writing project for popular culture class

Received: 17 April 2018 Revised: 16 July 2018 Accepted: 20 July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2370

S P E C I A L I S S U E A R T I C L E

The relations among animal abuse, psychological disorders, and crime: Implications for forensic assessment

Frank R. Ascione1 | Shelby E. McDonald2 | Philip Tedeschi1 |

James Herbert Williams3

1 Graduate School of Social Work, University

of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

2 School of Social Work, Virginia

Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,

USA

3 School of Social Work, Arizona State

University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Correspondence

Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D., Scholar‐in‐Residence, University of Denver, Graduate School of

Social Work, Craig Hall 463, 2148 High St,

Denver, CO 80208, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Behav Sci Law. 2018;36:717–729. wileyo

Abstract

The confluence of developments in the assessment of ani-

mal abuse, the evolution of psychiatric nosology for the

diagnosis of conduct disorder, legislative changes involving

crimes against non‐human animals, and the recent inclusion

of crimes against animals in the FBI's National Incident‐

Based Reporting System, highlights the critical need for

examining the forensic dimensions of animal abuse cases.

We provide an overview of the research literature on these

topics in the hope that forensic evaluators will have an evi-

dence‐based framework for assessing cases they encounter

that include perpetration of violence against animals.

1 | INTRODUCTION

Despite the ubiquity of pets and other animals in Westernized societies, their fate as victims of abuse and violence at

the hands of humans has only recently received research attention in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, social work,

and criminology. In the current paper, we contribute to the sociological understanding of animal abuse (AA) by pro-

viding a critical integration of literature on AA, psychological disorders, and crime, to inform an evidence‐based

framework for assessing violence against animals. Our review begins with a review of early research on AA, including

the evolution of AA as a behavioral indicator of psychopathology in children. This section is followed by a review of

current challenges and developments in the assessment of AA in children. Next, we integrate literature on relations

between AA, child and adult psychopathology, and crime. Finally, we conclude our review by discussing the state of

current knowledge in this area, and the implications of this work in the context of forensic assessment and future

research.

We obtained material for this review through multiple search methods, including electronic and hand searching

of key journals and databases, index terms and named authors, reference scanning, and citation tracking. This review

is intended to be a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, summary of the literature to guide future work in this area.

Search terms included animal/pet cruelty, animal/pet abuse, animal maltreatment, animal torture, cruelty to

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.nlinelibrary.com/journal/bsl 717

718 ASCIONE ET AL.

animals/pets, killing animal/dog/cat/pet, childhood animal cruelty, intimate partner violence (IPV), antisocial behavior,

conduct disorder (CD), and forensic animal maltreatment evaluations.

2 | EARLY RESEARCH AND THE EVOLUTION OF AA IN THE DSM

The purported relation between AA and other antisocial behavior and criminal acts was emphasized in the earliest

writings of leaders in the animal welfare field (e.g., Angell, 1884). Exaggerated claims about this relation were not

uncommon (“What shows a worse disposition than to abuse a poor dumb creature. It is the beginning of a course that

leads to robbery and murder”; Grier, 2006) and reflected a belief that the abuse of animals presaged violence toward

people, an idea known as the “graduation hypothesis.” Unfortunately, the empirical basis for this belief was non‐

existent and still awaits rigorous prospective research.

Early attempts at creating a typology for assessing AA in young offenders combined acts of cruelty toward ani-

mals and cruelty toward children in one category (Burt, 1925), but did separate cruelty from acts of property destruc-

tion, such as vandalism and fire setting. In contrast to the study of AA, there is a substantial body of early literature

on the psychological significance of fire setting (Lewis & Yarnell, 1951; Sakheim & Osborn, 1994), perhaps due to the

more observable outcome of fire setting, the potential for human injury and death, and the interest of (and research

funding from) insurance companies. More serious forms of juvenile fire setting are associated with AA (Becker,

Stuewig, Herrera, & McCloskey, 2004; Sakheim & Osborn, 1994), although their co‐occurrence may not have unique

predictive value in psychological assessment (Baglivio, Wolff, Delisi, Vaughn, & Piquero, 2017).

The first research study specifically designed to examine the association between AA and mental health in chil-

dren was conducted by Tapia (1971) and was followed by seminal research on AA histories in criminal samples con-

ducted by Felthous and colleagues (Felthous, 1980; Felthous & Kellert, 1986; Felthous & Bernard, 1979). When this

research was being conducted, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders of the American

Psychiatric Association (1980) had not yet included AA as a symptom of antisocial behavior in childhood and

adolescence.

DSM‐III‐R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) was the first edition to include AA as a symptom of CD, but

it was unclear whether AA was akin to vandalism (property destruction) or to interpersonal violence (cruelty to chil-

dren). Later editions of the DSM (IV, IV‐TR, and 5, American Psychiatric Association, 1994, 2000, and , 2013, respec-

tively) grouped “physical cruelty to animals” in a category labeled “Aggression to people and animals” that included

bullying, physical fighting, and using a weapon that could inflict harm on others (Signal, Ghea, Taylor, & Acutt,

2013). It is worthy of note that AA has been found to be associated with both traditional and cyberbullying (Sanders

& Henry, 2017), the latter not specifically noted in the DSM.

Inclusion of AA as a symptom of CD has resulted in greater information about the prevalence and significance of

this symptom in understanding violence perpetrated by young people. However, the fields of human–animal interac-

tion, psychology, psychiatry, social work, and criminology have been plagued by a lack of consensus on the definition

of “cruelty to animals” and AA. Early in our own study of this topic, we developed a definition of AA that we believed

would foster greater consistency in research studies: “… non‐accidental, socially unacceptable behavior that causes

pain, suffering, or distress to and/or the death of an animal” (Ascione & Shapiro, 2009, p. 570). This definition is

now widely used in this area of research.

