The Connection Between Animal Abuse, Emotional Abuse, and Financial Abuse in Intimate Relationships: Evidence From a Nationally Representative Sample of the General Public
The Connection Between Animal Abuse, Emotional Abuse, and Financial Abuse in Intimate Relationships: Evidence From a Nationally Representative Sample of the General Public
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Ahead of Print.
This article empirically examines the extent to which the co-occurrence of the maltreatment of companion animals and intimate partner violence (IPV) previously documented in samples of women accessing services from domestic violence shelters extends to a nationally representative sample of the general Canadian population, with a specific focus on emotional and financial abuse. Using data from the intimate partner victimization module of the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey (n = 17,950), the authors find that reporting one’s intimate partner threatened or abused companion animals in the home increased the probability that one had experienced at least one form of emotional abuse or financial abuse by 38.6% (p ≤ .001) and 7.5% (p ≤ .001), respectively, net of several key control variables. Moreover, the findings indicate that those who identify as women are significantly more likely to report their partner emotionally or financially abused them and threatened or mistreated their pet(s); the connection between animal maltreatment and IPV is particularly pronounced for emotional IPV when compared with other forms of IPV; challenge the commonplace conceptualization of animal abuse as a form of property abuse; and suggest a need for a more nuanced understanding of IPV perpetrators vis-à-vis animal maltreatment. This is the first study to use nationally representative data to assess the co-occurrence of animal abuse and IPV, and as such, it makes significant contributions to the interdisciplinary literature on animal abuse and IPV.
This article empirically examines the extent to which the co-occurrence of the maltreatment of companion animals and intimate partner violence (IPV) previously documented in samples of women accessing services from domestic violence shelters extends to a nationally representative sample of the general Canadian population, with a specific focus on emotional and financial abuse. Using data from the intimate partner victimization module of the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey (n = 17,950), the authors find that reporting one’s intimate partner threatened or abused companion animals in the home increased the probability that one had experienced at least one form of emotional abuse or financial abuse by 38.6% (p ≤ .001) and 7.5% (p ≤ .001), respectively, net of several key control variables. Moreover, the findings indicate that those who identify as women are significantly more likely to report their partner emotionally or financially abused them and threatened or mistreated their pet(s); the connection between animal maltreatment and IPV is particularly pronounced for emotional IPV when compared with other forms of IPV; challenge the commonplace conceptualization of animal abuse as a form of property abuse; and suggest a need for a more nuanced understanding of IPV perpetrators vis-à-vis animal maltreatment. This is the first study to use nationally representative data to assess the co-occurrence of animal abuse and IPV, and as such, it makes significant contributions to the interdisciplinary literature on animal abuse and IPV.
Amy J. Fitzgerald