1. Hypothesis I: Participants with histories of IPV perpetration and diagnoses of APD will be characterized by more severe forms of intimate partner violence (i.e., psychological aggression, sexual coercion, and injury to partner). Hypothesis II: Self-reports of animal cruelty in childhood will be significantly associated with APD, more severe forms of intimate partner violence, and threats to and/or harm of pets in the context of IPV. Hypothesis III: Threats to and/or harm of pets in the context of IPV will be significantly associated with APD and more severe forms of intimate partner violence. Hypothesis IV: Lifetime prevalence of animal cruelty will be significantly related to APD.  Animal abuse in the context of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has recently become an important and increasingly examined area of study.  This emerging body of literature has provided consistent empirical support for links between child maltreatment, animal abuse, and IPV, suggesting that they often occur in the same households (Faver & Strand, 2003; Simmons & Lehmann, 2007; Faver and Strand, 2008).  Between one-half and three-fourths of battered women with companion animals report that their pets have been threatened or harmed by an intimate partner (Ascione, Weber, Thompson, Heath, Maruyama, & Hayashi, 2007).  Recent research on animal abuse in the context of IPV indicates that male batterers also abuse animals at significantly higher rates than men in non-abusive adult relationships (Ascione, Weber, Thompson, Heath, Maruyama, & Hayashi, 2007; Volant, Johnson, Gullone, & Coleman, 2008). Current study  This study extends the findings of previous research by examining recent and past treatment of animals reported by a convenience sample of incarcerated men with histories of intimate partner violence perpetration.  Given the inclusion of animal cruelty as a criteria in the diagnosis of conduct disorder and as a general indicator of antisocial behavior, the current study also extends previous literature by examining differences in animal cruelty histories among incarcerated IPV perpetrators with and without diagnoses of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). Shelby E. McDonald, M.S.W., & Frank R. Ascione, Ph.D. INTRODUCTION Presented at the 17th Annual SSWR Conference, Friday, January 18, 2013 METHODOLOGY DISCUSSION HYPOTHESES Incarcerated Men's Reports of Animal Abuse in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: The Influence of Antisocial Personality Disorder and Childhood Animal Cruelty  Our findings suggest that men convicted of or incarcerated for IPV- related offenses report engaging in threats to and/or harm of companion animals at higher rates than documented in studies of non-criminal perpetrators.  The results lend further support to research linking early childhood animal cruelty to subsequent delinquency, interpersonal and family violence, and APD.  Given the intersection of families experiencing domestic violence with the child welfare system, the link between child maltreatment, woman battering, and animal abuse has important implications for social work researchers and practitioners in the areas of child welfare and trauma.  More research on the link between childhood animal cruelty and subsequent interpersonal violence is needed and could lead to enhanced client outcomes through intervention. Data & Sample Participants: Convenience sample of 42 incarcerated men in the Utah Department of Corrections prison system  All were convicted of or admitted to engaging in intimate partner violence  21 to 55 years of age (M= 37.4).  Demographics: Caucasian (76.2%), Black/African American (9.5%), Hispanic/Latino (9.5%), Unknown (4.8%)  A diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder was evident in 48.8% of the sample. Measures: Conflict Tactic Scale II, Self Form (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney- McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)—Relationship behaviors, IPV. The Interview for Antisocial Behavior, Caretaker Form (IAB; Kazdin and Esveldt-Dawson, 1986)—Childhood Perpetration of Animal Cruelty. Reports of Animal Care and Abuse Scale (RACA; Ascione, 2002)— Threats to harm and actual harm/killing of animals in the context of IPV. The Boat Inventory of Animal-Related Experiences (BAIRE; Boat, 1994)—Lifetime prevalence of animal cruelty. DSM–IV—APD criteria, Clinical interview conducted by a forensic psychologist. Sample Descriptives  50% of participants (N=42) admitted to hurting/killing of pets in their current relationship as measured by the RACA.  Among participants who were diagnosed with APD, the rate of cruelty to animals in the context of their relationship was 60.9%.  56% of the total sample reported animal cruelty on the BAIRE. RESULTS, cont. RESULTS Hypothesis I. Offenders with an APD diagnosis reported significantly higher mean rates of IPV-related behaviors on the CTS2 than those without an APD diagnosis (i.e., Psychological Aggression, Severe Psychological Aggression, Sexual Coercion, and Severe Sexual Coercion). Hypothesis II. APD diagnosis was positively related to reports of childhood cruelty to animals on the IAB (χ 2 (1)=9.808, p=.002).  Participants who perpetrated animal cruelty in childhood were characterized by significantly higher mean rates of psychological aggression in intimate relationships (t(38)= 2.30, p=.027).  Threats to harm pets (χ 2 (1)=7.596, p=.006) and actual harm of pets (χ 2 (1)=7.14, p=.01) in the context of IPV were significantly related to childhood animal cruelty. Hypothesis III. Participants reporting use of harm or killing of animals as a tactic in relationships showed higher mean rates of severe sexually coercive behaviors toward partners on the CTS2 (t(40)= -2.26, p=.031).  APD diagnosis was significantly related to threats to harm animals in the context of IPV as measured by the RACA (χ 2 (1)=4.19, p=.04), but was independent of reports of actual harm or killing. Hypothesis IV: APD was also related to having reported harm and threats to harm animals at some point across lifetime on the BAIRE (χ 2 (1)=4.806, p=.028). Institute for Human-Animal Connection, The University of Denver CTS2 IPV Subscale Scores by APD Group ** * p<.05 ** p<.001 ** *