Content uploaded by Dalton Breno Costa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dalton Breno Costa on Aug 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Psychiatry Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychres
Animal Hoarding Disorder: A new psychopathology?
Elisa Arrienti Ferreira
a
, Luis Henrique Paloski
a
, Dalton Breno Costa
b
, Vânia Saretta Fiametti
a
,
Camila Rosa De Oliveira
c
, Irani Iracema de Lima Argimon
a
, Valéria Gonzatti
a
,
Tatiana Quarti Irigaray
a,⁎
a
Postgraduate Program in Psychology of School of Humanities, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Av. Ipiranga, 6681, Building 11, 9th
floor, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
b
Department of Psychology, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
c
Department of Psychology, Faculdade Meridional –IMED, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Animal Hoarding Disorder
Diagnostic criteria
Psychopathology
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to characterize the sociodemographic profile of animal hoarders in a southern city of Brazil. In
addition, it aimed to propose Animal Hoarding Disorder as a new nosological category, distinct from Hoarding
Disorder. Thirty-three individuals with Animal Hoarding Disorder, 73% female and 60% elderly, composed the
sample. The average age of the sample was 61.39 years (SD = 12.69) and the average period that individuals
hoarded or lived with a large number of animals was 23.09 years (SD = 15.98.) It was observed that 56.7% of
the sample hoarded other inanimate objects, besides the animals. The total number of hoarded animals was
1.357 and the average number of animals per hoarder was approximately 41 (SD = 24.41). Significant differ-
ences between hoarding disorder and animal hoarding are discussed. Unlike hoarded objects, hoarded animals
generally do not obstruct domicile environments. The processes of disengaging from or donating animals also
differ from those of object hoarding, since there is an affectional bond with lives and not with unanimated
objects. In this sense, the characterization of Animal Hoarding Disorder as a new mental disorder may arouse
great interest from both clinical professionals and researchers.
1. Introduction
The main characteristics of Hoarding Disorder are considered a
possible symptom of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) or
Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD), according to the
fourth revised version of DSM, part of the chapter of Anxiety Disorders
(American Psychiatric Association, 2002). With the publication of the
DSM-5, OCD was removed from that group and became the protagonist
of a separate chapter. Then, it became a separate nosographic entity,
entitled “Hoarding Disorder”(HD), which is included in this new sec-
tion entitled “Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Related Disorders”.
The main characteristics of Hoarding Disorder are the difficulty in
disposing objects and suffering associated with their discard.
Animal Hoarding is characterized as a special manifestation of HD
(American Psychiatric Association, 2014) and a psychopathology with
significant impact on the functioning of individuals (Svanberg and
Arluke, 2016). The first scientific reports of people living with many
animals appeared in 1981, with the researchers Worth and Beck (1981).
These authors denominated these individuals as “owners of many ani-
mals”, describing them as low-income people who lived alone in
unhealthy conditions. A large number of animals occurred due to
constant collecting, uncontrolled reproduction and the inability of in-
dividuals to donate them (Worth and Beck, 1981).
Patronek (1999) was the first researcher to propose diagnostic cri-
teria for individuals who were denominated as “animal hoarders”and
presented this condition as a public health problem. The researcher
characterized these individuals as people who: 1) hoarded a large
number of animals; 2) failed to provide minimum necessary conditions
for nutrition, sanitation, and veterinary care; 3) failure to act on ani-
mals deteriorating state or on the negative effect of hoarding on their
own health and well-being and the health of other family members.
Over the years, researchers have defined animal hoarding according
to the criteria of Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC),
created in 2002 in the United States of America (Joffe et al., 2014;
Ockenden et al., 2014; Reinisch, 2009). The diagnostic criteria of HARC
(2002) observed the same criteria proposed by Patronek (1999), with
the addition of a criterion that refers to the inability to recognize the
negative consequences of hoarding.
Hoarding Disorder is considered a complex phenomenon that causes
problems of public health and legal impasses (Bratiotis et al., 2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.08.030
Received 26 January 2017; Received in revised form 8 August 2017; Accepted 15 August 2017
⁎
Correspondence to: Ipiranga Avenue, 6681 Partenon, Building 11, room 939, Porto Alegre, RS 90619-900, Brazil
E-mail address: tatiana.irigaray@pucrs.br (T.Q. Irigaray).