We referred to AA as “non‐accidental” behavior as a parallel to current definitions of child maltreatment and as

“socially unacceptable” to capture variations in social and cultural norms in beliefs about how animals should be

treated (McGreevy, Griffiths, Ascione, & Wilson, 2018). This definition still suffers from a failure to specify the

species of animals that should be included, although it could be argued that species type is not relevant to a

general definition of AA due to social and cultural variations in relationships with various species. Similarly to child

maltreatment, AA may include acts of omission (e.g., neglecting to provide essential care) and commission

(e.g., physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse). The concept of non‐accidental injuries to animals has since taken hold

ASCIONE ET AL. 719

in the veterinary profession (McGuinness, Allen, & Jones, 2005; Munro & Thrusfield, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d;

Tong, 2014) and is informing the burgeoning field of veterinary forensics (Levitt, Patronek, & Grisso, 2015; Munro

& Munro, 2008; Merck, 2012; Stern & Smith‐Blackmore, 2016).

3 | ASSESSING AA

Since the topography and victims of AA are varied, Ascione, Thompson, and Black (1997) developed a semi‐struc-

tured interview, the Children and Animals Assessment Instrument or CAAI, in an attempt to capture these variations.

The CAAI integrates quantitative and qualitative methods to assess several dimensions of cruelty to animals: fre-

quency, severity, duration, recency, and empathy. Open‐ended questions at the conclusion of the interview provided

an opportunity to explore possible motivations for abusing animals, factors that might prove valuable for prevention

and intervention efforts. The interview content was based, in part, on a review of clinical literature related to child-

hood perpetration of AA (Ascione, 1993). Forms for both caregiver‐reported and child self‐reports of AA were

designed, given that caregivers may not always be aware of or observe their children's acts of AA.

The motivations children may have for engaging in AA were described in a review prepared for the US Office of

Juvenile Justice (Ascione, 2001). These include, for example, controlling the animal, to retaliate against the animal, to

satisfy prejudice against a species or breed (e.g., hatred of cats), and to express aggression through an animal (e.g., to

inflict pain to create a mean dog). Since the publication of that review, numerous summaries of the relevant research

literature to date have been published, and their contents will not be duplicated in this article. We refer the reader

to the work of Ascione (2005b, 2007, 2008), Levitt et al. (2015), Monsalve, Ferreira, and Garcia (2017), and McDonald

(2018). Topographies of and motivations for AA continue to be a focus of research attention (Newberry, 2018). For

example, the retrospective study by Hensley and Tallichet (2005) of incarcerated adults found that the most common

motivation for AA perpetrated in childhood and/or adolescence included anger (48%), followed by “fun”, out of “dislike

for the animal”, to control the animal, fear of the animal, revenge/to intimidate someone, for sex, and to shock people.

Although the CAAI yielded detailed information about childhood AA, the time required to administer the CAAI

likely hindered its widespread adoption in the research and clinical communities. Since the publication of the CAAI, a

number of more easily administered assessments of AA have appeared (e.g., Alleyne, Tilston, Parfitt, & Butcher,

2015; Guymer, Mellor, Luk, & Pearse, 2001). An assessment closest to the intent and content of the CAAI, yet more

easily administered, is the Cruelty to Animals Inventory (CAI) developed by Dadds et al. (2004), which asks children

about AA (i.e., Have you ever hurt an animal on purpose?) by breaking down questions based on environments in which

animals live (e.g., wild animals, animals in the home) as well as types of animal (e.g., worms and insects; amphibians and

reptiles; mammals). For children who report having purposefully hurt an animal (in any category), they are asked to elab-

orate on their behavior (i.e., what they did, what happened). These descriptions can be qualitatively analyzed in order to

gain more insight into children's perceptions of their own perpetration of animal cruelty (see, e.g., McDonald et al.,

2018). A caregiver‐report version of the CAI is also available; both caregiver report and child self‐report forms have

demonstrated excellent internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity with an observational mea-

sure of AA in prior studies. It should be noted, however, that this measure does not capture a unidimensional construct,

as questions about both exposure to and perpetration of AA comprise the set of survey items. Given the ease of admin-

istration of the CAI, we recommend its adoption in future mixed methods research on AA.

4 | AA AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS

4.1 | Conduct disorder in childhood and adolescence

As noted earlier, the DSM‐III‐R was the first edition to include AA among symptoms of CD. Although certain forms of

AA, separate from their co‐occurrence with other antisocial behaviors, are worthy of attention in their own right

720 ASCIONE ET AL.

(Signal et al., 2013), AA has most often been examined in the context of CD. As we highlight research studies in this

area, the reader is reminded that AA was most often treated as a dichotomous, not a dimensional, variable.

CD diagnoses are also dichotomous, although age of onset and a recently added clinical specifier, “with limited

prosocial emotions (LPE)” (DSM‐5, American Psychiatric Association, 2013), provide some dimensional refinements.

This clinical specifier is used to identify CD with concurrent callous/unemotional (CU) traits. Youth with co‐occurring

CD and CU traits designate a more severe, aggressive subgroup of youth as compared with those having conduct

problems alone (Frick & White, 2008). Due to the stigma attached to “CU traits,” the specifier “LPE” is used to assess

current and future functioning of youth diagnosed with CD and to guide treatment planning.

Gelhorn, Sakai, Price, and Crowley (2007) examined AA in the context of CD and antisocial personality disorder

(APD) in a large (N = 41,571) nationally representative sample of adults, finding that for men self‐reports of AA were

associated with both CD and APD. The recently included LPE specifier (DSM‐5, 2013) may prove to be valuable in

studies of AA (Kahn, Frick, Youngstrom, Findling, & Youngstrom, 2012; Klahr & Burt, 2014; Longman, Hawes, &

Kohlhoff, 2016; Scheepers, Buitelaar, & Matthys, 2011; Walters, 2013, 2014), especially since deficits in empathy

and CU traits may be implicated in some cases of AA (McDonald, Collins, et al., 2017; Plant, van Schaik, Gullone,

& Flynn, 2016). We note that the developing field of behavioral epigenetics lends support to the associations among

CD, CU traits, DNA methylation (Cecil et al., 2014; Dadds et al., 2014), and levels of serotonin (Moul, Dobson‐Stone,

Brennan, Hawes, & Dadds, 2013). Our own research supports associations among exposure to animal abuse, CU

traits, and children's internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (McDonald, Graham‐Bermann, Maternick,

Ascione, & Williams, 2016; McDonald, Collins, et al., 2017).

