Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).

qxp:Layout 1

ANTHROZOS

7/5/07

VOLUME 20, ISSUE 3

PP 251 259

10:52 AM

Page 251

REPRINTS AVAILABLE
DIRECTLY FROM
THE PUBLISHERS

PHOTOCOPYING
PERMITTED
BY LICENSE ONLY

ISAZ 2007
PRINTED IN THE UK

Dont Be Cruel:
Assessing Beliefs
About Punishments
for Crimes Against Animals
Valerie K. Sims*, Matthew G. Chin* and Ryan E. Yordon

ABSTRACT Hypothetical scenarios depicting an act of animal abuse were

given to 438 participants who rated the appropriateness of eight types of punishments. The predictive value of sex of participant, animal type, crime type
(acute abuse or neglect), crime outcome (victim lives or dies), and sex of perpetrator for ratings of appropriate punishments was evaluated using a canonical correlation analysis. Sex of participant and animal type emerged as the two
strongest predictors, suggesting participants tend to concentrate on the victim rather than the crime, and then use their own beliefs about that specific
animal to make a decision regarding punishment. Among the various punishment types, participants placed the greatest importance on restricting the perpetrators ability to adopt an animal in the future, rather than recommending
rehabilitative measures. Also, mandatory counseling, a monetary fine, and jail
time were desired. Exploratory analyses showed that early experience on a
farm moderates the gender effect such that females who lived on a farm rated
harsher punishments as more appropriate, whereas males who lived on a
farm rated more lenient punishments as more appropriate.
Keywords: animal abuse, animal cruelty, cruelty laws, prosecution, punishment

In the United States, crimes against animals are often unpunished

or under-punished. For instance, an MSPCA study showed that
out of 80,000 cases, only 268 were prosecuted. Of these, 91 paid
a fine (M = $132), 28 were imprisoned (M = 4.5 months), 19 completed community service (M = 50 hours), and 56 paid restitution (M = $99) (Arluke and
Luke 1997). Yet, almost monthly a high-profile case of animal cruelty unpunished is met with gasps when readers encounter its description in the popular press. Is there truly a disparity between actual punishments and
perceived justified punishments for cases of animal cruelty? Research has
examined the perceived fairness of punishments for many types of crimes,
including robbery, rape, and murder (cf., Mazzella and Feingold 1994) and the

251

Address for correspondence:

Dr. Valerie Sims,
Department of Psychology,
University of Central Florida,
P.O. Box 161390, Orlando,
FL 32816-1390, USA.
E-mail:
vsims@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu

Anthrozos DOI: 10.2752/089279307X224791

* Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, USA

Department of Psychology, Florida State University, USA

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 252

252

Anthrozos

Dont Be Cruel

theoretical causes of animal abuse (Agnew 1998). However, previous experimental research has
not examined beliefs about how crimes against animals should be punished.
Studies examining the perceived fairness of punishments for crimes committed against humans have typically used a hypothetical scenario methodology, in which a crime is described and
the participants must rate the viability of specific punishments. In this type of research, manipulations are made as to the type of crime, the crime outcome (e.g., the victim lives or dies), characteristics of the perpetrator, and characteristics of the victim. In a meta-analysis of literature on
perceived fairness of punishments, Mazzella and Feingold (1994) found that recommended punishments are more harsh when the defendant is male and the crime is against a female. For specific crimes, stiffer sentences also were recommended for less attractive defendants (robbery, rape,
cheating), those of African American descent (negligent homicide), and those of lower socio-economic status (rape). Additionally, Taylor and Kleinke (1992) found that punishments vary as a function of the outcome of the crime. In this study, significantly more harsh penalties were given when
a young child was killed as a result of a crime than when $1000 in damage resulted as a function
of the same set of actions.
Only a handful of studies have investigated beliefs about what constitutes animal cruelty and
how it should be punished. In an early study, Kellmer and Edwards (1964) asked young adolescents to describe wicked deeds, and found that animal cruelty was rated as one of the most
wicked. They also found that females were particularly likely to find animal cruelty offensive. More
recently, Kemp, Brodsky and Caputo (1997) examined what constitutes cruelty toward animals.
Their results showed that judgments depended upon whether the suffering was inflicted intentionally. Similarly, Hills and Lalich (1998) found that participants separate the act from the actor
when judging an act as cruel, often perceiving the act itself more negatively than the perpetrator.
When cruelty was perceived, it was associated with stronger ratings of sadness and anger. In addition, this study showed that male and female perpetrators were seen as equally cruel. However,
female raters perceived actions as more cruel than did male raters. In the most comprehensive
study of this type, Allen et al. (2002) examined suggested punishments for animal cruelty. Each
participant was asked to rate crimes against six animals. Greater fines and jail time were more
likely to be associated when the animal was more similar to a human, and when the rater was in
a positive mood.
In an examination of the research on beliefs about how crimes should be punished, several
variables emerge as important: sex of the rater, characteristics of the victim, characteristics of
the perpetrator, type of crime, and outcome of the crime. The purpose of the present research
was to examine punishments perceived as justified for crimes against animals as a function of
all of these variables. This study used the scenario methodology from studies examining crimes
toward humans, and can serve as a baseline for understanding which variables are important
in predicting beliefs about animal cruelty. Consistent with previous research, we proposed that
the most predictive variables would be sex of rater and type of victim. It was predicted that females would assign more harsh punishments than males, and that crimes against puppies would
receive more strict punishments than crimes against chickens. The manipulation of animal type
represents a part of an ongoing research program examining the impact of species on judgments of cruelty. This particular manipulation was examined first because of the extreme differences between puppies and chickens. Puppies are the juvenile form of a very popular
companion animal and are mammals. Chickens are the adult form of a farm animal that is consumed as food by humans.
Unlike with sex of rater and type of victim, we predicted that characteristics of the perpetrator,
type of crime, and crime outcome would yield more equivocal predictive value in a study such as
this, where limited details about the crime were given. An additional aspect of this study was to examine whether these variables impact beliefs about how the perpetrator would interact with members of other vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly.

