Content uploaded by Emma Alleyne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emma Alleyne on Jul 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 1
The psychological impact of slaughterhouse employment: A systematic literature review
Jessica Slade and Emma Alleyne
University of Kent
Author Note
Jessica Slade, Emma Alleyne, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of
Kent, Canterbury, Kent, England.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emma Alleyne, School
of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP. E-mail:
e.k.a.alleyne@kent.ac.uk
Please cite as: Slade, J., & Alleyne, E. (in press). The psychological impact of
slaughterhouse employment: A systematic literature review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 2
Abstract
The role of a slaughterhouse worker involves the authorised killing of living beings yet there
is limited understanding of the consequences this behaviour has on their wellbeing. The
purpose of this systematic review is to collate and evaluate the current literature on the
psychological impact of slaughterhouse employment. Fourteen studies met the specific a
priori inclusion criteria. The findings from this review were demarcated by the focus of
studies: (1) the prevalence of mental health disorders; (2) the types of coping mechanisms
used; (3) the link between slaughterhouse employment and crime perpetration. It was found
that slaughterhouse workers have a higher prevalence rate of mental health issues, in
particular depression and anxiety, in addition to violence-supportive attitudes. Furthermore,
the workers employ a variety of both adaptive and maladaptive strategies to cope with the
workplace environment and associated stressors. Finally, there is some evidence that
slaughterhouse work is associated with increased crime levels. The research reviewed has
shown a link between slaughterhouse work and antisocial behaviour generally, and sexual
offending specifically. There was no support for such an association with violent crimes,
however. Based on existing research we suggest future directions for research (i.e., applying
more methodological rigour), but highlight key findings for practitioners and policymakers
that warrant attention.
Keywords: slaughterhouse worker, mental health, depression, anxiety, crime, coping
mechanisms
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 3
The psychological impact of slaughterhouse employment: A systematic literature review
There are specific types of employment that require the authorised killing of living
beings. Given the traumatic nature of this work, there has been research investigating the
psychological impact, but only in a subset of professions (e.g., war veterans [MacNair, 2002],
veterinarians, and researchers who conduct experiments on animals [Bennett & Rohlf,
2005]). However, very little is known about the consequences of working in slaughterhouses
(also known as abattoirs). Slaughterhouse workers are involved in the deaths of more than 70
billion animals each year, worldwide (Sanders, 2018). In order to meet market demand, the
meat industry employs a workforce of approximately 75,000 people (British Meat Processors
Association, 2019) in approximately 250 slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom
(Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2019), with equivalent numbers in the
USA (United States Department of Agriculture, 2020). Furthermore, statistics show that the
majority of these employees have limited educational attainment and come from a low socio-
economic background (Victor & Barnard, 2016), with migrants making up 70% of the
workforce in the UK (British Meat Processors Association, 2019).
There has been increased media coverage of the slaughterhouse industry as a result of
the dissemination of online videos showing slaughterhouse staff abusing animals. Examples
include: using animals as a surface to extinguish cigarettes, decapitating animals and
ridiculing their dismembered bodies, and inflicting abuse on animals as a form of game
playing and entertainment (Animal Aid, 2015; Nagesh, 2017). In the UK, these videos
prompted a change in legislation, whereby slaughterhouse establishments were required to
install closed circuit television (CCTV) to act as a deterrence, and if needed, to aid
investigations (Embury-Dennis, 2018). However, animals are not the only victims of the
slaughterhouse industry. Modern-day slaughterhouses prosper as a result of the
industrialisation of the production line (Hendrix & Brooks Dollar, 2017). Consequently, this
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 4
puts immense pressure on the workers to keep up with such high demand (Dillard, 2008)
resulting in violations of workplace policies (e.g., slaughterhouse workers being denied
bathroom breaks – Oxfam America, 2016; drug use to meet high production line demand –
Hendrix & Brooks Dollar, 2017). Employment statistics, in addition to reports of high
turnover (Fitzgerald, 2010), underline the need to better understand both short term and
longer term psychological effects of working in such environments. Therefore, in the first
instance, a consolidation of existing research findings, in the form of a systematic review,
gives a spring-board to build an evidence base that can inform practice and policy.