Psychiatry Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
0165-1781/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Ferreira, E.A., Psychiatry Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.08.030
The interest of the scientific community about the characteristics of this
psychological condition is evident since several documentary studies
developed in different countries have been published (Frost et al.,
2015). However, the current scientific literature presents a lack of
empirical studies on the phenomenon of animal hoarding (Saldarriaga-
Cantillo and Rivas Nieto, 2015; Steketee et al., 2011).
The present study aims to characterize the sociodemographic profile
of individuals who hoarded animals in Porto Alegre. In addition, it
discusses and presents specific diagnostic criteria for Animal Hoarding
Disorder, opening the discussion about the possibility of a new psy-
chopathology distinct from Hoarding Disorder, with specific diagnostic
criteria.
2. Method
2.1. Design
This is a cross-sectional and exploratory study.
2.2. Participants
The sampling process was for convenience, the Municipal
Secretariat for Animal Rights (Secretaria Municipal dos Direitos dos
Animais - SEDA) of Porto Alegre - a municipal agency whose purpose is
to establish and execute public policies for health, protection, defense
and animal welfare. A survey of potential hoarders residing in Porto
Alegre was performed. SEDA identified 75 cases of potential animal
hoarders in the city of Porto Alegre. From there, the information about
these individuals was available to the researchers.
Between August 2015 and May 2016, the researchers visited 75
houses where 48 individuals were contacted. In other 27 houses, the
contact was not even possible. In 14 houses the residents were not
found, even after two visits on different days. In other 13 residences,
the individuals were not living in the area. After the research pre-
sentation, only 38 individuals agreed to participate. We included the 38
individuals who agreed to participate in the study and fulfilled all the
inclusion criteria established by the exploratory strategy. These in-
dividuals were preliminarily identified by SEDA and were within the 75
constituent cases of the target population. It should be noted that those
individuals who had the following conditions, which interfered with
interviewing and testing, were excluded: communication problems,
auditory and visual problems that were evaluated in the initial dialo-
gues of the approach, from the filling of the Sociodemographic data
sheet.
Participants should fill the diagnostic criteria of DSM-5 (American
Psychiatric Association, 2014) for Animal Hoarding Disorder to be in-
cluded in the research: (1) hoarding of many animals; (2) failure to
provide minimum standards of nutrition, sanitation, and veterinary
care; (3) failure to act on the deteriorating condition of animals (in-
cluding disease, hunger or death) and the environment (e.g. over-
population, extremely unhealthy conditions).
All individuals who agreed to participate in the survey also allowed
veterinarians to assess the health status of the animals. Among the 38
individuals evaluated, three of them did not fill the criteria necessary
for the diagnosis of Animal Hoarding Disorder, since the animals were
in good nutrition and general health conditions. The environment was
also in good condition, including sanitation. In addition, individuals
provided minimal veterinary care and recognized the difficulties due to
a large number of animals. One participant was excluded for presenting
speech impairment, which was impossible to collect data and another
participant who presented the diagnosis of schizophrenia, which is an
exclusion criterion (American Psychiatric Association, 2014).
2.3. Instruments
2.3.1. Sociodemographic data sheet
included the following variables: age, sex, marital status, education,
housing situation, relatives or support network. History of physical and
mental illnesses, health perception, current occupation, number and
species of animals in the residence, period in which individuals started
to hoard animals and if other objects were hoarded were also in-
vestigated.
2.3.2. Semi-structured interview
characteristics of individuals with hoarding disorder were in-
vestigated, such as: How many animals do you have at home? When did
you start having animals in your house? Why do you collect animals?
Who buys animal food? Who supplies the house? Are the animals ca-
strated? What was the last animal adopted? How old are the animals?
Do animals have names? What care and activities do you usually do
with animals? What is your favorite animal? Do you collect/store
anything (building material, etc)? When do you need help, who can you
count with? Is it common for people in your community to leave pets in
front of your house? and Do you usually go to parties, lunches, etc?
2.3.3. Report of veterinarians
a report for each residence visited was provided by the veterinarians
of Special Secretariat for Animal Rights (SEDA), which evaluated the
health conditions of the animals.
2.4. Procedures for data collection
The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of PUCRS (CEP -
PUCRS) under the CAAE: 44489715.8.0000.5336. Contacts were made
with the participants through home visits and the participants signed
the Informed Term Consent (Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido -
TCLE). Participants individually answered the assessment tools, which
was approximately one hour and thirty minutes long. The evaluations
were conducted by the project coordinator and the auxiliary team,
formed by psychologists and psychology research interns, previously
trained to assist in the application of the instruments and the interview.