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 253

Sims et al.

Methods
Participants
Four hundred and thirty-eight undergraduates (322 females and 116 males) from a state university
located in a large metropolitan area in the southeastern United States participated in this study for
extra credit in psychology courses. The mean age of participants was 21.0 (SD = 2.74). Fifty-eight
percent were psychology majors, 70% owned pets, 29% had lived on a farm, and 5% were vegetarians. An additional 14 participants completed the questionnaire but were not included in the data
analysis because they failed a manipulation check asking which animal was involved in the crime.

Design
There were four predictor variables: Animal Type (Puppies or Chickens), Sex of Perpetrator (Female
or Male), Crime Type (Abuse or Neglect) and Crime Outcome (Death or Recovery). Sex of Participant was used as a subject variable. Criterion variables were ratings of recommended punishments
and social restrictions.

Materials
Participants read one of 16 scenarios constructed using the following format:
A humane officer investigated a call involving two puppies or two chickens. Both puppies or chickens were thin and visibly underweight or had been beaten and severely injured. The owner agreed to get attention for both animals. However, on a follow-up visit,
the puppies or chickens were found alive or dead in a filthy cage, with no food or water.
A twenty-eight year old male or female suspect was found guilty of this crime.
You are on the jury for this trial, and you are given the following options. Assume that
you are allowed to punish the perpetrator as you see fit. Please answer as though you
were sentencing for this crime.
After reading this scenario, participants responded to 26 questions, 8 of which asked the participant to rate agreement with statements regarding potential punishments or social restrictions. Responses to each of the questions were completed on 7-point rating scales with anchors at 1
(strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). Half of the questions were negatively worded, and thus
required reverse scoring. The eight questions were:
The perpetrator should NOT be allowed to adopt an animal in the future (Adopt).
The perpetrator should be allowed to work with the elderly (Elderly).
The perpetrator should NOT be allowed to work with children (Children).
The perpetrator should NOT be punished by any means (Punish).
The perpetrator should have to go through counseling (Counseling).
The perpetrator should have to complete some amount of community service (Community
Service).
7. The perpetrator should NOT have to pay a fine (Fine).
8. The perpetrator should serve time in jail (Jail).

253

In addition, participants had the option of recommending specific punishments (e.g., a certain
number of hours of community service or a specific fine amount) in an open-ended response section. After completing the punishment questionnaire, participants responded to a series of questions
regarding their expectations of their own pets, if they themselves had intentionally killed an animal,
whether or not they punish their pets when aggravated by them, if they lose their temper very
quickly, and so forth. These were included for exploratory purposes only, and analysis of participants
responses to these questions was not included in the present paper. The scenario and questions

Anthrozos

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 254

Dont Be Cruel

were followed by the Parent Attribution Test (PAT; Bugental, Blue and Cruzcosa 1989), a standardized questionnaire to determine participants perceived control during interactions with children. Participants also completed a short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(M-C SDS; Reynolds 1982). The PAT and M-C SDS also were included for exploratory purposes
and analysis of participants responses to them are not presented here. A final section of the packet
contained eleven questions, including a manipulation check and some demographic items.

