|
Hunting and Illegal Violence Against Humans and Other
Animals: Exploring the Relationship
Clifton P. Flynn
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between hunting and illegal
violence among college males. Although similar on many
sociodemographic characteristics such as age and social class
(parents’ education and occupation), hunters were more likely
than non-hunters to be white and Protestant. They also were more
likely to have grown up with a family member who hunted. Hunters
were about twice as likely to have been violent toward nonhuman
animals; however, one type of violence killing wild or stray
animals accounted for this difference. Regarding violence
toward people, hunters were more than twice as likely to have
damaged or destroyed private or public property during their
last year in high school but were no more likely during that
year to have fought with other persons. Thus, at least for this
sample, hunting related to harming animals in the wild and to
property damage but not to other forms of animal abuse or
violence against humans. This paper discusses possible
explanations for this result and limitations of the study.
Hunting has enjoyed a long history of legal and normative
support in this country. In the last quarter of a century,
however, both hunting and support for hunting have declined
(Herzog, Rowan, & Kassow, 2001; Irwin, 2001). As of 1999, there
were 15.1 million paid hunting license holders, compared with
17.1 million in 1975 (Irwin). According to the National Opinion
Research Center, the percentage of married men (the predominant
group of hunters) who hunt has fallen from 33% in 1975 to 20% in
1995 (Herzog, et al., 2001).
Some of the factors that have contributed to this decline are
structural, such as less leisure time and less acreage on which
hunting is permitted. Yet, normative support for hunting also
has diminished in recent years. Whereas nearly two-thirds of
American adults approved of sport hunting in the 1970s, a
majority now opposes the practice (Irwin, 2001). It probably is
not coincidental that the same period in which hunting’s
popularity has suffered is associated with the rise of the
modern animal rights movement.
Animal rights activists and many feminists (particularly
ecofeminists) have argued that hunting is another form of
violence and another example of male domination and oppression
(Adams, 1995; Kheel, 1995). Anecdotal data from advocates for
battered women suggest a link between woman-battering and
hunting (Adams, 1995), reinforcing this view of hunting as not
only a recreational activity but also as an act of violence
toward nonhuman animals that may be associated with other
expressions of violence against humans and other animals.
The notion that legal violence, such as hunting, may spill over
into illegal violence is not new. Straus (1991, 1994) has
proposed such a spillover theory to explain the host of
negative, antisocial outcomes associated with receiving corporal
punishment a socially legitimate practice as a child. In fact,
one study has shown that corporal punishment relates to violence
toward animals. Flynn (1999) found that the more often males
were spanked in childhood by their fathers, the more likely they
were to have committed animal cruelty. Similarly, the experience
of killing animals via hunting while growing up could lead some
individuals to approve of, and use, violence in culturally
illegitimate ways.
With regard to the link between hunting and violence, the
limited evidence is mixed and inconclusive. Studies by Clifton
(1994a; 1994b) revealed a positive association between hunting
licenses and violent crimes in two states: child sexual assault
in New York and all categories of child abuse in Ohio. Yet,
Eskridge (1986), using data from all 50 states, found exactly
the opposite result: Namely, as the ratio of citizens with
hunting licenses increased, the rates of violent crimes (rape,
murder, robbery, and assault) decreased or were unaffected.
Adair (1995) argues that the above studies contain flawed
methodology and, consequently, contribute little to determining
the relationship between hunting and violence. The studies by
Clifton inadequately control for population density, while
Eskridge’s sample size is so large as to produce results that,
although statistically significant, may have little substantive
value. Consequently, there is a need for solid, empirical
research to address this question.
Finally, Ascione (1993) has suggested that committing animal
abuse in childhood may interfere with the development of
empathy. It seems reasonable that killing animals while hunting
also could lead to a lack of concern and kindness toward other
beings. Given that most hunters, like animal abusers, are male,
and that male socialization focuses on dominance and aggression
while minimizing empathy (Coltrane, 1998), such an outcome seems
particularly likely.
This exploratory study has two purposes: (a) to examine the
association between hunting as a child and/or teenager and
engaging in violent behaviors toward humans and other animals
and (b) to see if hunting relates to lower levels of empathy.
Using a sample of college students, we tested the following
hypotheses:
1. Those who hunted in childhood will be more likely to have
committed acts of violence against both humans and other
animals.
2. Those who have hunted will have lower levels of empathy than
those who have not.