Visits to the houses of the potential hoarders were accompanied by a
veterinarian and a SEDA supervisor. The Promotoria do Meio Ambiente
do MPRS offered transportation for the researchers, by prior appoint-
ment, to have access to residences of the participants.
The instruments were applied inside the houses visited or inside the
vehicle available by the Public Ministry of Rio Grande do Sul, when
there were not physical and sanitary conditions for conducting the
evaluative process in the residences. During the evaluation of the par-
ticipants, animals were examined and treated by veterinarians, who
produced formal reports informing about the animal and the environ-
ment conditions, which were also used to produce this article. Animals
identified in need of specialized treatment or castration were removed
to a veterinary hospital when the hoarder allowed.
2.5. Procedures for data analysis
The data were organized and analyzed in a bank, created in the
program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 17)
for Windows. Data were described by absolute (n) and relative (%)
frequencies for qualitative variables, and by average and standard de-
viation for quantitative variables.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of hoarders
The final sample was composed of 33 animal hoarders. The average
age of the individuals in the sample was 61.39 years old (SD = 12.69)
E.A. Ferreira et al. Psychiatry Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2
and the average period of animal hoarding or living with a great
number of animals was 23.09 years (SD = 15.98). It was observed that
56.7% (n= 18) of the individuals in the sample hoarded not only
animals, but also inanimate objects. 73% (n= 24) perceived them-
selves as healthy and 63% (n= 21) reported some type of health
problem. Further sociodemographic information may be found in
Table 1.
The total number of animals was 1.357, presenting an amplitude of
03–101 animals in the sample, composed of 915 dogs, 382 cats, and 50
ducks. The average number per hoarder was approximately 41 animals
(SD = 24.41) and only 22% (n= 7) of the participants had all animals
castrated. Most castrations were made by Special Secretariat of Animal
Rights. The prevalence of hoarded dogs was found in other studies
(Calvo et al., 2014).
Regarding gender, the datum found was that approximately 73% of
the individuals were females. This prevalence was found in other stu-
dies (Joffe et al., 2014; Saldarriaga-Cantillo and Rivas Nieto, 2015;
Svanberg and Arluke, 2016). Under this perspective, there is the hy-
pothesis that animal hoarding may be related to the female gender.
In this study, the predominance of elderly (64%) was found. This
result corroborates the information found in DSM-5 (American
Psychiatric Association, 2014) and in empirical studies about the dis-
order (Saldarriaga-Cantillo and Rivas Nieto, 2015;Steketee et al., 2011)
which present a prevalence of elderly individuals with animal hoarding.
However, the individuals start hoarding animals before old age, still in
adulthood. In this study, the average period of animal hoarding was
23.09 years (SD = 15.98). This datum may infer that as the hoarder
grows older, the number of hoarded animals may increase and symp-
toms of this disorder may be aggravated (American Psychiatric
Association, 2014). The characteristics of aging are responsible for
changes in the lives of individuals, such as impairment in support
network (Irigaray et al., 2016), which may justify the search for ani-
mals.
In terms of years of education, it was observed that the animal
hoarders had an average number of 9.39 years of study (SD = 4.40),
and only four had a college degree. In two studies made with animal
hoarders in the international context, it was verified that hoarders had
more years of education than the hoarders of this sample (Patronek,
1999; Steketee et al., 2011). In addition to that, a prevalence of in-
dividuals who had an income of 01–02 minimum wages was verified in
the sample. The poor education and low income found may be asso-
ciated with the fact that these individuals were recruited by an in-
stitution which primarily assists low-income individuals, the SEDA.
However, the income is not a variable which defines the disorder since
two hoarders who had an income of more than six minimum wages per
month were found.
Regarding marital status, it was observed that most individuals did
not have a partner and lived alone. This finding is corroborated in
previous studies, which hypothesized that the lack of personal re-
lationships is related to significant difficulties in social abilities. In this
sense, living with animals would provide emotional comfort to hoarders
who present difficulties in affective relationships (Steketee et al., 2011).
The therapeutic interventions with this population are complex due to
this deficit in the support network, which suffers great impairment.
