From a philosophical vantage point, something that has been puzzling, to me, is why some forms of animal abuse and cruelty, are associated with psychological disorders, and others, considered totally innocuous. Ubiquitous, even. Not at all associated with any cause for medical concern. How could this possibly be the case, and where does this stem from? Well, I wanted to examine the available scientific literature, in detail, in conjunction with what the consensus is, within the sphere of sociology, and discuss why this might be the case, what could potentially be done, to progress, societally, in this area, for animal liberty.

In this first part let’s examine the psychiatric pathology associated with abuse or cruelty towards animals, in different contexts, spotlighting what the consensus is among mental health professionals. But let’s define what animal abuse actually is. Broadly, the definition you’ll find across websites like Wikipedia is : “cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse, animal neglect or animal cruelty, is the infliction by omission (neglect) or by commission by humans of suffering or harm upon non-human animals. More narrowly, it can be the causing of harm or suffering for specific achievements, such as killing animals for entertainment; cruelty to animals sometimes encompasses inflicting harm or suffering as an end in itself, referred to as zoosadism (sexual pleasure derived from cruelty to animals. part of the Macdonald triad, a set of three behaviors that are considered a precursor to psychopathic behavior).” So, by the definition alone, animal abuse is tethered to psychopathy. Interesting. In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association lists animal cruelty as one of the behaviours associated with conduct disorder. This is when children show an ongoing pattern of aggression towards others and a serious pattern of rule and social norm violation. Conduct disorder is closely linked to psychopathy and can often be an initial diagnosis for a child prior to further psychological investigation into potential psychopathy diagnosis. Numerous studies and research papers, in regards to this, have been posted in the last few decades, such as this detailed study posted by a cohort of psychiatrists, neurologists, and paediatricians on published medical study website, pubmed.com, in 2017 : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607565/

Various recurring traits have been found in patients who are cruel to animals, these include:

Aggression.

Impulsiveness.

Low emotional intelligence.

Desire for power.

Selfishness.

Defiance.

A psychopath is a person who exhibits difficulty in understanding the suffering of others. If an act of cruelty, towards animals or humans, can provide some sort of benefit to them (e.g. releasing frustration), they will be more likely to carry it out. They may not even hesitate. This is why many psychopaths will engage in animal abuse. However, not all animal abusers are necessarily psychopaths. But are there any objective studies which correlate animal cruelty or abuse, to psychopathy, or any other psychological pathologies? Well, many. A study published in 2021, examined empathy-related responses to witnessing animal distress in adolescents with DBD (disruptive behaviour disorder), and high or low levels of psychopathic traits and normal controls (NC). Respondents were exposed to a film clip about a little bear in distress. During film presentation heart rate (HR) responses were monitored. Afterwards respondents were asked to rate the bear’s emotions (observed distress), whether they had experienced similar emotions (empathy) and whether they had felt compassion for the bear (sympathy). In empathy research, HR responses have been used to differentiate between sympathy and personal distress. The study concluded that indeed, cruelty towards animals was a symptom of conduct disorder, psychopathic traits, and reduced empathy, in children.

This study is available on medical research site springer.com : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10862-021-09891-2

Another study was posted just this past year, in 2023, by a group of psychologists in Spain. The main aim of the study was to analyze the relationships between psychopathy, empathy with people, and empathy with nature arising from people’s reactions to protected and domestic animal abuse and illegal dumping. Participants were asked about assigned punishments, as well as the probability of intervening personally and/or calling the police, in relation to ten scenarios, based on press releases, describing one of three types of transgression of environmental laws: abuse of protected animals, abuse of domestic animals or illegal dumping. They also responded to Spanish adaptations of the Inventory of Callous Unemotional Traits, the Basic Empathy Scale, the Dispositional Empathy with Nature Scale, and the Social Desirability Scale. Each participant was randomly given ten scenarios corresponding to just one transgression type but all the personality scales. Results show that people’s reactions were greater for abuse of domestic than protected animals or for illegal dumping, irrespective of gender. The study concluded that people are generally more empathetic towards pets than wild animals, though men are more empathetic towards wild animals, than women. Though broadly, the study concluded a lack of care and empathy within those who showed little concern when observing cruelty towards animals, were associated with psychopathic traits. The study is published on medical research site pubmed.com : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10213545/