Before we embark on this review, we define a slaughterhouse worker to be an
individual who works in a facility which kills and processes farmed animals for the
consumption of meat. In the context of this form of employment, slaughterhouse workers are
exposed to serious risk of injury (Leibler & Perry, 2016), with amputations occurring, on
average, twice per week in the US (Wasley, Cook & Jones, 2018). Risk of injury is often
attributed to the poor working conditions within slaughterhouses. For example,
slaughterhouse workers are often asked to work long shifts in cold, damp, and noisy
environments (Campbell, 1999; Harmse, Engelbrecht & Bekker, 2016; Human Rights Watch,
2004), with inadequate hygiene facilities (Cook, de Glanville, Thomas, Kariuki, de Clare
Bronsvoort & Fèvre, 2017). Furthermore, it has been argued that facilitating or observing the
cutting, skinning, and boiling of conscious or unconscious animals can cause psychological
distress (i.e., cognitive dissonance) on the workers (Eisnitz, 1997; Hendrix & Brooks Dollar,
2017). For example, there is a growing body of evidence that slaughterhouse workers exhibit
symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) warranting clinical attention (Beirne,
2004). This has been further characterised as perpetration-induced traumatic stress (PITS),
which is a form of PTSD where the person is involved (or believes they are involved) in
creating the traumatic situation (MacNair, 2002). The resulting symptomatology – such as
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 5
substance abuse, anxiety, nightmares and depression – is debilitating. Nonetheless, the
psychopathological consequences typically result in one of two outcomes. Slaughterhouse
workers often attempt to attenuate the cognitive dissonance using maladaptive regulatory
strategies (e.g., substance abuse, ruminative thinking) to enable them to perform their duties
(Dillard, 2008; Niven, Sprigg, Armitage & Satchwell, 2012). Alternatively, if the dissonance
and psychological effects overcome coping strategies, slaughterhouse workers come to the
attention of mental health services (e.g., psychiatric inpatient services; Newkey-Burden,
2020).
The state of the literature on the psychological effects of slaughterhouse employment
currently lacks a framework to point towards that outlines meaningful (theoretical and
practical) assertions regarding the underlying mechanisms that facilitate poor mental health
outcomes for the workers. This systematic review is timely because it gives opportunity to
take stock of the existing evidence and conceptualise research directions moving forward.
Therefore, in an effort to orient researchers and identify gaps for future study, the purpose of
this systematic review is to consolidate, synthesise, and evaluate the current literature on the
psychological effects of working in slaughterhouses. Considering the findings gleaned from
the existing body of research, we will also outline a framework for future research to further
evidence the processes and mechanisms between workplace-facilitated trauma and its
psychopathological consequences.
Method
Inclusion Criteria
The studies selected for inclusion were those that examined any psychological aspect
of slaughterhouse employment. Psychological effects were conceptualised as relating to any
aspect of mental health, social and cognitive domains, and interpersonal relationships. The
focus of the selected studies was purposely kept broad due to the scarcity of research. In
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 6
order to be selected for final inclusion, studies were required to meet the following set of a
priori criteria: (1) the focus of the study was to examine any of the psychological effects
described previously, (2) written in (or translated to) English, (3) the article presented an
empirical (quantitative or qualitative) study, rather than a review or theoretical argument, to
enable sufficient quality appraisals. In addition to the inclusion criteria, the literature search
was also designed to capture both peer-reviewed and unpublished research, to avoid
publication bias (Trespidi, Barbui & Cipriani, 2011).