Procedure
The majority of participants completed the questionnaire during class. It took approximately 20 minutes. Prior to completion, students read and signed an informed consent stating that the questionnaire was about views of animal cruelty. Any student who chose not to participate was given
an alternative assignment. After completion of the study, participants received a written debriefing
form describing the study and listing contact information for the researchers. Prior to data collection,
this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university.

Results
Canonical Correlation Analysis

254

Anthrozos

A canonical correlation analysis was conducted using Sex of Participant, Animal Type, Sex of Perpetrator, Crime Type, and Crime Outcome as predictors of the eight ratings (Adopt, Elderly, Children, Punish, Counseling, Community Service, Fine, and Jail) to evaluate the relationship between the two variable
sets (i.e., scenario characteristics and punishment forms). The analysis produced five functions with
squared canonical correlations (RC2) of 0.154, 0.028, 0.024, 0.004, and 0.002 for each successive
function. The full model across all functions was significant (Wilks = 0.797 criterion; F(40,1855.33) = 2.47,
p < 0.001). As Sherry and Henson (2005) point out, Wilks represents the variance unexplained by
the model, and 1- provides an indication of the effect size as a percentage of variance explained (r2).
In this case, the effect size was 0.2027, which means the full model explained 20.27% of the variance
shared between the variable sets (a medium effect size according to Cohen (1988)).
The dimensional reduction analyses showed that only the full model was significant (Functions
1 to 5). Also, given the RC2 effects for each function, only the first function was considered noteworthy because it explained 15.4% of shared variance. In contrast, Functions 2 through 5 accounted
for only 5.8% of the remaining variance in the variable set after the extraction of the first function.
The standardized canonical function coefficients, the structure coefficients, and the squared
structure coefficients for Function 1 are shown in Table 1. An examination of the canonical loadings
(i.e., structure coefficients) shows that only Sex of Participant and Animal Type were primary contributors to the predictor synthetic variable. This conclusion is supported by the squared structure
coefficients and the standardized canonical function coefficients.
In Table 1, an examination of the canonical loadings also reveals the relevant criterion variables
to be Adopt, Punish, Counseling, Fine, and Jail. Of these five criterion variables, only Adopt also had
a large standardized canonical function coefficient. Punish, Counseling, Fine, and Jail all had low or
modest function coefficients but large structure coefficients. This was due to the multicollinearity of
these variables with the other criterion variables. Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations between
all criterion variables. Notice that, with the exception of Elderly, the criterion variables are all generally
positively correlated with each other.

Farm Experience as a Mediator of Ratings

Because high profile cases of animal cruelty have cited living in a rural community or experience on
a farm as possible correlates of beliefs about how animal cruelty should be punished (Bollinger
1998; Tallichet and Hensley 2005), we completed a set of exploratory analyses examining the role
of farm experience as a predictor of punishment endorsement. Out of the 119 male participants who
answered the question, 31 had lived on a farm (26%). Out of the 318 female participants who
answered the question, 93 reported having lived on a farm (29%).

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 255

Sims et al.

Table 1. Canonical correlation analysis of scenario characteristics and

punishment types.
Function 1
Variable

Coefficient

rs

rs2 (%)

Adopt

-0.656

-0.826

68.22

Elderly

-0.224

-0.343

11.76

Children

0.030

-0.360

12.96

Punish

-0.002

-0.496

24.60

Counseling

-0.316

-0.604

36.48

Community Service

0.002

-0.441

19.45

Fine

-0.127

-0.537

28.84

Jail

-0.242

-0.550

30.25
15.40

RC2
Sex of Participant

0.703

0.694

48.16

Animal Type

-0.685

-0.679

46.10

Sex of Perpetrator

-0.065

-0.083

0.69

0.186

0.180

3.24

-0.089

-0.083

0.69

Crime Type
Crime Outcome

Note: Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |0.45| are in bold. Coefficient = standardized
canonical function coefficient; rs=structure coefficient; rs2=squared structure coefficient

Table 2. Bivariate correlations between criterion variables.