Data Collection and Variables
Sample
A total of 236 college undergraduates from a public southeastern
university comprised the sample. Students in seven sections of
"American National Government," an introductory political
science class, completed questionnaires examining their
experiences with hunting while growing up and their attitudes
toward, and experiences with, interpersonal violence. Other
relevant attitudinal and sociodemographic data were collected.
The survey took approximately 25 minutes to complete. The
students' participation was voluntary, and their responses were
anonymous.
Variables
Hunting experience. Respondents answered yes or no to the
question, "Have you ever been hunting?" Respondents also were
asked whether they had ever killed an animal while hunting.
Animal abuse. The study measured this variable by asking
respondents whether they had committed any of the following five
acts against an animal: (a) killed a pet, (b) killed a stray or
wild animal, (c) hurt or tortured a pet to tease or cause pain,
(d) hurt or tortured a wild or stray animal to tease or cause
pain, or (e) touched an animal sexually or engaged in sex acts
with an animal. Respondents were instructed not to count animals
killed for food (farm animals), while hunting, or to help the
animal who was hurt, old or sick (mercy killing). If they said
“yes” to having committed at least one of the above acts, then
they were considered to have perpetrated animal abuse.
Violence to humans. Students were asked a series of questions
about risky (had sex, got drunk) or antisocial (stealing,
damaging property) actions they may have committed during their
last year in high school. Two items were relevant to the present
study. As a measure of indirect violence toward others,
respondents were asked whether they had purposely damaged or
destroyed public or private property that did not belong to
them. As a measure of direct violence toward humans, respondents
were asked whether they ever got into physical fights with kids
who were not part of their family. Both items were dichotomous,
and both were restricted to the respondent’s senior year in high
school.
In addition, four questions were asked about committing violence
in dating relationships. Two questions asked about physical
violence (mild and severe) and two questions asked about sexual
violence (tried to force or did force sex on dating partner).
However, only three male respondents admitted to engaging in any
of these behaviors, and thus no analyses concerning dating
violence were possible.
Empathy. Following Davis (1994), empathy is conceptualized as
multidimensional construct, consisting of both cognitive and
affective components. Two measures of empathy were obtained
using two subscales from Davis' Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(Davis, 1994). The "perspective taking" scale was used as a
measure of cognitive empathy. According to Davis, it “measures
the reported tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological
point of view of others in everyday life” (pp. 56-57). The
"empathic concern" scale was used as a measure of emotional
empathy. This scale “assesses the tendency to experience
feelings of sympathy and compassion for unfortunate others” (p.
57). Each subscale consisted of seven items, with possible
responses ranging from zero ("does not describe me well") to
four ("describes me very well"). Total scores on each scale
ranged from 0 to 28, with a higher score indicating greater
empathy.
Results
Gender differences
There were significant differences between males and females on
virtually all of the variables of interest in this study (see
Table 1). Nearly half of all males 45.7% had been hunting at
least once, compared with only 9.5% of females. Even more
telling, three fourths of the males who had been hunting had
killed an animal while hunting, while only 2 of the thirteen
females who had hunted had ever killed an animal while hunting.
------------------------
Table 1. Gender Differences
on Variables of Interest
Males Females
(n=94) (n=137)
c2
p
Ever
hunted 45.7
9.5 39.9 .001
Perpetrated
animal abuse 28.7
3.9 27.3 .001
Damaged/destroyed
property 31.2 7.9
27.7 .001
Physical fights
with others
28.1 7.1
19.0 .001
Empathy
t
Empathic
Concern 18.6
21.8 5.25 .001
Perspective
Taking 17.3
17.2 .21 .833
------------------------
Gender differences also were apparent regarding violent
behaviors. Male respondents were seven times more likely than
females to have harmed or killed animals. Almost three of ten
males 28.7% had committed at least one act of violence against
an animal. The comparable percentage for females was 3.9%.
Males also were much more likely to engage in violent actions
both direct and indirect toward human beings. Male respondents
were approximately four times more likely to report damaging or
destroying someone else's property during their last year in
high school. A little more than 30 % of males (31.25%), but only
7.9% of females, engaged in this form of indirect violence.
Males also were four times more likely to have engaged in
physical fights with others during their senior year, with 28.1%
of males, but only 7.1% of females, reporting having done so.
