measured retrospectively. It is likely that respon-dent’s animal abuse is correlated with other concurrent aggressive and devi-ant behaviors (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Vaughn et al., 2009). Interestingly, this study finds that animal abuse is uniquely predictive of subsequent IPV net of other problem behaviors (specifically, serious delinquency and crime, alcohol use frequency, marijuana use, other drug use, deviant beliefs, and depression) as tested in the first hypothesis assessing intragenerational pre-dictors of animal abuse.

In conclusion, the current research contributes to the body of literature on the etiology of animal abuse and its relationship to IPV. Results find support for intra- and intergenerational linkages but not for direct intergenerational continuity of animal abuse. Differences such as these are likely to have inter-esting theoretical and practical implications warranting future research. The practical implications of this research for victim services, specifically, involve improving knowledge of the various pathways to and consequences of IPV, which can then be used to inform policy and program recommendations. In addition, there is evidence suggesting that thorough measures of animal abuse are warranted in future studies of problem behavior. Overall, given the limitations of prior research, this rigorous assessment of the prevalence of animal abuse and the link between animal abuse and IPV using a national and multigenerational sample will help to more accurately inform our under-standing of violent behaviors that have long been thought to cycle across generations (Curtis, 1963; Smith, Ireland, Park, Elwyn, & Thornberry, 2011).

Acknowledgment

Special thanks to our undergraduate research assistants, Spencer Copeland, Bailey Kennedy, and Kimberly Setien, for their help in the preparation of the current study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-cation of this article.

Notes

1. Although people are also animals, hereafter non-human animals are simply termed animals.



Knight et al. 17

2. We define animal abuse as intentional and culturally unacceptable cruelty toward animals.

3. Bivariate models included G3 children’s history of animal abuse as the depen-dent variable and each of the following independent variables tested separately: G2 parents’ history of animal abuse, serious delinquency/crime, alcohol use fre-quency, marijuana use, other drug use, deviant beliefs, depression, male, non-White, age, education, and public assistance, and G3 children’s age, male, and non-White.

References

Agnew, R. (1998). The causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Theoretical Criminology, 2, 177-209.

Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione, F. (1999). The relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 963-975.

Ascione, F. R. (1998). Battered women’s reports of their partners’ and their children’s cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 119-133.

Ascione, F. R. (2007). Emerging research on animal abuse as a risk factor for intimate partner violence. In K. Kendall-Tackett & S. Giacomoni (Eds.), Intimate partner violence (pp. 3-1 to 3-17). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Baldry, A. C. (2003). Animal abuse and exposure to interpersonal violence in Italian youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 258-281.

Baldry, A. C. (2005). Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 15, 97-110.

Becker, F., & French, L. (2004). Making the links: Child abuse, animal cruelty and domestic violence. Child Abuse Review, 13, 399-414.

Becker, K. D., Stuewig, J., Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). A study of firesetting and animal cruelty in children: Family influences and adolescent outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 905-912.

Beirne, P. (1999). For a nonspeciesist criminology: Animal abuse as an object of study. Criminology, 37, 117-147.

Boutwell, B. B., Franklin, C. A., Barnes, J. C., Tamplin, A. K., Beaver, K. M., & Petkovsek, M. (2013). Unraveling the covariation of low self-control and vic-timization: A behavior genetic approach. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 657-666.

Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331-1336.

Campbell, J. C., Kub, J., Belknap, R. A., & Templin, T. N. (1997). Predictors of depression in battered women. Violence Against Women, 3, 271-293.

Costa, F. (2008). Problem-behavior theory—An overview. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/jessor/pb_theory.html

Currie, C. L. (2006). Animal cruelty by children exposed to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 425-435.




Curtis, G. C. (1963). Violence breeds violence—Perhaps? American Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 386-837.

Daigle, L. E. (2010). Risk heterogeneity and recurrent violent victimization: The role of DRD4. Biodemography and Social Biology, 56, 137-149.

DeGue, S., & DiLillo, D. (2009). Is animal cruelty a “red flag” for family violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1036-1056.

Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 890-904.

Dutton, M. A., Green, B. L., Kaltman, S. I., Roesch, D. M., Zeffiro, T. A., & Krause, E. D. (2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955-968.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, drugs and mental health problems. New York, NY: Springer.

Felthous, A. R. (1979). Childhood antecedents of aggressive behaviors in male psy-chiatric patients. The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 104-110.

Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1987). Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggres-sion against people: A review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 710-717.

Flynn, C. P. (1999a). Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. Society & Animals, 7, 161-172.

Flynn, C. P. (1999b). Exploring the link between corporal punishment and children’s cruelty to animals. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 971-981.

Flynn, C. P. (2000). Woman’s best friend: Pet abuse and the role of companion ani-mals in the lives of battered women. Violence Against Women, 6, 162-177.