3.2. Perspectives of a new disorder
The most recent edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of American Psychiatric Association (2014)
characterizes Hoarding Disorder as a psychopathology distinguished by
the compulsion of possessing and difficulty of discarding objects, ob-
structing and disorganizing the environment. These diagnostic criteria
are not explained by any other medical condition or mental disorder,
and this behavior is followed by suffering or significant impairment in
global functioning of the individual and/or of a third party.
Classified as a “special manifestation”of Hoarding Disorder (HD) in
DSM-5, animal hoarding is defined in the manual by the following
characteristics: (a) great number of hoarded animals; (b) negligence in
providing minimal patterns of nutrition, sanitation and veterinary care,
and (c) failure in act on deteriorating conditions of animals and the
environment. It is common that animal hoarders also hoarded in-
animate objects, however, in comparison to those who only hoarded
objects, animal hoarders present a poorer ability of insight and live in
more unhealthy environments (American Psychiatric Association,
2014).
In addition to describing sociodemographic data of hoarders, this
study also proposed that animal hoarding must be described as a new
psychopathological disorder with specificities which imply a distinction
of this new condition from Hoarding Disorder. This proposal is based on
empirical data of the study and literature review. The sample studied
presents characteristics which suggest that this disorder must be per-
ceived as a new nosographic category. The excerpt from DSM-5 states
that “most individuals who hoarded animals also hoarded objects”
(American Psychiatric Association, 2014, p. 249). Data from the clinical
interview highlighted that approximately 50% of individuals from the
sample that was investigated do not hoarded objects. This finding, as-
sociated with a literature review, sets a precedent to the discussion of a
new nosographic category.
In relation to the level of insight, the DSM-5 highlights that animal
hoarders possess poor insight. However, 27% of individuals from this
sample reported difficulties due to hoarding, which reveals a preserved
level of criticism or, in other words, great capacity of insight, different
from the definition proposed by DSM-5 (American Psychiatric
Association, 2014).
Concerning diagnostic criteria, “congestion of rooms in the dom-
icile,”which is a characteristic of Hoarding Disorder, an incompatibility
with Animal Hoarding Disorder is observed. In Animal Hoarding
Disorder, the congestion is not a mandatory aspect, unlike inanimate
objects which are hoarded statically, there is mobility of the “living
beings”who are hoarded Animals, when they are not confined, transit
and do not obstruct areas in the domicile (Frost et al., 2015).
Concerning the act itself, there are differences between discarding
or donating objects and animals. Inanimate objects do not require at-
tention, and animals demand constant care, even if the hoarder is only
capable of offering basic care. It is hypothesized that this process of
“care”from the hoarder to the animal may favor the creation of a bond,
which may contribute to the difficulty of hoarders in donating their
animals (Nathanson, 2009; Reinisch, 2008).
Under this perspective, after the presentation and discussion of ar-
guments favoring a creation of a distinction between Animal Hoarding
Disorder and Hoarding Disorder, the authors suggest particular
Table 1
Sociodemographic characterization of Animal Hoarders (n = 33).
Variables Category n%
Gender Female 24 73
Male 9 27
Marital Status Divorced/Widowed/Single 29 88
Married/common-law married 4 12
Education Illiterate 1 3
1 to 8 years 12 36
9 to 12 years 13 40
13 to 16 years 7 21
Income
a
1 to 2 minimum wages 25 76
3 to 4 minimum wages 3 9
5 or more 5 15
Reside with Alone 17 52
Relatives 14 42
Others 2 6
Occupation Retired / Pensioner 20 61
Working 13 39
Note:.
a
1 Minimum wage refers to R$ 788.00/month.
E.A. Ferreira et al. Psychiatry Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
3
diagnostic criteria to Animal Hoarding Disorder, as a part of a new
diagnostic category entitled Animal Hoarding Disorder, which is de-
scribed in Fig. 1.
This study revealed the presence, in only 33 residences, of ap-
proximately 1400 animals. Most animals live in precarious situations,
without minimum sanitary and veterinary care conditions. In addition,
dramatic situations such as violent fights for territory, extreme mal-
nutrition, cannibalism, caged animals injured and untreated, were ob-
served in most of the houses visited. The predominance of the sample
was individuals who received up to two minimum wages. Also, in-
dividuals who did not present conditions to propose improvements for
the environment and for stressed animals. Once they could not realize
real conditions due to poor or lack of insight, characteristic of the
disorder. Even when assistance is offered to improve the environment
and animal health such as treatment and castration, without any cost,
the individuals do not accept it.