Finally, regarding empathy, females scored significantly higher
than males on emotional empathy, t (234) = 5.25, p < .001.
However, there was no gender difference in cognitive empathy, t
(234) = .21, p = .8333. Given the small percentage of females
who had hunted and had committed acts of violence, the remaining
analyses are limited to the males in the sample.
Hunters Characteristics and Experiences
Hunters versus non-hunters. Nearly half of the male respondents
46.2% had been hunting at least once. Overall, however, there
were few sociodemographic differences between hunters and
non-hunters (see Table 2). Differences were observed in three
areas: race, religion, and hunting socialization. Ninety-three %
of those who had hunted were white, whereas one-third of those
who had not hunted were nonwhite. Hunters also were more likely
to be Protestant 82.5% versus 68.1%. Finally, while five out of
six hunters reported that during their childhood someone in
their family hunted, only one-fourth of non-hunters grew up with
a family member who had hunted.
------------------------
Table 2. Hunting Sociodemographic Variables –
Male Hunters vs. Non-hunters
Hunters
Non-hunters
(n=43)
(n=51)
Age (mean)
20.3 21.3
Race
White
93.0% 66.7%
African American
4.6 21.6
Other
2.3 11.8
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
82.5 68.1
Catholic
5.0 12.8
Jewish
0.0 0.0
Other
5.0 10.6
None
7.5 8.5
Parents Marital Status when H.S. senior
Married
73.8 72.0
Divorced/Widowed
26.2 28.0
Father’s Education
Less than high school
4.8 2.0
High school/some college
42.9 44.9
College grad. or higher
52.4 53.1
Mother’s Education
Less than high school
7.0 8.0
High school/some college
46.5 58.0
College grad. or higher
46.5 34.0
Father’s Occupation
Blue
collar
31.0 38.8
White
collar
69.0 61.2
Mother’s Occupation
Not
employed
7.0 12.0
Blue
collar
20.9 20.0
White
collar
72.1 68.0
Family member
hunted during childhood
83.7 26
-----------------------
In other areas, hunters and non-hunters were quite similar. On
average, non-hunters were about one year older than hunters
21.3 years versus 20.3 years. More than 70% of respondents in
both groups reported that in their senior year in high school
their parents were still married. There also were few
differences in parents' education or occupation. Fathers’
education level was virtually identical between the two groups,
with slightly more than half of fathers in both groups having at
least a college degree. Fathers of hunters were somewhat more
likely to be white-collar workers 69% to 61.2%. Among mothers,
those of hunters were slightly more educated, but maternal
occupation levels were very similar.
Hunters' experiences. Table 3 presents descriptive data on the
experiences of the hunters. One fifth of the hunters had been
hunting only once in their lives, and two others had hunted only
twice. More than half the sample had been hunting six or more
times, and 3 of 10 hunters reported hunting more than 20 times.
-----------------------
Table 3. Descriptive Data on
Hunting Experiences
No. of times
hunted n %
Once
9 20.9
Twice
2 4.6
3-5 times
9 20.9
6-10 times
4 9.3
11-20 times
6 14.0
Over 20 times
13 30.2
Age first time
hunting n %
Under
6
4 9.3
6 to 12
25 58.1
13 to
18
13 30.2
Over 18
1 2.3
Who took first timea
n %
Father/stepfather 19
44.2
Mother/stepmother
1 2.3
Grandfather
5 11.6
Other relative
10 23.3
Adult friend
5 11.6
Child friend
8 18.6
Other
3 7.0
Type of animal hunteda
n %
Birds
27 64.3
Rabbits
18 42.9
Squirrel 29
69.0
Deer
31 73.8
Fox
6 14.3
Turkey
15 35.7
Other
5 11.9
Age first time killed animalb
n %
Under
6 1 3.1
6 to 12 21 65.6
13 to 18
9 28.1
Over 18 1 3.1
Type of animal killeda
n %
Birds
24 75.0
Rabbits
12 37.5
Squirrel
25 78.1
Deer
15 46.9
Fox
4 12.5
Turkey
8 25.0
Other
5 15.6
No. of animals killed in
lifetime n %
One
4 12.5
Two
1 3.1
3 to 5
8 25.0
6 to 10
4 12.5
11 to 20 3 9.4
Over 20 12
37.4
How old last time
hunted n %
6 to
12 6
13.6
13 to 18
23 52.3
Over 18
15 34.1
_____________________________________________
aDue
to multiple responses, percentages total to greater than 100%.
bEleven
hunters had never killed an animal while hunting.