Document Search and Extraction
This review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement for reporting (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff & Altman,
2009). A literature search was conducted across the following databases: Academic search
complete, PsychArticles, PsychInfo, Scopus and ProQuest Global Thesis Repository. The
keywords used in the searches included ‘slaughterhouse worker’ and ‘meatpacking worker’.
The initial search generated 563 articles, with 485 remaining after duplicates were
removed. After the titles and abstracts were examined against the a priori inclusion criteria,
there were 30 remaining full-text manuscripts. Five additional journal articles were identified
from the reference list of the 30 articles. No further articles were identified through contact
with experts. Fourteen full-text articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the
review (see Figure 1 for study selection flowchart).
Quality Appraisal
Two appraisal tools were used to provide a systematic method of assessing the quality
of the studies. Qualitative papers were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (CASP, 2016). Quantitative papers were assessed using the Quality Assessment
Tool for Quantitative Studies (Thomas, Ciliska, Dobbins & Micucci, 1998).
Results
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 7
Samples and Recruitment
Table 1 shows the details of the 14 studies used in this review. Half of the studies
recruited participants from the United States (n = 7, 50%), the others recruited participants
from the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Ireland, South Africa and Turkey.
For the studies which examined slaughterhouse workers (n = 12), there was a large variation
in sample size, with a mean sample of 506 slaughterhouse workers (minimum = 13,
maximum = 4407). Two studies used the same sample; that is, the study conducted by Horton
and Lipscomb (2011) was a longitudinal analysis of Lipscomb and colleagues’ (2007)
original study. The review included all-female studies (n = 2, 14%), all-male studies (n = 4,
29%) and mixed gender studies (n = 6, 43%). All of the studies used adult samples who were
recruited through the following methods: internally (n = 2), placing adverts inside the
slaughterhouse (n = 2), using community workers to circumvent the need to involve their
employers (n = 2), national cohort (n = 2), snowballing-techniques through personal
connections (n = 1) and two papers did not specify. Three studies did not recruit participants:
two used secondary data and one used participant observation.
The majority of studies examined slaughterhouses that processed cattle (n = 5, 36%),
while the others were poultry (n = 3, 21%) and pork (n = 1; 7%) establishments. Fitzgerald,
Kalof and Dietz (2009) used both cattle and pork and excluded poultry. Four papers did not
specify (29%) which animals were processed. Furthermore, seven papers (50%) specified
which role the workers had in the slaughterhouse process, of which three focussed
exclusively on workers on the kill floor (21%) and the rest compared the kill floor to other
positions.
Study Focus and Design
Most of the studies (n = 8; 57%) focussed on the prevalence of mental health issues
within slaughterhouse employees, four examined how slaughterhouse workers cope with
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 8
aspects of their employment (29%), and two studies examined the link between
slaughterhouse employment and crime (14%). Within those which focussed on mental
health, one paper was actually focussed on the physical health of its participants, but
examined depression as a risk factor for future injury (7%; Lander et al., 2016). Seven articles
(50%) shared the hypothesis that the intentional killing or dismemberment of animals would
have an impact on their wellbeing, in particular: general wellbeing (Baran, Rogelberg &
Clausen, 2016), or linked with depression (Emhan, Yildiz, Bez & Kingsir, 2012; Lipscomb et
al., 2007; Horton & Lipscomb, 2011; Hutz, Zanon, & Brum Neto, 2013), anxiety (Emhan et
al., 2012; Hutz, et al., 2013; Leibler, Janulewicz & Perry, 2017) and psychosis (Emhan et al.,
2012). Two studies examined aspects of slaughterhouse workers’ mental health which may
have an impact on interpersonal relations, such as anger and hostility (Emhan et al., 2012;
Richards, Signal & Taylor, 2013).
