Women's Experiences of Companion Animal Maltreatment in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Study with Implications for Safety Planning and Intervention

Background: The use of threats to and harm of companion animals as a tactic of coercive control by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) is well documented. As a result, concern for animal well-being impacts IPV survivors’ decision making about whether and when to enter shelter and/or to stay with or separate from an abusive partner (Faver & Cavazos, 2007). Among studies in this area, there is a paucity of qualitative research that has reported on how ethnic minority IPV survivors experience these tactics and weigh them in safety decisions (Risley-Curtiss et al., 2006). In addition, the literature has not yet robustly explored IPV-surviving mothers’ awareness of their children’s exposure to animal abuse. The current qualitative study expands the nascent literature by exploring the following questions in an ethnically diverse sample of IPV survivors: 1) How do women experience threats to and harm of companion animals in relationships characterized by IPV? 2) In what ways do children in IPV-affected households experience animal maltreatment as conveyed by mothers? 3) In what ways does concern for companion animals impact women’s decisions to stay with or leave a partner?

Method: Data were collected as part of a larger study of women and their 7 to 12 year-old children’s experiences of IPV and concomitant animal abuse (N=291). Maternal caregiver-child dyads were recruited from 22 domestic violence service agencies in a western U.S. state. The data represent 105 women (46% racial-ethnic minority) who described intimate partners threatening to harm or kill a pet and/or partners harming or killing a pet. Data were obtained as part of the semi-structured Pet Treatment Survey interview (Ascione, 2011). Atlas-ti was used to conduct template analysis (King, 1998, 2012), an approach commonly used in social science research to analyze large qualitative data sets (Brooks & King, 2013). 

Results: Major themes included: 1) animal maltreatment as a means of power/control by the abusive partner, 2) animal maltreatment to punish the animal, 3) animal maltreatment to coerce children, and 4) animal-related safety planning/obstacles to shelter entry. The identified themes cut across racial and ethnic groups and were represented among ethnic minority and majority women.

Conclusion: Results compliment prior research categorizing threats to and harm of companion animals as tactics of intimidation and domination used by IPV perpetrators against minority and non-minority women and their children. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding IPV perpetrators’ use of animal maltreatment as a coercive tactic used to induce mothers’ concern about the impact of exposure to animal abuse on their children. Moreover, our results also document animal maltreatment as a behavior engaged in by abusive partners to discipline animals for undesired behaviors.  In addition to delaying entry to shelter because of a pet, women in the sample also engaged in safety planning to account for their animal’s well-being. Implications for future research are discussed in addition to animal-related safety planning and sheltering concerns. We also consider implications for humane education interventions for children who have been exposed to IPV and animal maltreatment.