Adopt
Adopt
Elderly
Children
Punish
Couns

Elderly Children Punish

Couns

Comm

Fine

Jail

0.06

0.33**

0.38**

0.21**

0.23**

0.33**

0.25**

0.09*

0.06

0.18**

0.06

0.11*

0.06

0.24**

0.25**

0.18**

0.15**

0.23**

0.36**

0.32**

0.39**

0.32**

0.55**

0.32**

0.32**

0.30*

0.29**

0.30**

Comm
Fine
Jail

Note: Couns = Counseling. Comm = Community Service

255

To simplify the process, we computed a composite punishment variable obtained by summing

each participants ratings for Punish, Counseling, Community Service, Fine, and Jail. These five
punishment ratings were found earlier to be highly correlated with each other. To further simplify the
analysis, only two predictor variables were included: Sex of Participant and Animal Type. The canonical correlational analysis had shown these to be the two most important predictors.
A 2(Sex of Participant)  2(Lived on a Farm: Yes or No)  2(Animal Type: Chicken or Puppy)
ANOVA was conducted. Of the 31 male participants who reported living on a farm, 11 read the scenario with the puppy (i.e., 35%). Of the 87 male participants who reported not living on a farm, 48
read the scenario with the puppy (i.e., 63%). For female participants, 59 out of the 93 participants
(i.e., 63%) who reported living on a farm read the scenario with the puppy and 106 out of the 225
participants (i.e., 47%) who reported not living on a farm read the scenario with the puppy. The analysis of composite punishment ratings yielded main effects for both sex and animal type (F(1,430) =

Anthrozos

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 256

Dont Be Cruel

20.46, p < 0.001; F(1,430) = 10.60, p < 0.01). Greater punishments were given by females (M = 25.74,
SD = 0.35) than by males (M = 22.60, SD = 0.60) and against those who had harmed a puppy (M
= 25.30, SD = 0.51) than against those who had harmed a chicken (M = 23.04, SD = 0.47).
In addition, there was a significant Sex  Lived-on-a-Farm Interaction (F(1,430) = 3.90, p < 0.05).
In this case, females who lived on a farm (M = 26.42, SD = 5.54) assigned more stringent punishments than their non-farm dwelling counterparts (M = 25.06, SD = 4.90, t(320) = 2.08, p < 0.05).
Males who had lived on a farm (M = 21.34, SD = 7.24) assigned less stringent punishments than
did other males (M = 23.48, SD = 6.53). However, the male data result failed to reach significance
(t(114) = 1.53, p = 0.13). Post-hoc t-tests showed that these results were particularly strong for beliefs about imposing a fine. A subsequent analysis showed that while farm-experienced participants
(M = 5.51, SD = 1.52 ) reported greater liking of farm animals than those who had not lived on a
farm (M = 5.03, SD = 1.67, t(436) = 2.84, p < 0.01), this effect was not different for males and females.

256

Anthrozos

Discussion
As predicted, sex of participant and animal type were the two variables that emerged as most predictive of both punishment ratings and social restriction ratings. Being allowed to adopt an animal
in the future, being punished in general, being required to undergo counseling, receiving a monetary fine, and receiving a jail sentence all were relevant criterion variables. Less important were a restriction of access to the elderly, a restriction of access to young children, and a community service
requirement. Consistent with research showing that females are more likely to be interested in animal causes (Kruse 1999), are more opposed to animal abuse, and are less likely to engage in animal abuse (Agnew 1998), females in this study were more likely to recommend stricter
punishments. There are several possible explanations for this finding. Since it has been shown that
females are more likely to give harsh punishments for crimes against humans as well (Applegate,
Cullen and Fisher 2002), these data may reflect a more general tendency to endorse punishments
for a crime. What is less clear is the motivation for this agreement with punishment. Are these females more empathetic to the plight of victims than the males? Many previous studies (e.g., Gault
and Sabini 2000; Ickes, Gesn and Graham 2000; Macaskill, Maltby and Day 2002; Toussaint and
Webb 2005; Muncer and Ling 2006) have found that females are more empathetic than males in
general, and a recent study by Smith, Lindsey and Hansen (2006) found that this gender difference
was particularly pronounced when one had to empathize with an innocent human victim of an unjust crime. It also may be the case that females are more likely to empathize with animals. Alternatively, greater female empathy may simply reflect cultural norms associating a feminine sex role with
care of others. Further research, perhaps using a sex role inventory as a predictor variable, should
be conducted to better understand this link.
A strong predictor was type of animal involved, with generally more harsh punishments given
for the companion animal (puppy) than for the animal that is typically consumed as food (chicken).
This result suggests that when rating punishments for crimes against animals, participants do not
examine the specific type of crime or the sex of the perpetrator nearly as much as they do the victim type. The manipulation of puppy versus chicken was chosen on purpose to be a strong one so
that the impact of animal type could be tested easily, and so that the animals in the scenario were
of roughly the same physical size. Clearly, a puppy differs from a chicken on many dimensions (e.g.,
companion vs. non-companion animal, mammal vs. bird, age, etc.) and therefore, it is impossible
to determine exactly why the ratings for these two animal types differed. Future research needs to
focus on more subtle differences between animal types within a category such as companion animal
(e.g., the difference between dogs and cats).
Interestingly, sex of perpetrator, crime type (acute abuse vs. neglect), and crime outcome (lived
or died) were not strong predictors of punishment ratings. These null results are consistent with
the notion that judgments about crimes against animals are based primarily on the animal, and that
they reflect individual and gender differences in beliefs about these animals. In short, there are