Although the etiologies of CD are, no doubt, varied, CU traits have been associated with multiple adverse child-

hood experiences, such as physical and sexual maltreatment (Bright, Huq, Spencer, Applebaum, & Hardt, 2018;

McEwen, Moffitt, & Arseneault, 2014), IPV (Ascione, Friedrich, Heath, & Hayashi, 2003; Currie, 2006; McDonald

et al., 2018), and other familial influences (Wertz et al., 2016). It remains untested whether early adverse experiences,

including AA exposure, may foster the development of CU traits in youth, and exacerbate genetic and environmental

risk for CU and AA behaviors.

5 | ANIMAL ABUSE AND ADULT PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS

Associations between AA and adult psychiatric disorders are the subject of increasing research attention (Febres

et al., 2014; Gleyzer, Felthous, & Holzer, 2002; Stupperich & Strack, 2016; van Wijk, Hardeman, & Endenburg,

2018). Utilizing a large nationally representative sample of US adults, Vaughn et al. (2009) found that AA was asso-

ciated with lifetime APD, as well as alcohol use disorders, obsessive–compulsive and histrionic personality disorders,

and pathological gambling. Among studies examining associations between APD and AA in forensic samples, findings

have been mixed. Gleyzer et al. (2002) found that an APD diagnosis was more than four times more likely for a sam-

ple of criminal defendants with a history of “substantial” AA (i.e., a pattern of deliberate, repeated, and unwarranted

harm to vertebrate animals in a manner likely to cause injury) than those without such a history. In contrast, our

recent study of men incarcerated for domestic violence related offenses found no association between APD diagno-

sis and perpetration of animal cruelty (Haden, McDonald, Booth, Ascione, & Blakelock, 2018). It is important to note

that research in this area tends to employ smaller samples and retrospective designs. Moreover, inconsistencies in

sampling procedures (e.g., severity of crimes committed) may account for differences across studies.

6 | AA AND CRIME

The relationship between animal abuse and crime has been examined in many areas, as crime includes many forms.

Below we concentrate on the literature in three important areas: school shootings, community and interpersonal vio-

lence, and IPV.

ASCIONE ET AL. 721

6.1 | School shootings

As we prepared this article, the USA experienced another horrific school shooting that took place in Parkland, FL (“At

least 17 dead in Florida school shooting, law enforcement says”, https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida‐high‐

school‐shooting/index.html). Reviews of the AA backgrounds of school shooters rarely include officially documented

reports of such behavior; most often rely on media coverage and anecdotal statements of peers (Arluke & Madfis,

2014). It is almost pro forma to assume that mass and serial killers have a history of AA. However, Arluke and Madfis

(2014) reported that, among 23 perpetrators of school shootings between 1998 and 2012, the majority (57%) had no

history of AA. Indeed, a recent meta‐analysis (Patterson‐Kane, 2016) of studies examining AA among violent

offenders noted a relatively weak link between AA and human‐directed violence, as the majority of those who mis-

treat animals do not go on to perpetrate violent acts against humans. Still, collectively, studies in this area suggest

that animal maltreatment may be a risk factor for later aggressive and criminal behavior.

6.2 | Community and interpersonal violence

The relationship between AA and less high‐profile crimes is likely more complex. A series of recent studies shed light

on sociological factors correlated with AA, such as community crime rates and related socioeconomic hardship

(Burchfield, 2016, 2017; White & Quick, 2018). Studies of individual psychopathology provide analyses of AA and

its relation to different forms of criminal offending (Mertz‐Perez & Heide, 2003). For example, Arluke, Levin, Luke,

and Ascione (1999) found that adults who had been prosecuted for active forms of AA (in contrast to a comparable

sample of individuals without such a history) were more likely to have state criminal records for violent, property, or

drug offenses. In 200 randomly selected cases of people arrested for AA in New South Wales, Australia, Gullone and

Clarke (2008) reported that 61% of these individuals had a criminal record for assaults, 55% for domestic violence,

20% for assaulting police, and 17% for sexual assault.

Associations between AA and sexual homicide have been reported (DeLisi & Beauregard, 2018; Ressler, Burgess,

& Douglas, 1988), and different forms of sex offending are related to different forms of AA. A Colorado study exam-

ined developmental experiences of incarcerated rapists and child sexual abusers (n = 269), whose offender classifica-

tions were derived from both official records and polygraphy (Simons, Wurtele, & Durham, 2008). As part of a more

comprehensive assessment, participants reported on their histories of AA and bestiality, a misdemeanor in 21 states

and a felony in 21 (Wisch, 2017a). AA was reported by 44% of child sexual abusers and 68% of rapists, and the

results for bestiality were 38% and 11%, respectively. Hands‐on forms of physical animal abuse, as well as bestiality,

have been found to be related to interpersonal violence and sexual offending against humans in a recent FBI (Federal

Bureau of Investigations) study (Levitt, Hoffer, & Loper, 2016).

The sexual abuse of animals may produce negligible physical harm to the victims (see, e.g., Wilcox, Foss, &

Donathy, 2005), but can also cause injury or death, depending on the manner of sexual assault and the species of

animal (Ascione, 2005a; Imbschweiler, Kummerfeld, Gerhard, Pfeiffer, & Wohlsein, 2009). Bestiality may, on occasion,

also cause injury to the human perpetrator (Blevins, 2009). Bestiality's relation to other forms of AA and interpersonal

violence is now being studied as a forensic issue from psychological, legal, and veterinary perspectives (Holoyda &

Newman, 2016; Holoyda, 2017; Hvozdík et al., 2006; Munro, 2006; Stern & Smith‐Blackmore, 2016). One of the

challenges of studying bestiality in forensic samples is the potential for underreporting (Schenk, Cooper‐Lehki,

Keelan, & Fremouw, 2014). However, such study is more imperative than ever given the FBI's recent inclusion of ani-

mal sexual abuse among crimes against animals in its National Incident‐Based Reporting System (FBI, 2016).