It is expected that the characterization of Animal Hoarding Disorder
as a new mental disorder can bring visibility to this condition and
greater interest of both clinical professionals and researchers. It may
also lead to greater investment in specific interventions for this dis-
order, which causes serious damage to the environment, suffering for
individuals, their families, and the animals. New empirical studies are
Fig. 1. Animal Hoarding Disorder diagnostic criteria created by autors.
E.A. Ferreira et al. Psychiatry Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
4
suggested to investigate this mental disorder in the national and in-
ternational context and collect information that may contribute to the
consolidation of this new nosological entity. Another field that requires
research is therapeutic intervention since the presentation and results of
specific interventions for Animal Hoarding Disorder has not yet been
found. The presentation and results of interventions specific to Animal
Hoarding disorder have not yet been found.
The existence of only two empirical studies to discuss the results are
highlighted as a limitation of this study. It is defended the need to
construct other empirical studies in to refine the diagnostic criteria of
this psychopathology and enable the constant update of classification
manuals. Such refinement may facilitate the construction and in-
vestigation of specific therapeutic interventions, which may help to
address this issue.
References
American Psychiatric Association, 2002. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV), 4th ed. Author, Washington, DC.
American Psychiatric Association, 2014. Manual Diagnóstico e Estatístico de Transtornos
Mentais (DSM-5). Artmed, Porto Alegre.
Bratiotis, C., Schmalisch, C.S., Steketee, G., 2011. The Hoarding Handbook: A Guide for
Human Service Professionals. Oxford University Press, New York.
Calvo, P., Duarte, C., Bowen, J., Bulbena, A., Fatjó, J., 2014. Characteristics of 24 cases of
animal hoarding in Spain. Anim. Welf. 23, 199–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/
09627286.23.2.199.
Frost, R.O., Patronek, G., Arluke, A., Steketee, G., 2015. The hoarding of animals: an
update. Psychiatr. Times 32, 47–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/avj.12249.
Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC), 2002. Health implications of animal
hoarding. Health Soc. Work. 27, 125–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hsw/27.2.125.
Irigaray, T.Q., Esteves, C.S., Pacheco, J.T.B., Grassi-Oliveira, R., Argimon, I.I.D.L., 2016.
Elder abuse in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil: a documentary study. Estud.
Psicol. (Camp.). 33, 543–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-
02752016000300017.
Joffe, M., O'Shannessy, D., Dhand, N.K., Westman, M., Fawcett, A., 2014. Characteristics
of persons convicted for offences relating to animal hoarding in New South Wales.
Aust. Vet. J. 92, 369–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/avj.12249.
Nathanson, J.N., 2009. Animal hoarding: slipping into the darkness of comorbid animal
and self-neglect. J. Elder Abus. Negl. 21, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
08946560903004839.
Ockenden, E.M., De Groef, B., Marston, L., 2014. Animal hoarding in Victoria, Australia:
an exploratory study. Anthrozoos 27, 33–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
175303714×13837396326332.
Patronek, G.J., 1999. Hoarding of animals: an under-recognized public health problem in
adifficult-to-study population. Public Health Rep. 114, 81–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1093/phr/114.1.81.
Reinisch, A.I., 2008. Understanding the human aspects of animal hoarding. Can. Vet. J.
49, 1211–1215.
Reinisch, A.I., 2009. Characteristics of six recent animal hoarding cases in Manitoba. Can.
Vet. J. 50, 1069–1073.
Saldarriaga-Cantillo, A., Rivas Nieto, J.C., 2015. Noah Syndrome: a variant of Diogenes
Syndrome accompanied by animal hoarding practices. J. Elder Abus. Negl. 27,
270–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2014.978518.
Steketee, G., Gibson, A., Frost, R.O., Alabiso, J., Arluke, A., Patronek, G., 2011.
Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: an exploratory com-
parative interview study. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 15, 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0023484.
Svanberg, I., Arluke, A., 2016. The Swedish Swan Lady. Soc. Anim. 24, 63–77. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341388.
Worth, D., Beck, A.M., 1981. Multiple ownership of animals in New York City. Trans.
Stud. Coll. Physicians Phila. 3, 280–300.
E.A. Ferreira et al. Psychiatry Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
5