------------------------
Almost all hunters 58.1% were between the ages of 6 and 12 the
first time they went hunting. Three of 10 were teenagers, and
9.3% were under age 6 when they had their initial hunting
experience. Typically, their father took them hunting the first
time (44.2%) or a relative other than their grandfather (23.3%).
They also reported initially being taken hunting by a child
friend (18.6%), an adult friend (11.6%), or their grandfather
(11.6%).
When asked the types of animals they had hunted, the most common
responses were deer (73.8%), squirrels (69.0%), and birds
(64.3%). Approximately 43 percent had hunted rabbits, and 35.7%
had been turkey hunting.
Not all those who had been hunting had actually killed an
animal. Approximately one-fourth of those who had hunted
reported never killing an animal. Of the remaining hunters,
37.4% said they had killed more than 20 animals. Approximately
22% had killed between 6 and 20, while one-fourth had killed 3
to 3 animals, and 15.6% had killed one or two.
Almost two-thirds were between the ages of six and twelve the
first time they killed an animal, while 28.1% were teenagers.
Only one respondent was under six the first time he killed an
animal while hunting.
In general, the animals who most often were hunted squirrels,
birds, and deer were also the most likely ones killed. However,
they appeared to have greater "success" with squirrels and birds
than with deer. Squirrels (78%) and birds (75.0%) were the
animals most commonly reported killed. Deer, whom nearly
three-fourths of hunters had reported hunting, had been killed
by 46.9%.
Hunting and Violence Against Animals and Humans
Animal abuse. The first question examined the bivariate
relationship between hunting and harming animals. Table 4 gives
the percentages of hunters and non-hunters who committed each of
the five types of violence toward animals. Overall, hunters were
nearly twice as likely to have perpetrated violence against an
animal as were non-hunters: 39.5% versus 20.0% (2 = 4.28,
p=.039). One type of abuse killing a stray or wild animal
accounts for most of this disparity. Only 8% of non-hunters had
engaged in this behavior; 34.9% of hunters had done so. When
defining hunters as only those who have killed an animal
hunting, then the relationship is even stronger (see Table 5).
Nearly half (48.4%) of those who had killed an animal hunting
reported committing at least one act of animal abuse, whereas
slightly fewer than one-fifth of those who had never killed an
animal hunting had engaged in animal abuse (2 = 8.17, p=.004).
------------------------
Table 4. Relationship between Hunting and Animal
Abuse
Hunters Non-hunters
(n=43)
(n=51)
Type of Violence Perpetrated
Killed a
pet
0.0 2.0
Killed a stray or wild animal
34.9 8.0
Hurt
or tortured a pet
7.0 12.0
Hurt
or tortured a wild animal
11.6 10.0
Had
sexual acts with an animal
0.0
2.0
Perpetrated Any Violence against Animals
39.5 20.0
------------------------
-----------------------
Table 5. Relationship between Hunting and Illegal
Violence – Hunter vs. Non-hunters and Killed Animal Hunting vs.
Never Killed Animal Hunting
Hunters Non-hunters Never
Killed
(n=43) (n=51) p
(n=31) (n=61)
p
Ever Committed
Violence Against Animals
39.5 20.0
.039 48.4 19.7
.004
Actions during last year of high school
Destroyed/Damaged
property 44.2
19.6 .010
54.8 19.4 .001
Physical fights
with others
30.2 25.5
.609 29.0 27.4
.870
------------------------
Violence toward humans indirect and direct. Respondents were
asked about two actions during their last year of high school:
(a) whether they had damaged or destroyed someone else's
property a form of indirect violence against others and (b)
whether they had gotten into physical fights with other kids a
measure of direct violence (see Table 5). Hunters were more than
twice as likely to have damaged or destroyed property that did
not belong to them 44.2% versus 19.6% (2 = 6.61, p=.010). When
hunters are limited only to those who have killed an animal
while hunting, the difference is even greater 54.8% versus
20.0% (2 = 12.13, p=.001).
However, there was no difference between hunters and non-hunters
in the incidence of fighting with others. Three out of 10
hunters and 1 out of 4 non-hunters reported getting into fights
with others during their senior year of high school (2 = .26,
p=.609). When hunters are restricted to just those who have
killed an animal while hunting, there is still no difference (2
= .03, p=.870).