An earlier paper on the subject, posted in 2011, by research psychologist and lecturer Eleanora Gullone, on the universal scientific acceptance of the links between animal abuse and aggressive or antisocial behaviours toward humans, yielded a similar conclusion also. This paper was a systematic review of the scientific literature on the subject, and concluded that the data gathered, draws direct co-occurrence between human-directed and animal-directed aggression and violence, with a strong correlation between animal abuse and aggressive or antisocial behaviours. Meaning, there is a strong tie between abusive behaviour to animals and to other humans. The paper is published on medical research website pubmed.com : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552201/

Another detailed study, published even further back, in 2002, by a group of American psychiatrists, on the relationship between animal cruelty and psychiatric disorders, examined forty-eight criminal defendants, with substantial history of animal abuse, in relation to a further forty-eight criminals without histroy of said abuse. A detailed analysis of both groups of individuals, concluded that criminal offenders who go on to more violent crimes, begin as children as abusers of animals, and that said abuse was associated with antisocial persoanlity disorder (APD). The study is posted on medical research site pubmed.com :

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12108563/

Thus far, the literature on the subject has been consistent, animal abuse and animal cruelty are universally associated with psychopathy, or at least psychopathic traits, antisocial personality disorder, and conduct disorder, a precursor to psychopathy, in children. With that in mind, surely some of my colleagues in the psychiatric medical community have looked at the issue from a criminology vantage point? Well, they have, prolifically. Scott A. Johnson, a US psychologist and forensic consultant, has written peer reviewed articles and meta analyses in regards to this very subject, on the relationship between cruelty towards animals and criminal behaviour perpetrated against other humans. He performed an extensive meta analysis back in 2018, which drew many correlations between criminals who began as animal abusers, and graduated naturally on to violent and criminal behaviour against other humans. The purpose of this particular study was to examine the mistreatment and abuse of animals, and how it is a significant indicator of violence towards humans, up to and including intimate partner abuse, sexual assault, rape and murder. The study examined dozens of different studies and articles written, on the subject, and concluded, and I quote, “animal abusers are more likely to engage in criminal behavior and to be diagnosed as having Antisocial Personality Disorder. Those who engage in animal cruelty were 3 times more likely to commit other crimes, including murder, rape, robbery, assault, harassment, threats, and drug/substance abuse. Over fifty years of research supports that animal cruelty is an indicator of risk for violence towards humans. Physical batterers and assaulters, as well as sexual offenders, often have a history of engaging in animal abuse. The Dark Triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy often result in violence towards animals and humans.” The study is available on medical research website medcraveonline.com :

https://medcraveonline.com/FRCIJ/animal-cruelty-pet-abuse-amp-violence-the-missed-dangerous-connection.html

Obliquely located from medical studies, an endless amount of published works of literature are available, in book form, on this very recurrant correlation between those who are cruel or abusive towards animals, and psychopathy, sociopathy, and violent/criminal behaviour. On a personal note, one I have read myself and highly recommend, is by Henry R. Hermann, a PHD in biology, and former lecturer in the Division Of Biological Sciences at The University Of Georgia, in the USA, who wrote the book “Dominance And Aggression In Humans And Other Animals,” in 2017. In this fantastic resource, Dr Hermann examines studies and articles, performed and written by an array of psychiatrists, on the association of violence towards animals and violence towards humans. He has also written numerous articles himself on the subject, such as one on scientific website sciencedirect.com, several years ago, where he examines past scientific literature on the subject. Dr Hermann writes, and I quote, “acts of cruelty to animals are symptomatic of a deep mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals do not stop there—many of them move on to their fellow humans. Murderers often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids.” So, it seems the literature is clear, abusive behaviour towards animals, is associated with the darkest acts of violence towards humans, and that mentally disturbed criminals often start with acrimonious behaviour towards animals, prior to graduating to human violence. If interested, this particular article is available here :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/cruelty-to-animals

