The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characteristics and Antecedents of People who Hoard Animals: An Exploratory Comparative Interview Study
Abstract
Currently, case studies and media reports provide the only descriptive information available to understand what distinguishes hoarding of animals from nonhoarding animal ownership. This poorly understood problem appears to be associated with substantial mental health difficulties. The present study investigated characteristics and antecedents that might explain hoarding behaviors. Sixteen people who fit criteria for hoarding of animals and 11 nonhoarding controls who owned large numbers of animals participated in semistructured interviews that were analyzed using somewhat atypical qualitative and quantitative methods. The interviews focused on demographic information, history of animal contact, social history, insight into physical and mental health issues, collecting behaviors, and beliefs and emotions associated with animals. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used to examine differences between hoarding and nonhoarding groups and to capture distinguishing themes and patterns. Both groups were well matched in demographic variables and were mainly White women of middle age; the average number of animals owned was 31. Thematic content common to both groups was stressful life events (both childhood and adult), strong emotional reactions to animal death, strong caretaking roles and attitudes toward animals, a tendency to rescue animals, and intense feelings of closeness or attachment to animals. Themes found significantly more often among animal hoarding participants than controls included problems with early attachment, chaotic childhood environments, significant mental health concerns, attribution of human characteristics to animals, and the presence of more dysfunctional current relationships. These themes are elaborated and discussed with regard to potential models for understanding hoarding of animals.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Steketee et al. [235] observed that 81% of animal hoarders (compared to 27% of owners) tended to ascribe to them the same characteristics and intelligence of humans and to view them as their “children”.”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“what defines the disorder is not just the number of animals but the inability of the owner to provide the minimum necessary care for them, to recognize their suffering and to provide them with appropriate sanitary conditions [177,235,276,277,278].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“In general, animal hoarders show a highly dysfunctional relationship with animals, characterized by distorted overattachment to them, empathy disfunction and a high level of anthropomorphism [99,235,289].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“there is some evidence (e.g., [235]) that animal hoarders tend to anthropomorphize animals to a greater extent compared to non-hoarder animal owners.”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“Hoarders also tend to anthropomorphize animals to a greater extent compared to ordinary animal owners.”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“There is evidence of a relationship between anthropomorphism, attachment and attachment styles: people with insecure–anxious attachment styles with close others may compensate by seeking more secure or stable relationships from nonhumans agents”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“Animal hoarding appears to entail distortions and dysfunctions in attachment, empathy and anthropomorphism and shows how characteristics and motivations that, in general, foster and maintain long-lasting positive relationships with animals may jeopardize the human–animal relationship, causing suffering for both animals and humans [99,178,235].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“Their behavior, especially that of incipient hoarders, overwhelmed caregivers and rescue hoarders, is most often rooted in a real desire to take care of animals or save them and is characterized by a strong emotional attachment to animals and an extreme distress, often genuine despair, at the idea of being separated from them.”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“deriving comfort and well-being from their ability to provide emotional support and unconditional love and may view them as an extension of their self-concept [294].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“Animal hoarders, however, had more dysfunctional interpersonal relationships and mental health concerns and anthropomorphized animals more often;”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“Steketee et al. [235] interviewed individuals who fit the criteria for animal hoarding and individuals owning many animals but not meeting the hoarding criteria, reporting that both hoarders and non-hoarders had stressful life events in childhood and adulthood, strong feelings about animals such as the desire to rescue, take care of and be close to them.”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“however, the most significant difference between the two samples was the presence of a chaotic domestic environment during childhood and childhood problems with caregivers (e.g., unstable, neglectful, abusive, absent, and/or inconsistent parents).”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, animal hoarders, similar to ordinary animal owners, attribute animals with human-like qualities [235]”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
In the citing paper
“Animal hoarders are reported to have difficulties in establishing affective bonds with others, tend to maintain social isolation [235,270]”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [235]
Citations
Cites
Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 · Cited by 5,687
A cognitive-behavioral model of compulsive hoarding
Frost, R. O., & Hartl, T. L. (1996) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(95)00071-2 · Cited by 853
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Arluke A., 1998, An ethnographic approach to animal hoarding
- 10.1163/156853002320292282 · DOI
- Brown S. E., 1997, Dissociation, 10, 125
- 10.1163/156853001300108973 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3102/01623737015002195 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00056-4 · DOI
- Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium, 2000, Psychiatric Times, 17, 25
- 10.1093/hsw/27.2.125 · DOI
- 10.4135/9781412985253 · DOI · Paper page
- Lockwood R., 1994, American Animal Hospital Association Trends Magazine, 9, 18
- Patton M. Q., 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods
- 10.1093/phr/114.1.81 · DOI · Paper page
- Patronek G. J., 2001, Municipal Lawyer, 42, 6
- 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
- PowellK. (1999, July 27). Women ruined second house, says landlord: But not guilty of fraud, court finds. Edmonton Journal, B3.
- 10.2752/089279305785593947 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4088/JCP.v60n0905 · DOI
- Worth D., 1981, Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Series V, 3, 280
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Steketee, G., Gibson, A., Frost, R. O., Alabiso, J., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G.
- Affiliations
- School of Social Work, Boston University
- Department of Psychology, Smith College
- Boston University
- Department of Sociology, Northeastern University
- Animal Rescue League of Boston; Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium
- Venue
- Review of General Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 114-124
- ISSN
- 1089-2680
- 1939-1552
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Kenneth A. Scott Charitable Trust
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