Empathy
There was no difference between hunters and non-hunters
regarding emotional empathy. The means of hunters and
non-hunters on the empathic concern scale were 18.19 and 19.02,
respectively (p=.3374). On the perspective taking scale, the
difference approached statistical significance, with hunters
expressing less cognitive empathy. The mean score for hunters
was 16.16, while non-hunters averaged 18.10 (p=.0730).
Regression Analyses
Since hunters differed from non-hunters with respect to race,
religion, and hunting socialization, it is possible that the
observed bivariate relationships observed above will be due to
these variables and not to the independent variable. Therefore,
the study ran two separate regression analyses for each of the
significant dependent variables animal abuse and
damaged/destroyed property. In the first model of each group,
the hunting was operationalized as whether the respondent had
ever been hunting. The second model defined hunting as whether
the respondent had ever killed an animal hunting. The control
variables were race coded as white/nonwhite; religion coded as
Protestant/all others; and family member hunted during
respondent’s childhood coded yes/no. Table 6 presents the
results of these four analyses.
------------------------
Table 6.
Regression Analyses of Hunting Variables for Harming Animals and
Damaging Property (Standardized Coefficients)
Harmed Animals
Damaged Property
b
p
b
p
b
p
b
p
Hunter .318
.013 - -
.173 .176 - -
Killed
Hunting -
- .378 .001
- - .305 .008
White -.220
.048 -.210 .051 .228
.043 .223 .039
Protestant
.204 .060 .214 .044
.126 .249 .132 .214
Family
Member -.162 .204 -.152
.191 -.029 .819 -.066
.568
Hunted
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: For harmed
animal analysis, n=86; for damaged property, n=85.
------------------------
Animal abuse. After controlling for race, religion, and hunting
socialization, hunters still were significantly more likely to
perpetrate violence toward animals than non-hunters (p=.013).
When examining the other variables in the model, nonwhites were
more likely to engage in violence to animals than whites and
Protestants were more likely than non-Protestants to do so,
although statistical significance was barely missed (p=.06).
Having a family member who hunted during one’s childhood was not
related to abusing animals.
When hunting is defined as having killed an animal, then hunting
is even a more powerful predictor of harming animals (p=.001).
Being nonwhite and Protestant still related to perpetrating
violence against an animal.
Property damage
After considering the control variables, hunting no longer
is significantly related to damaging or destroying other’s
property (p=.176). The only significant predictor was race, with
whites being more likely to damage someone else’s property.
However, when hunting is defined as having killed an animal
while hunting, then it is a significant predictor (p=.008). In
this model, whites still are more likely than nonwhites to have
committed property damage.
Discussion
As expected, hunters were approximately twice as likely to
engage in violence toward animals as non-hunters. Four of 10
male respondents who had been hunting had committed an act of
violence against an animal; among those who had never hunted,
only 2 of 10 had abused animals. When “hunters” included only
those who had killed an animal, almost half reported having
perpetrated animal abuse. This relationship held after
controlling for three variables on which hunters and non-hunters
differed race, religion, and a family member who had hunted
during the respondent’s childhood.
However, the main type of violence that accounted for this
difference was killing a wild or stray animal. With regard to
the other types of animal abuse, hunters were no more likely,
and in some cases, less likely to have perpetrated them.
Although higher rates of animal abuse by non-hunters in any area
were unexpected, these differences were not statistically
significant, and we should view them cautiously due to the small
number of respondents in each category. Nevertheless, these
findings indicate it is premature to link hunting with animal
abuse per se.
The operationalization of animal abuse may be problematic for
this population. By definition, hunters kill animals in the
wild. In their minds, killing other animals in the wild who are
not the intended target of the hunt, may be seen very
differently compared to torturing or killing a pet and not be
perceived as “abuse” by hunters. Additionally, hunters may be
quite similar to most individuals in their ability to
compartmentalize their attitudes, and thus treatment, toward
other animals. As hunting lore suggests, hunters may be very
capable of showing great affection for their hunting dogs or
pets, while at the same time gaining great pleasure from
shooting a deer. In many ways, this contradictory view of
animals is the most consistent quality in humans’ thinking about
other animals (Arluke & Sanders, 1996). Thus, based on the
findings of this study, it seems more accurate to link hunting
with illegal behavior killing non-game designated animals as
opposed to animal abuse.