Amongst the studies that focussed on the prevalence of mental health issues, all were
quantitative, utilising self-report questionnaire measures, with acceptable or above
Cronbach’s alphas, and had a control or reference group. Two papers solely compared their
findings against the national average (Lander et al., 2016; Leibler, Janulewicz & Perry,
2017). Lipscomb and colleagues (2007) compared slaughterhouse workers to individuals
from the same community. The other papers (n = 4, 29%) used two control groups: one
whose participants were theoretically matched to slaughterhouse workers, and one non-
matched (typically individuals from the same community). The matched control groups
depended on the theory of the researcher. One paper (Baran et al., 2016) came from a dirty
work perspective and matched slaughterhouse workers with jobs rated similarly on levels of
prestige and ‘dirtiness’ (janitors and homecare workers) by experts in dirty work theory and
then compared them to 44 other professions. Hutz and colleagues (2013) compared
slaughterhouse workers to university staff as matched for stressful environments, and then
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 9
used university students as a control against both groups. Two papers compared
slaughterhouse workers with jobs relating to animals: butchers (Emhan et al., 2012) and
farmers (Richards et al., 2013). The majority (n = 4) used a form of regression to analyse
their data. The rest used one of the following methods: t-test, analysis of variance and mixed-
model design.
The next key theme generated from the studies focussed on how slaughterhouse
workers coped with the demands of their work (n = 4). However, the studies had variations
on how they defined what slaughterhouse workers were coping against. Kristensen (1991)
focussed on risk of physical injury. Thompson (1983) focussed on how slaughterhouse
workers cope with the monotonous but physically demanding and dangerous nature of such
work. McLoughlin (2018), and Victor and Barnard (2016) focussed on how workers coped
with the psychological toll of slaughtering animals. One study (Kristensen, 1991) used self-
report questionnaires. The others utilised a qualitative design: i.e., Thompson (1983) used
participant observation, Victor and Barnard (2016) used unstructured interviews, and
McLoughlin (2018) used a combination of the two. Both interview studies were conducted
from a phenomenological perspective, with McLoughlin (2018) utilising the participant
observation to give an emic perspective.
The final theme from the research examined the relationship between slaughterhouse
employment and associated crime in the community (n = 2). Both papers had the same
hypothesis: slaughterhouse employment was associated with an increase in crime. Rather
than examining slaughterhouse workers themselves, both papers examined the link between
the presence of a slaughterhouse and associated crime in a US non-metropolitan county. The
studies had two different independent variables: the number of employees (Fitzgerald et al.,
2009) and the number of slaughterhouse establishments (Jacques, 2015). Fitzgerald and
colleagues (2009) operationalised crime as total arrests and reported crimes, and Jacques
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 10
(2015) only utilised total arrests. They looked for the same types of crimes: total, family,
assault, violent crimes, murder, rape and other sexual offences. They both controlled for
variables that are typically associated with crime such as demographics and unemployment
rate. Additionally, Fitzgerald and colleagues (2009) further controlled for the poverty rate
and migration, and Jacques (2015) controlled for female-headed households and population
density. Both justified their control variables from the literature, stemming from social
disorganisation and crime theory. Furthermore, Fitzgerald and colleagues (2009) ran further
analyses to investigate whether similar jobs (characterised by high levels of immigrant
workers, low pay, routinized labour and dangerous conditions) differed from slaughterhouse
employment on their associated crime rates. Both reports utilised a negative binomial
regression analysis, and Fitzgerald and colleagues (2009) also used an OLS regression for
total arrests and total reports of crime.
Key findings
As mentioned previously, the 14 studies included in this systematic review examined
the psychological effects of slaughterhouse employment. The key findings of these studies
will be presented in three sections: the prevalence of mental health issues, coping
mechanisms, and the link with crime perpetration.