6.3 | Intimate partner violence

A number of issues implicated in AA perpetrated in the context of IPV warrant forensic attention and are discussed

below. These include assessing the AA experiences of survivors of IPV and their children, AA as a risk factor for dif-

ferent forms and severity of IPV, children's exposure to AA as an adverse childhood experience related to children's

722 ASCIONE ET AL.

adjustment, and legal aspects of animal welfare in homes experiencing IPV, especially the inclusion of animals in

orders of protection. Although research on some of these topics has been conducted with non‐clinical convenience

samples (Henry, 2004), we will focus on research with survivors of IPV. More comprehensive reviews on AA and IPV

are available (Kimber, Adham, Gill, McTavish, & MacMillan, 2018; McDonald, 2018; Monsalve et al., 2017; Newberry,

2017).

6.3.1 | Assessing AA in the context of IPV

Anecdotal reports of AA in the early literature on IPV were ubiquitous (Gordon, 1988; Jacobson & Gottman, 1998;

Pizzey, 1974; Pleck, 1987; Walker, 1980), but the first study to query IPV survivors about AA was Renzetti's

(1992) study of women in lesbian relationships (38% of women with pets reported AA perpetrated by their partners).

The first study specifically designed to ask IPV survivors (n = 38) about AA found that actual harm to or killing of pets

was reported by 57% of women at a domestic violence shelter in Utah (Ascione, 1998). Similar results were reported

in two replications, with larger samples, in Utah (54% reporting that pets were hurt or killed—Ascione et al., 2007) and

Melbourne, Australia (53%—Volant, Johnson, Gullone, & Coleman, 2008). Corroboration of these reports comes from

two studies that interviewed men arrested for and/or admitting to perpetrating IPV (41%—Febres et al., 2014; 50%—

Haden et al., 2018). AA is more likely to be experienced by women reporting close relationships with their pets

(Hardesty, Khaw, Ridgway, Weber, & Miles, 2013). One study found that female perpetrators of IPV also reported

perpetrating AA, but at a much lower level of prevalence (17%—Febres et al., 2012).

The assessment of AA used by Ascione et al. (2007) and Volant et al. (2008) included questions about partners'

threats to harm animals, as well as actual harm to or killing of animals, women's emotional states after experiencing

AA, and level of closeness to the animal victims of abuse. The format of this assessment and the nature of the sam-

ples (women in crisis) precluded traditional assessment of psychometric properties (e.g., coefficient alpha, test–retest

reliability). Since most other research studies used a dichotomous question to ask about AA, it is encouraging to

report that a more refined assessment measure, the Partner's Treatment of Animals Scale (PTAS), is now available

(Fitzgerald, Barrett, Shwom, Stevenson, & Chernyak, 2016).

The PTAS scale contains 40 items related to AA that may occur in the context of IPV with a five‐point response

scale ranging from “never” to “very frequently.” The forms of AA measured include emotional abuse of animals,

threats to harm animals, physical neglect of animals, physical abuse of animals, sexual abuse of animals, and severe

physical abuse of animals. It is important to note, however, that this measure was developed and tested using a small

sample (n = 55). Although the measure is promising, further psychometric evaluations of the PTAS that incorporate

large samples and rigorous statistical techniques (e.g., item response theory, structural equation modeling) are needed

in order to determine the utility of the measure in clinical and community samples.

6.3.2 | Risk for other violence

Survivors reporting AA are also more likely to report experiences of sexual violence, rape, emotional violence, and

stalking than women whose pets have not been harmed (Simmons & Lehmann, 2007). Using the PTAS, Barrett, Fitz-

gerald, Stevenson, and Cheung (2017) found that survivors reporting AA by their partner were at greater risk for

more frequent and more severe IPV. In a recent study examining reports from police officers at IPV scenes (Campbell,

Thompson, Harris, & Wiehe, 2018), women reporting IPV by a suspect with a history of AA (in contrast to no such

history) were significantly more likely to report being strangled (76%) and forced to have sex (26%) in addition to

other IPV lethality risks (e.g., threats to kill the victim or her child, suspect's easy access to a gun).

6.3.3 | Children's exposure to AA and IPV

Explorations of the etiology of CD and APD have included a focus on the potentially deleterious effects of children's

exposure to IPV (Howell, Thurston, Hasselle, Decker, & Jamison, 2018; Kimber et al., 2018; Vu, Jouriles, McDonald, &

Rosenfield, 2016), but less often on exposure to AA, especially AA perpetrated by a caregiver. Ascione et al. (2007)

ASCIONE ET AL. 723

found that 67% of children whose mothers were IPV survivors reported that they had seen or heard pet animal

abuse. In 2010, three of us (Ascione, Williams, and McDonald) began a four‐year project, funded by the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant 5R01HD66503–4) and the American Society for the Pre-

vention of Cruelty to Animals, to examine the correlates of children's exposure to both IPV and AA. The details of the

design of this study and characteristics of the sample can be found in the work of McDonald et al. (2015).

A review of the results of this project thus far are summarized by McDonald (2018), and include identifying the

mediational role of CU traits in the association between childhood AA exposure and externalizing behaviors. More-

over, we have found that children (and their victimized caregivers) distinguish between multiple forms of AA, includ-

ing AA as a tactic of coercive control against their parent/siblings, AA meant to punish animals for misbehavior, and

callous abuse/torturing of pets (McDonald et al., 2015; McDonald et al., 2016; McDonald, Cody, et al., 2017;

McDonald, Collins, et al., 2017; McDonald, Dmitrieva, et al., 2017). A notable finding from this study is that many

children were physically and emotionally victimized as a result of protecting a pet during incidents of AA perpetrated

by an abusive caregiver, which may exacerbate their risk for serious injury and maladjustment.

As a whole, findings from this project also highlight the critical need for a multidimensional measure of exposure

to AA that adequately captures the complex and dynamic nature of this construct. Such a measure may provide crit-

ical instrumentation for future longitudinal research that aims to examine the etiology of antisocial behavior across

the life course, particularly AA. Studies have primarily relied on four measures of AA exposure: the Physical and Emo-

tional Tormenting against Animals Scale (Baldry, 2004; four AA exposure items), the Boat Inventory on Animal‐

Related Experiences (Boat, 1994; two AA exposure items), the CAI—Revised Version (Dadds et al., 2004; two AA

exposure items), and the Pet Treatment Survey (Ascione, 2011; one AA exposure item). These measures were not

designed to measure children's AA exposure.