The attitudes of hunters toward animals may make it easier to
kill them legally while hunting as well as illegally. It seems
likely that those who kill animals for sport would be more
likely to view animals as objects or tools, or at least as
inferior to humans, whereas non-hunters may be more willing to
view animals in more subjective and individualistic terms. In
fact, among this sample, hunters were significantly more likely
to disagree with the statement, “Animals should have the same
moral rights as human beings do.” Approximately half of hunters
(48.8%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this
statement, compared with only one-fourth of non-hunters (27.4%),
2 (1 df) = 4.57, p = .033. If other animals are viewed in a
more impersonal, objectified way, then physically harming or
killing them, whether hunting or not, may be more likely.
Other factors make hunters’ killing of animals in the wild a
likely occurrence. One is opportunity. Although there is no way
to tell if the animal abuse occurred while hunting, certainly
the private, secluded setting would facilitate such action.
Secondly, obviously the ready accessibility of guns also would
make committing violence toward animals easier. Finally, Arluke
& Luke (1997) have noted that adolescents often commit animal
cruelty with peers, perhaps as a way to gain approval and to
prove one’s masculinity. Since hunting is overwhelmingly a male
activity, it may be that youth who hunt are more stereotypically
masculine and, thus, may be killing animals in socially
acceptable as well as unacceptable ways in order to validate
their masculinity to themselves and to others.
Hunters in the present sample also were more than twice as
likely as non-hunters to report that they had damaged or
destroyed someone else’s property while a senior in high school.
As with animal abuse, when defining hunting as having killed an
animal, the relationship was even stronger. Controlled for
sociodemographic variables, the significance of this
relationship disappeared when “having ever hunted” was the
independent variable but remained significant when we used “ever
killed an animal hunting.”
This type of indirect violence against humans is important
because of its potential theoretical link to violence against
animals. If animals are harmed at least in part because they
are viewed as unworthy of moral consideration and, thus, more
like objects then there may be little distinction between
destroying someone’s property and hurting or killing an animal.
It also may be that, like hunting, vandalism is predominantly a
male activity that provides an opportunity for destruction of
property both living and nonliving because of such factors as
peer-related masculinity tests.
Even though it took killing animals, rather than just “going
hunting” to produce significance in the full model, hunting
still may be a marker of destructive behavior in adolescent
males. Nearly half of those who had been hunting had damaged
another person’s property while a senior in high school.
However, hunters were no more prone to get into physical fights
as high school seniors than were non-hunters. This was true
whether we defined hunting as going hunting or killing an
animal. For this sample, there was no direct link between
socially sanctioned violence against animals and violence
against humans.
In sum, the findings from this study provide evidence for a
relationship between hunting and illegal aggression or violence
killing stray or wild animals and damaging the property of
humans but not between hunting and interpersonal violence. Why
might hunting lead to killing other animals in the wild and
property damage but not to violence against other humans? First,
the normative support for hunting, especially in the South, may
operate to minimize any spillover from killing animals to human
interpersonal violence. Unlike corporal punishment, in which
receiving socially legitimate violence often spills over into
engaging in socially illegitimate violence (Straus, 1991, 1994),
the same did not happen with hunting. However, unlike spanking,
in which children are “victims” of legal violence from other
humans and have no control over its infliction, hunters are
employers of legal violence against non-human targets over whom
they have complete control.
Another possibility may relate to social distance of the targets
of aggression. Killing animals for sport only may make it easier
to inflict damage onto more socially distant victims. In this
study, the animals whom hunters victimized were stray or wild
animals animals who are not as valued as companion animals and,
thus, more distant from the collective social community.
Similarly, damaging the property of humans is a form of
aggression that harms its victims only indirectly, from a
distance.
Relatedly, hunting provides the opportunity to employ safe,
legitimate violence (from the hunter’s perspective). Thus, it
only may be “safe, illegitimate violence” killing animals in
the wild and destruction of property that hunting engenders.
Perpetrators of interpersonal violence often choose the smaller
and less powerful as victims. In the current study, the measure
of violence was one involving relatively equal participants
fighting other youth. Unfortunately, because respondents
reported committing virtually no dating violence, we were unable
to determine whether hunting relates to violence against other
humans when the victims are less powerful physically and/or
socially.
Clearly, gender is an important variable in this research.