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 257

strong individual differences in attitudes toward specific animals, and these are likely the driving
force behind the punishment ratings. Further research may want to investigate this link by directly
associating ratings of animal desirability with ratings about punishments. Similarly, participants
were less likely to associate animal cruelty with a need to limit interactions with other vulnerable
populations such as young children and the elderly. Given that research suggests that those who
harm people often started with animals (Wax and Haddox 1974; Felthous 1980; Kellert and Felthous 1985; Felthous and Kellert 1986; Felthous and Kellert 1987), this finding is particularly worrisome. One reason that participants may not have made this connection between harming animals
and potential for harming humans is because they were focusing on the victim, rather than on the
perpetrator. This finding is consistent with the Humane Society of the United States argument
that anti-cruelty programs need to teach about the link between animal cruelty and potential later
cruelty to humans (HSUS 2007).
Other results further supported the idea that individual differences in experience with animals predict how one will perceive animal cruelty. The analysis using farm experience as a predictor showed
that not only was farm experience important, but that it was correlated with very different beliefs for
males and females. For males, this experience was not associated with harsher punishments for
animal cruelty, whereas for females, this experience was associated with harsher punishments. It
is likely that the types of positions that males and females typically hold on a farm are responsible
for this division. On the modern farm, there is often a division of labor such that men perform the
traditional work involving machinery while women perform more behind the scenes family work
(Gidarakou 1999; Cummins 2005). Furthermore, men are more likely to take care of beef cattle,
whereas women are more likely to nurture smaller animals such as poultry and rabbits (Saugeres
2002). This suggests that there is a need for research to investigate the development of empathy
in relation to gender differentiated farming experiences, especially nurturing roles. And, it suggests
that engaging in negative behaviors toward animals, even if not chosen personally may result in
less empathy later.
A final noteworthy result is the fact the most important criterion variable was restricting the perpetrators ability to adopt an animal in the future, rather than counseling or community service,
which are typically seen as most rehabilitative. This result suggests that many participants were
concerned with limiting future opportunities to harm animals above all else.
This study had several limitations, which can be addressed in future research. First, the
crimes described here were quite sanitized, with almost no reference to the gore that is often
involved in real animal cruelty cases. Second, participants were not given any information regarding the state laws for animal cruelty. Third, the study only examined two species of animal,
which differed widely in terms of their desirability. The scenarios were purposely designed to not
address these limitations, as it was important to establish a baseline for punishments when very
little information about the crime is known. Now that baseline ratings have been established, it
is important to address these concerns by creating more nuanced scenarios that focus on
different types of animals and crimes, and to examine the role of state law information in guiding participants ratings.
From this work, it is clear that punishing animal cruelty largely reflects individual differences in
beliefs about animals, and that these beliefs likely originate during early interactions. Therefore, a
priority in the study of humananimal interaction needs to be an examination of the types of
interactions that take place normally in childhood, and to document developmentally when these
interactions begin to diverge for those who will become future perpetrators of animal cruelty and
those who will not.

Anthrozos

Sims et al.

We wish to thank David Bassion, Alyssa Keifer, Danielle Munim, Teena Patel, and the Applied Cognition and Technology (ACAT) Lab Group for their assistance with data collection and interpretation.