Another potential assessment of such exposure is now available (Children's Exposure to Domestic Violence

Scale, CEDV; Edleson, Johnson, & Shin, 2007). The CEDV is notable for including both caregiver and child self‐report

forms. Still, the scale only includes one item assessing the frequency and proximity of children's exposure to AA per-

petrated by a caregiver's partner.

6.3.4 | AA and the inclusion of animals in protective orders

Society's growing awareness of the significance of companion animals in the welfare and lives of survivors of IPV and

their children is reflected in the now common practice of allowing pets and other animals to be included in orders of

protection requested by a survivor of IPV. In 2006, the state of Maine became the first to enact legislature on this

issue; as of 2017, 32 other states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have followed suit (Wisch, 2017b).

Two bills pending in the United States' 114th Congress (H.R. 1258 and S. 1559) that are designed to support pro-

grams for sheltering pets of IPV survivors specifically note that “It is the sense of Congress that States should encour-

age the inclusion of protections against violent or threatening acts against the pet of the person in domestic violence

protection orders.”

7 | DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT OF AA

As we noted earlier, the field of forensic veterinary medicine has expanded dramatically over the past two decades.

However, there is a critical need for psychological/psychiatric forensic assessment of AA cases. In the USA, state

statutes may permit, provide, and/or mandate that judges order a mental health evaluation for individuals who are

convicted of AA (Levitt et al., 2015). Although the frequency of these forensic animal maltreatment evaluations

(FAMEs) is unknown, the number of clinical assessment instruments that have emerged in recent years (e.g., Factors

in the Assessment of Dangerousness in Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty, Lockwood, 2013; AniCare Model, Shapiro &

Henderson, 2016) suggest that this is an emerging area of forensic mental health assessment (Levitt et al., 2015;

Tedeschi, 2015). Still there is a need for empirical evaluations of the reliability and validity of these clinical tools.

724 ASCIONE ET AL.

As part of the Colorado LINK Project (https://tinyurl.com/y8r8tvue), the third author (Tedeschi) has been

spearheading a systematic effort to develop an assessment framework that could guide such forensic evaluations.

This effort is informed by recent recommendations for the improvement of forensic assessments in psychiatry

(Glancy et al., 2015). Tedeschi's Animal Abusers Interview and Risk Assessment Tool (AARAT) is designed to distill

elements of animal abuse incidents to inform assessment of risk for future AA offending as well as cross‐over

offending against humans. These elements, based in part on the early, important work of Felthous and Kellert

(1986), are detailed by Tedeschi (2015). The AARAT includes dimensions such as characteristics of the animal victim

(s), the severity of injuries, perpetrator's sexual arousal during the offense, intentional documentation of the incident,

whether the AA incident was accompanied by other illegal acts, motivations, and level of culpability. The develop-

ment and field‐testing of the AARAT is being conducted in conjunction with the University of Denver Graduate

School of Professional Psychology's Forensic Institute for Research, Service and Training (https://tinyurl.com/

y83r67ww).

The AARAT could also prove valuable to professionals who provide support for IPV survivors struggling to decide

whether to stay with or leave an abuser (Collins et al., 2017; Hageman et al., 2018). Risk assessment for future AA

could be critical information for programs providing shelter for the pets of IPV survivors (Ascione, 2000).

8 | CONCLUSIONS

In this article we have provided a review of literature on AA, psychological disorders, and crime, and addressed the

implications of the current knowledge in the context of recent developments in forensic assessment. Collectively,

the body of work that has been reviewed documents that our understanding of the sociological underpinnings of

AA has increased in the last few decades due to the growing number of studies in this area. Still, the majority of stud-

ies that inform our knowledge of AA have been cross‐sectional in design and/or reported on small samples with

insufficient power to test causal hypotheses. As a result, empirical knowledge of mechanisms that explain the etiol-

ogy of AA behaviors across the life course is limited.

Our review highlights the need for large‐scale longitudinal studies that attend to children's exposure to and per-

petration of AA, and potential sociocontexual factors (e.g., culture, adverse childhood experiences, economic hard-

ship) and affective processes (e.g., CU traits, CD, anger dysregulation) that may play a role in the onset and

maintenance of AA behavior. First, however, the field must first prioritize psychometric studies to provide critical

instrumentation for longitudinal research in this area, given increasing evidence of the multidimensional and complex

nature of exposure to and perpetration of AA. Knowledge of longitudinal relations between AA and various sociolog-

ical factors, particularly trauma, psychopathology, and crime, is essential to informing the development and/or testing

of FAME tools. We recommend that research be conducted to examine the ability of existing FAME instruments to

measure and predict an individual's risk of AA and violence over time, as well as the feasibility of their administration

across forensic and community settings.

REFERENCES

Alleyne, E., Tilston, L., Parfitt, C., & Butcher, R. (2015). Adult‐perpetrated animal abuse: Development of a proclivity scale. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(6), 570–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.999064

American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐III. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐III‐R. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV‐TR. Washington, DC: Author.

ASCIONE ET AL. 725

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐5. Washington, DC: Author.

Angell, G. T. (1884). The new order of mercy; or, crime and its prevention. Washington, DC: Bureau of Education. Paper pre- sented at the meeting of the Department of Superintendence of the National Educational Association.

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(9), 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014009004

Arluke, A., & Madfis, E. (2014). Animal abuse as a warning sign of school massacres: A critique and refinement. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913511459

Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopa- thology. Anthrozoös, 6(4), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279393787002105

Ascione, F. R. (1998). Battered women's reports of their partners' and their children's cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v01n01_06

Ascione, F. R. (2000). Safe havens for pets: Guidelines for programs sheltering pets for women who are battered. Logan, UTAuthor. Retrieved from http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/safe_havens.html

Ascione, F. R. (2001). Animal abuse and youth violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.. https://doi.org/10.1037/e304142003‐001

Ascione, F. R. (2005a). Bestiality: Petting, “humane rape”, sexual assault, and the enigma of sexual interations between humans and non‐human animals. Anthrozoös, 18, 219–228.