Prevalence of mental health issues
All of the studies concluded that slaughterhouse workers have lower levels of
psychological wellbeing compared to their respective control groups. The qualitative work
conducted by Victor and Barnard (2016) found that South African slaughterhouse workers
reported suffering from the following psychological issues at the beginning of their
employment as a consequence of their first kill: trauma, intense shock, paranoia, fear,
anxiety, guilt and shame. These findings were supported by studies employing quantitative
methods. Kristensen (1991) found that half of their sample had high levels of stress-related
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 11
symptoms. Furthermore, Baran and colleagues (2016) concluded that slaughterhouse workers
have significantly lower levels of psychological wellbeing compared to other professions (44
types), as they have lower levels of self-esteem, purpose, and personal development. The
effect size was small, but significant. The authors also conducted separate analyses where
they identified similarly rated ‘dirty work’ professions (professions that received virtually the
same expert ratings on prestige and dirtiness; i.e., janitors and home care workers), and
compared them to the other professions to see if there were differences in their psychological
wellbeing. They found that these non-slaughterhouse dirty work professions did not differ
from the other professions on negative outcomes. This suggests that such psychological
consequences may be a distinct outcome of working in a slaughterhouse.
For depression, significant differences were found in all comparative studies (i.e.,
slaughterhouse workers indicated higher levels of depression than the comparison group;
Hutz et al., 2013; Lander et al., 2016; Lipscomb et al., 2007), with the exception of Emhan
and colleagues (2012). They found that slaughterhouse workers had significantly higher
levels of depression compared to office workers, but not butchers. The difference in
depression rates differed from study to study, ranging from 10% to 50%. Lander and
colleagues (2016) found that the prevalence of depression was four times higher than the
national average. Lipscomb and colleagues (2007) found that rates of severe depression were
more than five times higher than their reference group, controlling for gender and
socioeconomic variables.
Similar findings were reported for anxiety, with slaughterhouse workers having a
higher prevalence compared to other professions (Emhan et al., 2012; Hutz et al., 2013) and
the general public (Leibler et al., 2017). One study examined the relationship between
ethnicity and anxiety, finding that non-Hispanic Whites were six times more likely to
experience serious psychological distress. However, they attributed the finding to anxiety
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 12
caused by their minority ethnicity status within the workplace (Leibler et al., 2017). Emhan
and colleagues (2012) found that slaughterhouse workers also had significantly higher levels
of psychoticism, somatization, anger, and hostility compared to butchers and office workers.
Similarly, Richards and colleagues (2013) found that slaughterhouse workers had a higher
propensity for aggression compared to the public and farmers, on all aspects of aggression
(e.g., physical aggression, anger, and hostility) except verbal aggression, which was
approaching significance. Interestingly, the women in their sample had significantly higher
propensity for aggression scores than the men.
Staff with the job role involving the slaughtering process itself were found to exhibit
higher rates of mental health problems. Hutz and colleagues (2013) found that workers in the
cutting sector had significantly higher prevalence rates of depression and anxiety compared to
other roles in the slaughterhouse. Similarly, Richards and colleagues (2013) found that a
propensity for aggression was also related to job roles, with the highest scores of aggression
being associated with working in the “load outs” (i.e., handling the carcasses), followed by
working on the kill floor, then the other roles. However, it is worth noting that the small
sample size could have impacted on findings.
Coping mechanisms
Each study identified different types of coping mechanisms. Kristensen (1991)
originally theorised that workers take days off to cope with the demands of the job. He
argued that ‘sick days’ were the result of workers being incapable of coping with the lack of
breaks, and therefore needed extended lengths of time to recuperate. When examining his
data, he found that half of the participants had elevated levels of stress, however, the primary
reason for taking time off work was to cope with physical injuries rather than psychological
strain. In related work, Thompson (1983) found that slaughterhouse workers struggled with
the fear of physical harm. This fear was amplified by the monotony of their work. Workers
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 13
often daydreamed to escape boredom which resulted in an increase of injuries. There were
also issues of victim blaming. The workers would attribute blame to the colleague who got
injured rather than justify the accident as a result of workplace conditions. Furthermore,
Thompson (1983) argued that the most psychologically impactful aspect of the work was the
dehumanisation, whereby workers described their role as part of a machine and thus easily
replaceable. This was amplified by the social environment, as the workers were unable to
interact with each other due to the excessive noise of the machinery and their fixed position
on the production line. A consequence of the monotonous, machine-like environment was the
workers’ use of sabotage as a coping mechanism. That is, causing disruption was a symbolic
method of expression of individuality and self-worth (Thompson, 1983).