257

Acknowledgements

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 258

Dont Be Cruel

258

Anthrozos

References
Agnew, R. 1998. The causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Theoretical Criminology 2:
117209.
Allen, M. W., Hunstone, M. Waerstad, J., Foy, E., Hobbins, T., Wikner, B. and Wirrel, J. 2002. Human-toanimal similarity and participant mood influence punishment recommendations for animal abusers. Society
& Animals 10: 267284.
Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T. and Fisher, B. S. 2002. Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there
a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice 30: 89100.
Arluke, A. and Luke, C. 1997. Physical cruelty toward animals in Massachusetts, 19751996. Society & Animals
5: 195205.
Bollinger, V. 1998. One deadly night at Noahs Ark. HSUS News 42(3): 3640.
Bugental, D. B., Blue, J. and Cruzcosa, M. 1989. Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: Implications for
child abuse. Developmental Psychology 25: 532539.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cummins, H. A. 2005. Unraveling the voices and identity of farm women. Identity: An International Journal of
Theory and Research 5: 287302.
Felthous, A. R. 1980. Aggression against cats, dogs, and people. Child Psychiatry and Human Development
10: 169177.
Felthous, A. R. and Kellert, S. R. 1986. Violence against animals and people: Is aggression against living
creatures generalized? Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law 14: 5569.
Felthous, A. R. and Kellert, S. R. 1987. Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggression against people: A
review. American Journal of Psychiatry 144: 710717.
Gault, B. A. and Sabini, J. 2000. The roles of empathy, anger, and gender in predicting attitudes toward punitive,
reparative, and preventative public policies. Cognition and Emotion 14: 495520.
Gidarakou, I. 1999. Young womens attitudes toward agriculture and womens new roles in the Greek countryside: A first approach. Journal of Rural Studies 15: 147158.
Hills, A. M. and Lalich, N. 1998. Judgments of cruelty toward animals: Sex differences and effect of awareness
of suffering. Anthrozos 11: 142147.
HSUS. 2007. First Strike: The connection between animal cruelty and human violence: The Humane Society of
the United States. <http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/first_strike_the_connection_between_animal_cruelty_
and_human_violence/> Accessed on April 24, 2007.
Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R. and Graham, T. 2000. Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? Personal Relationships 7: 95109.
Kellert, S. R. and Felthous, A. R. 1985. Childhood cruelty to animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human
Relations 38: 11131129.
Kellmer, P. M. L. and Edwards, J. B. 1964. Some moral concepts and judgments of junior school children.
British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology 3: 196215.
Kemp, S., Brodsky, S. L. and Caputo, A. A. 1997. How cruel is a cat playing with a mouse? A study of peoples assessment of cruelty. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 26: 1924.
Kruse, C. R. 1999. Gender, views of nature and support for animal rights. Society & Animals 7: 10631119.
Macaskill, A., Maltby, J. and Day, L. 2002. Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. Journal of
Social Psychology 142: 663665.
Mazzella, R. and Feingold, A. 1994. The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and
gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 24: 13151344.
Muncer, S. J. and Ling, J. 2006. Psychometric analysis of the empathy quotient (EQ) scale. Personality and
Individual Differences 40: 11111119.
Reynolds, W. M. 1982. Development of reliable and valid short-forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 38: 119125.
Saugeres, L. 2002. Shes not really a woman, shes half a man: Gendered discourse of embodiment in a
French farming community. Womens Studies International Forum 25: 641650.
Sherry, A. and Henson, R. K. 2005. Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis in personality
research: A user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality Assessment 84: 3748.

Anthrozoo?s 2007 20(3).qxp:Layout 1

7/5/07

10:52 AM

Page 259

Sims et al.

259

Anthrozos

Smith, M. S., Lindsey, C. R. and Hansen, C. E. 2006. Corporal punishment and the mediating effects of parental
acceptance-rejection and gender on empathy in a southern rural population. Cross-Cultural Research: The
Journal of Comparative Social Science 40: 287305.
Tallichet, S. E. and Hensley, C. 2005. Rural and urban differences in the commission of animal cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49: 711726.
Taylor, C. and Kleinke, C. L. 1992. Effects of severity of accident, history of drunk driving, intent, and remorse
on judgments of a drunk driver. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22: 16411655.
Toussaint, L. and Webb, J. R. 2005. Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness.
The Journal of Social Psychology 145: 673685.
Wax, D. and Haddox, V. 1974. Enuresis, fire setting, and animal cruelty in male adolescent delinquents: A triad
predictive of violent behavior. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law 2: 4571.