Ascione, F. R. (2005b). Children and animals: Exploring the roots of kindness and cruelty. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

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). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Ascione, F. R. (Ed.) (2008). The international handbook of animal abuse and cruelty: Theory, research, and application. Purdue. West Lafayette, IN: University Press.

Ascione, F. R. (2011). Pet Treatment Survey (unpublished rating scale).

Ascione, F. R., Friedrich, W. N., Heath, J., & Hayashi, K. (2003). Cruelty to animals in normative, sexually abused, and outpa- tient psychiatric samples of 6‐ to 12‐year‐old children: Relations to maltreatment and exposure to domestic violence. Anthrozoös, 16(3), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992116

Ascione, F. R., & Shapiro, K. (2009). People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 569–587.

Ascione, F. R., Thompson, T. M., & Black, T. (1997). Childhood cruelty to animals: Assessing cruelty dimensions and motiva- tions. Anthrozoös, 10(4), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279397787001076

Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M., & Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women, 13(4), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207299201

Baglivio, M. T., Wolff, K. T., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Juvenile animal cruelty and firesetting behav- iour. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(5), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2018

Baldry, A. C. (2004). The development of the PET scale for the measurement of physical and emotional tormenting against animals in adolescents. Society and Animals, 12(1), 1–17.

Barrett, B. J., Fitzgerald, A., Stevenson, R., & Cheung, C. H. (2017). Animal maltreatment as a risk marker of more frequent and severe forms of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260517719542

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(7), 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000128786.70992.9b

Blevins, R. O. (2009). A case of severe anal injury in an adolescent male due to bestial sexual experimentation. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 16(7), 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2009.02.001

Boat, B. (1994). Boat Inventory on Animal‐related Experiences. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Department of Psychiatry.

Bright, M. A., Huq, M. S., Spencer, T., Applebaum, J. W., & Hardt, N. (2018). Animal cruelty as an indicator of family trauma: Using adverse childhood experiences to look beyond child abuse and domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 76, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.011

Burchfield, K. B. (2016). The sociology of animal crime: An examination of incidents and arrests in Chicago. Deviant Behavior, 37(4), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1026769

726 ASCIONE ET AL.

Burchfield, K. B. (2017). The nature of animal crime: Scope and severity in Chicago. Crime & Delinquency. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0011128717719515

Burt, C. (1925). The young delinquent. New York, NY: Appleton.

Campbell, A. M., Thompson, S. L., Harris, T. L., & Wiehe, S. E. (2018). Intimate partner violence and pet abuse: Responding law enforcement officers' observations and victim reports from the scene. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260518759653

Cecil, C. A., Lysenko, L. J., Jaffee, S. R., Pingault, J. B., Smith, R. G., Relton, C. L., … Barker, E. D. (2014). Environmental risk, Oxytocin Receptor Gene (OXTR) methylation and youth callous–unemotional traits: A 13‐year longitudinal study. Molec- ular Psychiatry, 19(10), 1071. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.95

Collins, E. A., Cody, A. M., McDonald, S. E., Nicotera, N., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017). A template analysis of inti- mate partner violence survivors' experiences of animal maltreatment: Implications for safety planning and intervention. Violence Against Women, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217697266

Currie, C. L. (2006). Animal cruelty by children exposed to domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(4), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.014

Dadds, M. R., Moul, C., Cauchi, A., Dobson‐Stone, C., Hawes, D. J., Brennan, J., & Ebstein, R. E. (2014). Methylation of the oxytocin receptor gene and oxytocin blood levels in the development of psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology, 26(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000497

Dadds, M. R., Whiting, C., Bunn, P., Fraser, J. A., Charlson, J. H., & Pirola‐Merlo, A. (2004). Measurement of cruelty in chil- dren: The Cruelty to Animals Inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/B:JACP.0000026145.69556.d9

DeLisi, M., & Beauregard, E. (2018). Adverse childhood experiences and criminal extremity: New evidence for sexual homi- cide. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(2), 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13584

Edleson, J. L., Johnson, K. K., & Shin, N. (2007). Children's Exposure to Domestic Violence Scale: User manual. Saint Paul: Minnesota Center Against Domestic Violence (MINCAVA), University of Minnesota.

FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigations (2016, November 20). Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2016

Febres, J., Brasfield, H., Shorey, R. C., Elmquist, J., Ninnemann, A., Schonbrun, Y. C., … Stuart, G. L. (2014). Adulthood animal abuse among men arrested for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 20(9), 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077801214549641

Febres, J., Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Zucosky, H. C., Ninnemann, A., Elmquist, J., … Stuart, G. L. (2012). Adulthood animal abuse among women court‐referred to batterer intervention programs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(15), 3115–3126.

Felthous, A. R. (1980). Aggression against cats, dogs, and people. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 10(3), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01433629

Felthous, A. R., & Bernard, H. (1979). Enuresis, firesetting and cruelty to animals: The significance of two‐thirds of this triad. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 24, 240–246.

Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1986). Violence against animals and people: Is aggression against living creatures generalized? The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 14(1), 55–69.

Fitzgerald, A., Barrett, B., Shwom, R., Stevenson, R., & Chernyak, E. (2016). Development of the Partner's Treatment of Ani- mals Scale. Anthrozoös, 29(4), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228760

Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callous‐unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 49(4), 359–375.

Gelhorn, H. L., Sakai, J. T., Price, R. K., & Crowley, T. J. (2007). DSM‐IV conduct disorder criteria as predictors of antisocial personality disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48(6), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.04.009

Glancy, G. D., Ash, P., Bath, E. P. J., Buchanan, A., Fedoroff, P., Frierson, R. L., … Zonana, H. V. (2015). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic assessment. Journal of the American Academy of Psychology and the Law Online, 43(Supplement 2), S3–S53.

Gleyzer, R., Felthous, A. R., & Holzer, C. E. (2002). Animal cruelty and psychiatric disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 30(2), 257–265.

Gordon, L. (1988). Heroes of their own lives: The politics and history of family violence: Boston 1880–1960. New York: Viking, Penguin.