Overwhelmingly, males engaged all the activities investigated
hunting, animal abuse, damaging property, fighting with others.
It has long been thought that male socialization, with its
emphasis on dominance and aggression, inhibits the development
of emotional empathy. Apparently, hunting has no additional
impact on this gender disparity. In this sample, females had
much greater empathic concern, that is, sympathy and compassion
for unfortunate others, than did males whether or not they
hunted.
There are several limitations to this research. First, the size
of the sample is relatively small, which suggests that we should
consider cautiously any conclusions. Second, this study examined
only one type of interpersonal violence against other humans
physical fights during one’s last year in high school. Since
virtually no respondents admitted to engaging in dating
violence, we could not examine its relationship to hunting.
Whether other forms of violence against humans are related to
hunting needs to be the subject of future research.
Third, we carried out this research in the South, where hunting
still enjoys great popularity, is a rich tradition, and where
more traditional definitions of masculinity may exist. It would
be interesting to see whether studies in other regions would
produce different results.
Finally, and perhaps most important, this was a study of the
hunting experiences of college students, not serious, long-term
hunters. If there is any relationship between hunting and
engaging in interpersonal violence, it may require hunting over
many years before seeing its effect. If so, such a relationship
more likely might be revealed in other regions where hunting is
less practiced and less valued.
* Clifton P. Flynn, University of South Carolina, Spartanburg
Note
Correspondence should be sent to Clifton P. Flynn, Department of
Sociology, University of South Carolina Spartanburg,
Spartanburg, SC 29303. E-mail: cflynn@gw.uscs.edu. This study
was funded in part from two Teaching and Productive Scholarship
grants from the University of South Carolina Spartanburg. The
author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Jill Jones
and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on
earlier versions of this manuscript.
References
Adair, H. E. (1995). The correlation between hunting and crime:
A comment. Society & Animals, 3, 189-195.
Adams, C. J. (1995). Woman-battering and harm to animals. In C.
J. Adams & J. Donovan (Eds.), Animals and women: Feminist
theoretical exploration (pp. 55-84). Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Arluke, A., & Luke, C. (1997). Physical cruelty toward animals
in Massachusetts, 1975-1990. Society & Animals, 5, 195-204.
Arluke, A., & Sanders, C. (1996). Regarding animals.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A
review of research and implications for developmental
psychology. Anthrozoös, 6 (4), 226-247.
Clifton, M. (1994a). Hunters and molesters. Animal People, 3(2),
1, 7-9.
Clifton, M. (1994b). Ohio data confirms hunting/child abuse
link. Animal People, 3(9), 1, 8-9.
Coltrane, S. (1998). Gender and families. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Pine Forge Press.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach.
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Eskridge, C. W. (1986). Zero-order inverse correlations between
crimes of violence and hunting licenses in the United States.
Social Science Research, 71, 55-57.
Flynn, C. P. (1999). Exploring the link between corporal
punishment and children’s cruelty to animals. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61, 971-981.
Herzog, H., Rowan, A., & Kossow, D. (2001). Social attitudes and
animals. In D. J. Salem & A.
N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals 2001 (pp. 55-69).
Washington, D C: Humane Society Press.
Irwin, P. G. (2001). Overview: The state of animals in 2001. In
D. J. Salem & A. N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals 2001
(pp 1-19). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.
Kheel, M. (1995). License to kill: An ecofeminist critique of
hunters’ discourse. In C. J. Adams & J. Donovan (Eds.), Animals
and women: Feminist theoretical perspectives (pp. 85-125).
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Solot, D. (1997). Untangling the animal abuse web. Society &
Animals, 5, 257-265.
Straus, M. A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical
punishment of children and violence and other crime in
adulthood. Social Problems, 38, 133-154.
Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal
punishment in American families. New York: Lexington Books.
Table 1. Gender Differences on Variables of Interest
Males Females
(n=94) (n=137) 2 p
Ever hunted 45.7 9.5 39.9 .001
Perpetrated animal abuse 28.7 3.9 27.3 .001
Damaged/destroyed property 31.2 7.9 27.7 .001
Physical fights with others 28.1 7.1 19.0 .001
Empathy t
Empathic Concern 18.6 21.8 5.25 .001
Perspective Taking 17.3 17.2 .21 .833
Table 2. Hunting Sociodemographic Variables – Male Hunters vs.