Flynn, C. P. (2011). Examining the links between animal abuse and human violence. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55, 453-468.

Franklin, C. A., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). The intergenerational transmission of inti-mate partner violence: Differentiating correlates in a random community sample. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 187-199.

Gleason, W. J. (1993). Mental disorders in battered women: An empirical study. Violence and Victims, 8, 53-68.

Herrera, V. M., Wiersma, J. D., & Cleveland, H. H. (2008). The influence of indi-vidual and partner characteristics on the perpetration of intimate partner violence in young adult relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 284-296.

Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on inti-mate partner aggression: A preliminary study. Violence and Victims, 19, 701-718.

Humane Society of the United States. (2011). Animal cruelty facts and statistics. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/facts/animal_ cruelty_facts_statistics.html

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-1129.



Knight et al. 19

Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E., & Best, C. L. (1997). A 2-year longitudinal analysis of the relationships between violent assault and substance use in women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834-847.

Kim-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Pawlby, S. J., & Caspi, A. (2005). Maternal depression and children’s antisocial behavior: Nature and nurture effects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 173-181.

Knight, K. E. (2011). Assortative mating and partner influence on antisocial behavior across the life course. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 198-219.

Lockwood, R., & Ascione, F. R. (1998). Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence: Readings in research and application. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

MacDonald, J. M. (1961). The murderer and his victim. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Menard, S. (2012). Age, criminal victimization, and offending: Changing relation-ships from adolescence to middle adulthood. Victims & Offenders, 7, 227-254.

Menard, S., Morris, R. G., Gerber, J., & Covey, H. C. (2011). Distribution and cor-relates of self-reported crimes of trust. Deviant Behavior, 32, 877-917.

Merz-Perez, L., Heide, K. M., & Silverman, I. J. (2001). Childhood cruelty to ani-mals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 556-573.

Miller, C. (2001). Childhood animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 735-749.

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 & Neglect, 21, 59-82.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in anti-social behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Osgood, D. W., Finken, L. L., & McMorris, B. J. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance. II: Tobit regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 319-347.

Peterson, M. L., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Cruelty to animals and violence to peo-ple. Victims & Offenders, 2, 21-43.

Piper, H. (2003). The linkage of animal abuse with interpersonal violence: A sheep in wolf’s clothing? Journal of Social Work, 3, 161-177.

Schiff, K., Louw, D., & Ascione, F. (1999). Animal relations in childhood and later violent behaviour against humans. Acta Criminologica, 12(3), 77-86.

Smith, C. A., Ireland, T. O., Park, A., Elwyn, L., & Thornberry, T. P. (2011). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in intimate partner violence: A two-generational prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3720-3752.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tac-tics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88.




Tallichet, S. E., Hensley, C., O’Bryan, A., & Hassel, H. (2005). Targets for cru-elty: Demographic and situational factors affecting the type of animal abused. Criminal Justice Studies, 18, 173-182.

Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2006). An investigation into the association between the witnessing of animal abuse and adolescents’ behavior toward animals. Society & Animals, 14, 221-243.

Thornberry, T. P., Knight, K. E., & Lovegrove, P. J. (2012). Does maltreatment beget maltreatment? A systematic review of the intergenerational literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 135-152.

Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional theory to the expla-nation of continuity and change in antisocial behavior. In D. P Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (Vol. 14, pp. 183-209). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tingle, D., Barnard, G. W., Robbins, L., Newman, G., & Hutchinson, D. (1998). Childhood and adolescent characteristics of pedophiles and rapists. In R. Lockwood & F. R. Ascione (Eds.), From cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence: Readings in research and application (pp. 211-224). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Vaske, J., Boisvert, D., & Wright, J. P. (2012). Genetic and environmental contri-butions to the relationship between violent victimization and criminal behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3213-3235.

Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., Perron, B. E., & Howard, M. O. (2011). Effects of childhood adversity on bullying and cruelty to animals in the United States: Findings from a national sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3509-3525.

Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., Bender, K., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., & Howard, M. O. (2010). Psychiatric correlates of bullying in the United States: Findings from a national sample. Psychiatric Quarterly, 81, 183-195.

Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., Terrell, K., & Howard, M. O. (2009). Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 1213-1218.

Widom, C. S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect and adult behavior: Research design and findings on criminality, violence and child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 355-367.

Author Biographies

Kelly E. Knight, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. She received her PhD from the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder and has held posi-tions at the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence and at the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Her primary research interests include life-course criminology, victimology, and the family.



Knight et al. 21

Colter Ellis, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Sam Houston State University. He is currently the chair-elect of the Animals & Society section of the American Sociological Association. His research focuses on human–animal interactions in exploitative contexts.

Sara B. Simmons, MA, is a PhD student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include the long-term consequences of intimate partner violence, including substance use, mental health, and incarceration.



parental predictors of children's animal abuse: findings from a national and intergenerational...

Documents