Violent Links | Psychology Today

The FBI agent will be located across the street from the convicted murderer and review the case notes. “When did it start?” he asks. The reply was effectively the cat came first. from Mind Hunter In Criminalswe thought animal cruelty was a proverb canary in the mine for future violence.

But is that true? What should we look at Latest research It will tell you.

The Birth of Violent Link: McDonald’s Triad

In 1963, psychiatrist John McDonald studied 100 murder patients in Colorado. Psychotic hospital. He was trying to understand what these patients were like and track what happened to them. He soon began to notice many of the behaviors present in his most disturbed patients. Childhood Animal cruelty, fire extinguishing, and getting wet (regressed) in bed.

McDonald’s observations were purely anecdote. Nevertheless, his mention of these three markers ” sadistic The patient caused something in the population Imagination Both professionals and public. “McDonald’s Triad I was born.

Four years later, McDonald decided to see if his first observation would hold up under scientific scrutiny. He compared the proportion of animal cruelty among 80 patients hospitalized for the threat of murder, 192 convicted murderers, and 80 control patients. He got mixed results.

On the one hand, there were no significant differences between the three groups regarding the history of animal cruelty. But when he focused on 20 matched pairs of people who threatened murder and those who actually committed it, animal cruelty was a different person. He began to believe that animal cruelty might predict the extent of sadism among violent criminals, not the violence itself.

Over the next decades, research continued to produce incredible results. recently, Joubert and his colleagues (2021) examined the McDonald’s Triad and found that only a few (11.6%) showed all three markers. However, about half of those who had the highest level Invasionand they were likely to exhibit “aggressive anthosia” characteristics across the board. Their findings suggest that complete triads are not common, but their existence is important.

The scientific drawbacks had little effect on the traction the McDonald’s Triad gained in popular culture. It was comforting to think that there were simple predictors and early warning signs of dangerous individuals. The reality is much more complicated.

What do you know about children who abuse animals?

Generally, the more children start to abuse animals, the more worrying it becomes. Naturally, children’s development must be taken into consideration. Children under the age of 6 often lack a mature understanding of animals as sensory beings. Preschoolers who pull cat tails may not understand that they are causing pain. For them, it seems to be similar to hitting a toy on a table.

This analogy differs dramatically from intentionally inflicting pain or emotional release or cruelty, despite the clear perception that behavior causes animal pain. In other words, it is not the infant who mistakenly harms the pets we need to worry about, but rather the school-age children who, especially despite the intervention, cause intervention, cause pain, cause intervention, and repeatedly intentionally torture it to continue, especially when combined with the pleasure and pleasure of the animal’s pain.

But how and why?

Establishing a link between animal cruelty and human violence is one thing. Understanding that is different. Two theories emerged as researchers began to ask more sophisticated questions about how and why. One was the graduation hypothesis of violence, which saw animal cruelty as both a training ground and a gateway to hurting people. Violent people practice with animals before “graduating” to human victims. Intuitively, this makes sense.

However, additional research raised several questions. 1 study Animal abuser did They committed more violent interpersonal crimes, and they generally committed more crimes. They could start to hurt animals rear They hurt others in front. Even studies that supported the graduation hypothesis failed to explain why many people who abuse animals are not violent towards humans or why many violent offenders have no history of harming animals.

It was time for alternative theory. Enter your deviance generalization hypothesis. This argues that animal abuse is part of a larger pattern of antisocial behavior, rather than a stepping stone towards violence against humans. Not only was 1.8% of the population who admitted animal cruelty likely to injure humans, they were also more likely to engage in a wide range of criminal acts, ranging from robbery to arson, drug possession and fear tor.

What are we talking about?

Animal abuse takes a variety of forms. Which should worry about us? Does certain types of animal cruelty predict a certain type of interpersonal violence? Recent research reveals some nuances that true crime stories often overlook.

A groundbreaking study by Merz-Perez and Heide (2004) found a high rate of animal cruelty among violent offenders (56% vs. 20%), but also found that violent offenders are more likely to engage in practical physical violence, including kicking, beating, owning death, stabbing, and stomping. These were not abusers who neglected to feed the animals or leave them outside in the cold. These were the abusers who intentionally hurt them. This was especially true in the context Intimate partner violence. Woman abused by partner Pets Compared to women who do not harm animals, they are 7.6 times more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence.

When it comes to foreseeing human harm, sexual Animal abuse is in its own right. People who engage in animals Sexual abuse Deviant sexual interests are rarely limited to animals alone. In fact, studies have consistently identified the relationship between bestiality and non-sexual animal cruelty, child sexual abuse, and child consumption. Porno. One study Almost a third of offenders convicted of bestiality-related arrests found that their children were forced to observe or participate in animal and sexual activity, or sexually abused both child and animal abuse by both child and animal or the same assailant. These findings support “paraphilic crossovers.” This is because individuals with one atypical sexual interest tend to develop or express others.

Conclusion

The relationship between animal abuse and human violence is complicated. Many children who harm animals do not become violent towards humans. Conversely, many individuals who have committed serious violent crimes have no history of animal cruelty.

However, we also know that certain patterns of animal cruelty, particularly repeated, practical, sexually oriented abuse, are the red flags of wider antisocial tendencies that increase the risk of interpersonal relationships. And at the heart of this, Link reminds us that compassion and protection should extend to all vulnerable beings (humans and animals alike). boundary We may be more artificial than we really are drawn between the different forms of violence.