Non-hunters
Hunters Non-hunters
(n=43) (n=51)
Age (mean) 20.3 21.3
Race
White 93.0% 66.7%
African American 4.6 21.6
Other 2.3 11.8
Religious Affiliation
Protestant 82.5 68.1
Catholic 5.0 12.8
Jewish 0.0 0.0
Other 5.0 10.6
None 7.5 8.5
Parents Marital Status when H.S. senior
Married 73.8 72.0
Divorced/Widowed 26.2 28.0
Father’s Education
Less than high school 4.8 2.0
High school/some college 42.9 44.9
College grad. or higher 52.4 53.1
Mother’s Education
Less than high school 7.0 8.0
High school/some college 46.5 58.0
College grad. or higher 46.5 34.0
Father’s Occupation
Blue collar 31.0 38.8
White collar 69.0 61.2
Mother’s Occupation
Not employed 7.0 12.0
Blue collar 20.9 20.0
White collar 72.1 68.0
Family member hunted during childhood 83.7 26
Table 3. Descriptive Data on Hunting Experiences
No. of times hunted n %
Once 9 20.9
Twice 2 4.6
3-5 times 9 20.9
6-10 times 4 9.3
11-20 times 6 14.0
Over 20 times 13 30.2
Age first time hunting n %
Under 6 4 9.3
6 to 12 25 58.1
13 to 18 13 30.2
Over 18 1 2.3
Who took first timea n %
Father/stepfather 19 44.2
Mother/stepmother 1 2.3
Grandfather 5 11.6
Other relative 10 23.3
Adult friend 5 11.6
Child friend 8 18.6
Other 3 7.0
Type of animal hunteda n %
Birds 27 64.3
Rabbits 18 42.9
Squirrel 29 69.0
Deer 31 73.8
Fox 6 14.3
Turkey 15 35.7
Other 5 11.9
Age first time killed animalb n %
Under 6 1 3.1
6 to 12 21 65.6
13 to 18 9 28.1
Over 18 1 3.1
Type of animal killeda n %
Birds 24 75.0
Rabbits 12 37.5
Squirrel 25 78.1
Deer 15 46.9
Fox 4 12.5
Turkey 8 25.0
Other 5 15.6
No. of animals killed in lifetime n %
One 4 12.5
Two 1 3.1
3 to 5 8 25.0
6 to 10 4 12.5
11 to 20 3 9.4
Over 20 12 37.4
How old last time hunted n %
6 to 12 6 13.6
13 to 18 23 52.3
Over 18 15 34.1
_____________________________________________
aDue to multiple responses, percentages total to greater than
100%.
bEleven hunters had never killed an animal while hunting.
Table 4. Relationship between Hunting and Animal Abuse
Hunters Non-hunters
(n=43) (n=51)
Type of Violence Perpetrated
Killed a pet 0.0 2.0
Killed a stray or wild animal 34.9 8.0
Hurt or tortured a pet 7.0 12.0
Hurt or tortured a wild animal 11.6 10.0
Had sexual acts with an animal 0.0 2.0
Perpetrated Any Violence against Animals 39.5 20.0
Table 5. Relationship between Hunting and Illegal Violence –
Hunter vs. Non-hunters and Killed Animal Hunting vs. Never
Killed Animal Hunting
Never
Hunters Non-hunters Killed Killed
(n=43) (n=51) p (n=31) (n=61) p
Ever Committed Violence Against Animals 39.5 20.0 .039 48.4 19.7
.004
Actions during last year of high school
Destroyed/Damaged property 44.2 19.6 .010 54.8 19.4 .001
Physical fights with others 30.2 25.5 .609 29.0 27.4 .870
Table 6. Regression Analyses of Hunting Variables for Harming
Animals and Damaging Property (Standardized Coefficients)
Harmed Animals Damaged Property
p p p p
Hunter .318 .013 - - .173 .176 - -
Killed Hunting - - .378 .001 - - .305 .008
White -.220 .048 -.210 .051 .228 .043 .223 .039
Protestant .204 .060 .214 .044 .126 .249 .132 .214
Family Member -.162 .204 -.152 .191 -.029 .819 -.066 .568
Hunted
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: For harmed animal analysis, n=86; for damaged property,
n=85.
For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click
Article
Abstracts
To order Society &
Animals Journal, go to our secure online
ordering page
You
can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well
as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA)
website,
for topics and keywords of your interest:
|