Grier, K. (2006). Pets in America: A history. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Gullone, E., & Clarke, J. P. (2008). Animal abuse, cruelty, and welfare: An Australian perspective. InThe International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty (pp. 305–334). West Lafayette Indiana: Purdue University Press.

ASCIONE ET AL. 727

Guymer, E. C., Mellor, D., Luk, E. S., & Pearse, V. (2001). The development of a screening questionnaire for childhood cruelty to animals. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 42(8), 1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1469‐7610.00805

Haden, S. C., McDonald, S. E., Booth, L. J., Ascione, F. R., & Blakelock, H. (2018). An exploratory study of domestic violence: Perpetrators' reports of violence against animals. Anthrozoös, 31(3), 337–352.

Hageman, T. O., Langenderfer‐Magruder, L., Greene, T., Williams, J. H., St. Mary, J., McDonald, S. E., & Ascione, F. R. (2018). Intimate partner violence survivors and pets: Exploring practitioners' experiences in addressing client needs. Families in Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389418767836

Hardesty, J. L., Khaw, L., Ridgway, M. D., Weber, C., & Miles, T. (2013). Coercive control and abused women's decisions about their pets when seeking shelter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(13), 2617–2639.

Henry, B. C. (2004). Exposure to animal abuse and group context: Two factors affecting participation in animal abuse. Anthrozoös, 17, 290–305.

Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2005). Learning to be cruel?: Exploring the onset and frequency of animal cruelty. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 49(1), 37–47.

Holoyda, B. (2017). Bestiality in forensically committed sexual offenders: A case series. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(2), 541–544.

Howell, K. H., Thurston, I. B., Hasselle, A. J., Decker, K., & Jamison, L. E. (2018). Systemic factors associated with prosocial skills and maladaptive functioning in youth exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence. https://doi.org 10.1177/0886260518766420

Holoyda, B. J., & Newman, W. J. (2016). Childhood animal cruelty, bestiality, and the link to adult interpersonal violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 129–135.

Hvozdík, A., Bugarský, A., Kottferová, J., Vargová, M., Ondrašovičová, O. G., Ondrašovič, M., & Sasáková, N. A. (2006). Etho- logical, psychological and legal aspects of animal sexual abuse. Veterinary Journal, 172(2), 374–376.

Imbschweiler, I., Kummerfeld, M., Gerhard, M., Pfeiffer, I., & Wohlsein, P. (2009). Animal sexual abuse in a female sheep. Vet- erinary Journal, 182(3), 481–483.

Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women: New insights into ending abusive relationships. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Kahn, R. E., Frick, P. J., Youngstrom, E., Findling, R. L., & Youngstrom, J. K. (2012). The effects of including a callous–unemo- tional specifier for the diagnosis of conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(3), 271–282.

Kimber, M., Adham, S., Gill, S., McTavish, J., & MacMillan, H. L. (2018). The association between child exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and perpetration of IPV in adulthood—A systematic review. Child Abuse and Neglect, 76, 273–286.

Klahr, A. M., & Burt, S. A. (2014). Practitioner Review: Evaluation of the known behavioral heterogeneity in conduct disorder to improve its assessment and treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(12), 1300–1310.

Levitt, L., Patronek, G., & Grisso, T. (Eds.) (2015). Animal maltreatment: Forensic mental health issues and evaluations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, N. D. C., & Yarnell, H. (1951). Pathological firesetting: Pyromania (No. 82). New York, NY: Nervous and Mental Disease Monographs.

Levitt, L., Hoffer, T. A., & Loper, A. B. (2016). Criminal histories of a subsample of animal cruelty offenders. Aggression and violent behavior, 30, 48–58.

Lockwood, R (2013). Factors in the Assessment of Dangerousness in Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty. Retrieved from http:// coloradolinkproject.com/dangerousness‐factors‐2/

Longman, T., Hawes, D. J., & Kohlhoff, J. (2016). Callous–unemotional traits as markers for conduct problem severity in early childhood: a meta‐analysis. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 47(2), 326–334.

McDonald, S. E. (2018). Animal maltreatment in households experiencing family violence. In The Routledge international hand- book of human aggression: Current issues and perspectives.

McDonald, S. E., Cody, A., Collins, E., Stim, H., Nicotera, N., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017). Concomitant exposure to animal abuse and socioemotional adjustment among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A mixed methods study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653‐017‐0176‐6

McDonald, S. E., Cody, A. M., Booth, L. J., Peers, J. R., Luce, C. O. C., Williams, J. H., & Ascione, F. R. (2018). Animal cruelty among children in violent households: Children's explanations of their behavior. Journal of Family Violence, 13(7), 469–480.

728 ASCIONE ET AL.

McDonald, S. E., Collins, E. A., Maternick, A., Nicotera, N., Graham‐Bermann, S., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017). Inti- mate partner violence survivors' reports of their children's exposure to companion animal maltreatment: A qualitative study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516689775

McDonald, S. E., Collins, E. A., Nicotera, N., Hageman, T. O., Ascione, F. R., Williams, J. H., & Graham‐Bermann, S. A. (2015). Children's experiences of companion animal maltreatment in households characterized by intimate partner violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 50, 116–127.

McDonald, S. E., Dmitrieva, J., Shin, S., Hitti, S. A., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017). The role of callous/unemotional traits in mediating the association between animal abuse exposure and behavior problems among children exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 72, 421–432.

McDonald, S. E., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., Maternick, A., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2016). Patterns of adjustment among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A person‐centered approach. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 9(2), 137–152.

McEwen, F. S., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Is childhood cruelty to animals a marker for physical maltreatment in a prospective cohort study of children? Child Abuse and Neglect, 38(3), 533–543.

McGreevy, P. D., Griffiths, M. D., Ascione, F. R., & Wilson, B. (2018). Flogging tired horses: Who wants whipping and who would walk away if whipping horses were withheld? PLoS One, 13(2), e0192843.

McGuinness, K., Allen, M., & Jones, B. R. (2005). Non‐accidental injury in companion animals in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Veterinary Journal, 58(7), 392.

Merck, M. (2012). Veterinary forensics: Animal cruelty investigations. Iowa, USA: Blackwell Publishing.