Surely with this plethora of information, criminologists and law enforcement must have also been able to, from the prism of their own experience, interlink criminal behaviour with a past record of animal abuse. Well, indeed they have. A research paper written by Charlie Robinson, M.A, M.S, a former research fellow with the U.S Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Behavioural Analysis Unit, found a strong link between animal cruelty and human violence. The author wrote, “research shows a well-documented link that it is a predictive or co-occurring crime with violence against humans (including intimate partners, children, and elders) and is associated with other types of violent offenses,” citing : Phil Arkow, “Recognizing and Responding to Cases of Suspected Animal Cruelty, Abuse, and Neglect: What the Veterinarian Needs to Know,” Veterinary Medicine: Research and Reports. They also stated, “One study found that 16% of offenders started abusing animals and graduated to violent crimes against humans. However, in many circumstances, offenders start by hurting other humans and then progress to harming animals,” citing : Arnold Arluke et al., “The Relationship of Animal Abuse to Violence and Other Forms of Antisocial Behavior,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14, no. 9. The paper is extensive and finds the intersection of animal cruety and human cruelty many times over in western society, ending with “animal cruelty is a better predictor of sexual abuse compared to a history of homicide, arson, or weapon convictions, with a citation from : “National Link Coalition, The Link Between Violence to People and Violence to Animals,” Stanford University.

But, thus far, we have only examined the psychology of those who are intentionally cruel and abusive to animals. What about certain professional positions, where workers may not necessarily have desire to carry out cruel acts upon animals, but may have been exploited into the position, as the only means of financial survival? It has been endlessly documented on the extremely corrosive effect which slaughterhouse employment has on the human psychological process. The recurring conclusions which have been drawn, are that such work yields a massively elevated risk of trauma disorder, most commonly PTSD, and that alcohol/substance abuse, and causal acts of violence, are ubiquitously associated with the career.

Dr Chi-Chi Obuaya, consultant psychiatrist at Nightingale Mental Health Hospital in London, reported that we tend to think of PTSD as arising from a specific traumatic incident, usually among people who have had something inflicted upon them. As perpetrators of the violence, however, slaughterhouse workers experience something quite different, but profoundly destructive to their own mental well-being.

A media piece written from the perspective of one UK slaughterhouse worker, was written by Asitha Nagesh, in early 2020 by bbc.co.uk, about the harrowing effects the position had on their mental meath and stability – “the place affected my mind. As I spent day after day in that large, windowless box, my chest felt increasingly heavy and a grey fog descended over me. At night, my mind would taunt me with nightmares, replaying some of the horrors I’d witnessed throughout the day.”

Researchers in South Africa, some time after, analysed various interviews of employees and managers who worked in kill floor settings, in such slaughterhouses, and these told an identical story. These interviews yielded stories of cumulative trauma disorder, nightmares, alcoholism and substance abuse, and a lack of access to support care in such professional positions. The article, published in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, references many other papers concerning the psychological toll of slaughterhouse work, and how damaging it can be to the human psyche. Other books and works of literature have also been constructed, on the subject matter, such as “Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress – The Psychological Consequences Of Killing by psychologist Rachel M. Macnair.

In regards to studies, a peer reviewed study was conducted in 2017, on the prevalence of serious psychological distress (SPD) of slaughterhouse workers at a large beef packing plant in the USA, which concluded, and I quote – “workers at a US industrial slaughterhouse experienced higher prevalence of SPD compared to United States population-wide estimates.” The study is available medical research site, pubmed.com : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/.

Latterly, a meta analysis of numerous different studies on the subject, entitled “The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review,” was conducted in 2021, which drew a similar conclusion, that mental health disorders were unusually high in slaughterhouse work, in conjunction with it’s association to antisocial behaviour, elevated crime rates, and sexual offences. The study is also available on pubmed.com : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34231439/.

So, I rest my case, a fractured, tenuous psychology is associated with abuse or cruelty towards animals, whether intentional or coerced. But, here’s where it gets troubling, if animal cruelty/abuse is so intrinsically destructive to the human neural process, why on earth is it such a normalised part of everyday life, within society, for our food production? How could this be the case, and why hasn’t a medical professional shed light upon the issue? Well, there is a lot more to examine and a lot more to say on this, but we shall have to do so, in part 2. Let’s examine this from a sociological perspective. Perhaps I can share some personal thoughts, myself, as an animal rights activist, on how we can subvert the system, and change the illogical, cruel social norms which present before us, in everyday life.