Method Participants

1. Adulthood Animal Abuse Among Women Court-Referred to Batterer Intervention Programs Jeniimarie Febres1, Ryan C. Shorey1, Hope Brasfield1, Heather C. Zucosky1, Andrew Ninnemann2, Joanna Elmquist2, Meggan M. Bucossi2, Shawna M. Andersen2, Yael C. Schonbrun2, & Gregory L. Stuart1 1University of Tennessee , 2Butler Hospital & Alpert Medical School of Brown University Introduction The substantial increase in the enrollment of women in batterer intervention programs (BIPs) over the past thirty years has greatly outpaced research on women who perpetrate intimate partner violence (IPV) (Carney & Buttell, 2004; Stuart, Temple, & Moore, 2007). At the same time, research shows that the efficacy of existing BIPs for male perpetrators is questionable (Feder & Wilson, 2005). As a result, interventions that have already demonstrated limited effect for men are being applied to women without knowledge of their effectiveness for women (Dowd, Leisring, & Rosenbaum, 2005). More research is needed on the issues relevant to women who perpetrate IPV in order to determine the efficacy of BIPs for women. Recent research shows that men who perpetrate IPV may also aggress against non-intimate partners, children, and animals (Appel & Holden, 1998; Febres et al., 2011; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000). This suggests that aggression may be a pervasive way for some male perpetrators of IPV to interact with their environment, while other men may limit their aggression to intimate relationships. Such distinctions have implications for treatments aimed at reducing IPV recidivism (Boyle, O'Leary, Rosenbaum, & Hassett-Walker, 2008). Conducting similar investigations on women who perpetrate IPV may help to inform treatment delivery in BIPs. Women who perpetrate IPV have been shown to perpetrate violence against non-intimate partners (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003). However, no research exists that examines whether these women also perpetrate violence against animals and whether, as seen in male perpetrators, this may be associated with higher frequency or severity of IPV perpetration. Knowing whether women who perpetrate IPV may have more trait-like aggressive tendencies could help to inform BIPs (Boyle et al., 2008). • Results • Mean of 10.85 (SD= 7.06) batterer intervention sessions were attended. • Total number of intervention sessions attended was not related to any variables. • Fifteen (17%) of the 87 women reported committing at least one act of animal abuse since the age of 18. • On average, these women perpetrated 8.8 acts of animal abuse (SD= 14.3). • Adulthood animal abuse was significantly correlated with severe physical assault perpetration. • No statistically significant differences in frequency of IPV perpetration (psychological and physical) between the women who perpetrated animal abuse and the women who did not abuse animals. • Effect sizes were in the expected direction with animal abusers reporting more frequent psychological aggression (d= 0.34) and physical assault (d= 0.36) than non-animal abusers. • A trend for differences in the frequency of severe IPV perpetration (psychological aggression p= 0.10, physical assault p=0.11) between women who abused animals and women who did not. • Effect sizes were in the expected direction with animal abusers reporting more frequent severe psychological aggression (d= 0.32) and severe physical assault (d= 0.46) than non-animal abusers. Discussion In contrast to the 0.28% prevalence rate of animal abuse by women in the general public (Vaughn et al., 2009), adulthood animal abuse was overrepresented (17%) in this sample of women court-referred to BIPs. This is consistent with the overrepresentation of animal abuse reported by men court-referred to BIPs (Febres et al., 2011) and provides preliminary evidence that aggression may be pervasive for some women who perpetrate IPV. Future research should continue to examine the prevalence of adulthood animal abuse in samples of IPV perpetrators as this may provide additional insight into the nature of their aggressive tendencies and whether aggression may be a pervasive trait for some women. Animal abusers showed a trend towards moderately higher rates of overall and severe IPV than non-animal abusers. Our results indicate that adulthood animal abuse may be a marker for the presence of more frequent and/or severe IPV perpetration. Future research should attempt to elucidate whether and why these associations exist. The current study adds to the emerging research on women arrested for IPV. This sample evidenced a high prevalence of animal abuse perpetrated as adults. Further, those who reported committing animal abuse reported higher rates of psychological and physical IPV than those who denied committing animal abuse. These results suggest that the aggressive tendencies of some women who perpetrate IPV may extend beyond intimate partners and that aggression towards animals may signal more frequent and/or severe IPV perpetration. Some limitations to consider include: relatively small sample size, use of an animal abuse measure that did not distinguish between companion and non-companion animals nor indicate when the animal abuse occurred, use of a screener for personality traits, and reporter bias due to social desirability. Continued research on the nature of aggression in the lives of women who perpetrate IPV is greatly needed in order to better inform interventions aimed at reducing aggression. Study Aim To examine the prevalence of adulthood animal abuse perpetration and its relationship to IPV perpetration in women court-referred to BIPs. • Method • Participants • 87 women who were arrested for domestic violence and court-referred to Rhode Island BIPs • Completed the measures of interest for a larger study (i.e. Stuart et al., 2006) • Age: M = 30.5 years, SD = 10.3 • Education: M = 12.3 years; SD = 2.3 • Annual income: M = $21,417; SD = 19,017 • Ethnic composition: 74.7% non-Hispanic Caucasian, 6.9% African-American, 8.0% Hispanic, 10.4% Other • Relationship status: 16.1% married, 35.6% cohabiting/not married, 31.0% dating, 5.7% single, 5.7% separated, 5.7% divorced • Length of current relationship: M = 5.1 years, SD = 9.7 • Length of time living with their current intimate partner: M = 3.0 years, SD = 3.3 • Measures • Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). Intimate partner violence was measured with the psychological aggression (α = .80) and physical assault (α = .75) subscales. Items were classified into minor and severe acts (Straus et al., 1996). • Aggression Toward Animal Scale (ATAS; Gupta & Beach, 2001). The ATAS (α = .90) reflected actions of aggression committed against non-human animals. For Further Information Please contact Jeniimarie Febres at jfebres@utk.edu