Mertz‐Perez, L., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Animal cruelty: Pathway to violence against people. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

Monsalve, S., Ferreira, F., & Garcia, R. (2017). The connection between animal abuse and interpersonal violence: A review from the veterinary perspective. Research in Veterinary Science, 114, 18–26.

Moul, C., Dobson‐Stone, C., Brennan, J., Hawes, D., & Dadds, M. (2013). An exploration of the serotonin system in antisocial boys with high levels of callous–unemotional traits. PLoS One, 8(2), e56619.

Munro, H. M. C. (2006). Animal sexual abuse: A veterinary taboo? The Veterinary Journal, 172, 195–197.

Munro, H. M., & Munro, R. (2008). Animal abuse and unlawful killing e‐book: Forensic veterinary pathology. Edinburgh, UK: Elsevier Saunders.

Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001a). “Battered pets”: Features that raise suspicion of non‐accidental injury. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 42(5), 218–226.

Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001b). “Battered pets”: Non‐accidental physical injuries found in dogs and cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 42(6), 279–290.

Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001c). “Battered pets”: Sexual abuse. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 42(7), 333–337.

Munro, H. M. C., & Thrusfield, M. V. (2001d). “Battered pets”: Munchausen syndrome by proxy (factitious illness by proxy). Journal of Small Animal Practice, 42(8), 385–389.

Newberry, M. (2017). Pets in danger: Exploring the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 273–281.

Newberry, M. (2018). Associations between different motivations for animal cruelty, methods of animal cruelty and facets of impulsivity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(1), 52–78.

Patterson‐Kane, E. (2016). The relation of animal maltreatment to aggression. In L. Levitt, G. Patronek, & T. Grisso (Eds.), Ani- mal maltreatment: Forensic mental health issues and evaluations (pp. 140–158). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pizzey, E. (1974). Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Plant, M., van Schaik, P., Gullone, E., & Flynn, C. (2016). “It's a dog's life”: Culture, empathy, gender, and domestic violence predict animal abuse in adolescents—Implications for societal health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260516659655

Pleck, E. (1987). Domestic tyranny. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Sakheim, G. A., & Osborn, E. (1994). Firesetting children: Risk assessment and treatment. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Sanders, C. E., & Henry, B. C. (2017). The role of beliefs about aggression in cyberbullying and animal abuse. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(9), 827–840.

ASCIONE ET AL. 729

Scheepers, F. E., Buitelaar, J. K., & Matthys, W. (2011). Conduct disorder and the specifier callous and unemotional traits in the DSM‐5. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(2), 89–93.

Schenk, A. M., Cooper‐Lehki, C., Keelan, C. M., & Fremouw, W. J. (2014). Underreporting of bestiality among juvenile sex offenders: Polygraph versus self‐report. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(2), 540–542.

Shapiro, K., & Henderson, A. J. (2016). The identification, assessment, and treatment of adults who abuse animals: The AniCare approach. New York, NY: Springer.

Signal, T., Ghea, V., Taylor, N., & Acutt, D. (2013). When do psychologists pay attention to children harming animals? Human‐ Animal Interaction Bulletin, 1(2), 82–97.

Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (2007). Exploring the link between pet abuse and controlling behaviors in violent relation- ships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(9), 1211–1222.

Simons, D. A., Wurtele, S. K., & Durham, R. L. (2008). Developmental experiences of child sexual abusers and rapists. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(5), 549–560.

Stern, A. W., & Smith‐Blackmore, M. (2016). Veterinary forensic pathology of animal sexual abuse. Veterinary Pathology, 53(5), 1057–1066.

Stupperich, A., & Strack, M. (2016). Among a German sample of forensic patients, previous animal abuse mediates between psychopathy and sadistic actions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61(3), 699–705.

Tapia, F. (1971). Children who are cruel to animals. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 2(2), 70–77.

Tedeschi, P. (2015). Methods for forensic animal maltreatment evaluations (pp. 309–331). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tong, L. J. (2014). Fracture characteristics to distinguish between accidental injury and non‐accidental injury in dogs. Veter- inary Journal, 199(3), 392–398.

van Wijk, A., Hardeman, M., & Endenburg, N. (2018). Animal abuse: Offender and offence characteristics. A descriptive study. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1499

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(15), 1213–1218.

Volant, A. M., Johnson, J. A., Gullone, E., & Coleman, G. J. (2008). The relationship between domestic violence and animal abuse: An Australian study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1277–1295.

Vu, N. L., Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Rosenfield, D. (2016). Children's exposure to intimate partner violence: A meta‐ analysis of longitudinal associations with child adjustment problems. Child Psychology Review, 46, 25–33.

Walker, L. E. (1980). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Walters, G. D. (2013). Testing the specificity postulate of the violence graduation hypothesis: Meta‐analyses of the animal cruelty–offending relationship. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(6), 797–802.

Walters, G. D. (2014). Testing the direct, indirect, and moderated effects of childhood animal cruelty on future aggressive and non‐aggressive offending. Aggressive Behavior, 40(3), 238–249.

Wertz, J., Zavos, H., Matthews, T., Gray, R., Best‐Lane, J., Pariante, C. M., … Arseneault, L. (2016). Etiology of pervasive ver- sus situational antisocial behaviors: A multi‐informant longitudinal cohort study. Child Development, 87(1), 312–325.

White, G., & Quick, L. D. (2018). Animal cruelty, domestic violence, and social disorganization in a suburban setting. Deviant Behavior.. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1445442

Wilcox, D. T., Foss, C. M., & Donathy, M. L. (2005). A case study of a male sex offender with zoosexual interests and behav- iours. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11(3), 305–317.

Wisch, R. F. (2017a). Table of state animal sexual assault laws. Retrieved from https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table‐ state‐animal‐sexual‐assault‐laws

Wisch, R. F. (2017b). Domestic violence and pets: list of states that include pets in protection orders. Retrieved from https:// www.animallaw.info/article/domestic‐violence‐and‐pets‐list‐states‐include‐pets‐protection‐orders

How to cite this article: Ascione FR, McDonald SE, Tedeschi P, Williams JH. The relations among animal

abuse, psychological disorders, and crime: Implications for forensic assessment. Behav Sci Law.

2018;36:717–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370