CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Normalizing passive cruelty: The excuses and justifications of animal hoarders

Vaca-Guzman, Maria, Arluke, Arnold·2005·Anthrozoös
DOI 10.2752/089279305785593947
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Press reports frequently characterize animal hoarders as bad, mad, or sad people. This descriptive study identifies the accounts hoarders use to neutralize these negative portrayals. A total of 163 articles representing 118 hoarding cases between 2000 to 20003 were content-analyzed. Findings indicate that hoarders employ a variety of justifications and excuses to explain and normalize their treatment of animals. Justifications include denying wrongdoing, being a Good Samaritan, and professing to be victims of the system, while excuses include attributing their poor performance to external events, appealing to defeasibility, scapegoating, and self-handicapping. The results point to the value of these accounts to hoarders as well as to authorities and experts who deal with and manage this behavior.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2752/089279305785593947

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Alonso A.A., 1985, Social Science and Medicine, 21, 153, 10.1016/0277-9536(85)90084-X · DOI
  2. Arluke A., 2002, Society & Animals, 10, 1, 10.1163/156853002760030833 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0005-7967(95)00047-2 · DOI
  4. Campbell C., 2001, Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behaviour, 11
  5. Danzger M., 1982, A Handbook of Social Science Methods, Volume 2: Qualitative Methods, 197
  6. 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110603 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/0005-7967(95)00043-W · DOI
  8. HARC, 2000, Psychiatric Times, 17, 25
  9. HARC, 2002, Health and Social Work, 27, 125, 10.1093/hsw/27.2.125 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/014616727800400205 · DOI
  11. Jordan N., 1989, Psychology Today, 23, 24
  12. Lockwood R., 1994, American Animal Hospital Association Trends Magazine, 9, 18
  13. Lockwood R., 1988, The Humane Society News, 1
  14. 10.2307/2084524 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/BF01531950 · DOI
  16. Patronek G., 1999, Public Health Reports, 114, 82, 10.1093/phr/114.1.81 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Patronek G., 2001, Municipal Lawyer, 42, 6
  18. Rasmussen S., 1992, Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15, 743, 10.1016/S0193-953X(18)30205-3 · DOI
  19. Rotenberg K., 1980, Child Development, 29, 282, 10.2307/1129624 · DOI
  20. 10.2307/2092239 · DOI
  21. Shaw M.E., 1968, Journal of Adolescence, 3, 23
  22. Snyder, C.R. 1985. The excuse: An amazing grace? InThe Self and Social Life, 235–260, ed. B. Schlenker. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  23. 10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.23 · DOI
  24. Snyder C.R., 1983, Excuses: Masquerades in Search of Grace.
  25. Sykes G., 1957, American Sociological Review, 22, 640, 10.2307/2089195 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.4088/JCP.v60n0905 · DOI
  27. Worth C., 1981, Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 3, 280

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 23

Metadata

Authors
Vaca-Guzman, M., & Arluke, A.
Affiliations
  • Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
  • Department of Sociology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Venue
Anthrozoös
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-12
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
338-357
ISSN
  • 0892-7936
  • 1753-0377
DOI
10.2752/089279305785593947
Cited by
23
References
0
Language
en

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