Two studies examined how workers coped with the specific act of slaughtering of
animals. McLoughlin (2018) posited that slaughterhouse workers needed to conform to
hegemonic masculinity in order to successfully complete their work. The reasoning
underpinning this conformity was that emotions impeded their work, caused internal conflict,
and lowered their status in the eyes of their peers. Thus, McLoughlin (2018) argued that
workers deny, diminish or repress their emotions as a form of a self-regulating coping
mechanism. Victor and Barnard (2016) conceptualised the process of coping with
slaughterhouse work into four stages. First, workers experience the identity shift of becoming
a slaughterer, which is characterised by the mental trauma of their first kill and the,
sometimes recurring, nightmares. Second, they (mal)adjust to their work, with some workers
reporting heightened affective responses (e.g., guilt and shame) and personality changes (e.g.,
becoming more aggressive). Third, they begin to display (mal)adaptive coping mechanisms
to enable them to continue working. Some participants found helpful ways to cope, such as
relying on support from their family, community or religion. However, others employed
maladaptive coping mechanisms, including emotional detachment (akin to what McLoughlin
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 14
[2018] theorised), self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, or resorting to violence. Workers
also described the psychosocial consequences of the ‘job-home spill-over’, such as social
detachment due to exhaustion, or even the perpetration of violence, typically in a domestic
context.
Crime link
Two papers quantitatively examined the work spill-over effect described in Victor and
Barnard’s (2016) study. Fitzgerald and colleagues (2009) examined crime reports from 1994-
2002, whereas Jacques (2015) used data from 2000. Both papers found that slaughterhouse
employment was associated with a significant increase in total arrests and arrests for sexual
offending (i.e., rape) across all time periods, controlling for demographic and socioeconomic
factors. Interestingly, Fitzgerald and colleagues (2009) found a significant negative effect on
the number of rapes being reported. Contrary to their hypothesis, they both found no
significant relationship between slaughterhouse employment and violent crime (i.e.,
aggravated assault and murder) during the same time period (from 1997 onwards). However,
Fitzgerald and colleagues found a significant positive relationship between 1994-1997. The
studies had conflicting results for sexual offences (not including rape) and crimes against the
family.
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to consolidate and synthesize the empirical
research that examines the psychological impact of slaughterhouse employment. In summary,
14 studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Upon examination, the studies
were delineated by study focus. Eight studies examined the self-reported prevalence of
mental health issues in slaughterhouse workers, four studies focussed on the types of coping
mechanisms used by slaughterhouse workers, and two studies examined the link between
slaughterhouse employment and crime.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 15
There is evidence that slaughterhouse employment is associated with lower levels of
psychological wellbeing. Slaughterhouse workers have described suffering from trauma,
intense shock, paranoia, anxiety, guilt and shame (Victor & Barnard, 2016), and stress
(Kristensen, 1991). There was evidence of higher rates of depression (Emhan et al., 2012;
Horton & Lipscomb, 2011; Hutz, 2013; Lander et al., 2016; Lipscomb et al., 2007), anxiety
(Emhan et al., 2012; Hutz et al., 2013; Leibler et al., 2017), psychosis (Emhan et al., 2012),
and feelings of lower self-worth at work (Baran et al., 2016). Of particular note was that the
symptomatology appeared to vary by job role. Employees working directly with the animals
(e.g., on the kill floor or handling the carcasses) were those who showed the highest
prevalence rates of aggression, anxiety, and depression (Hutz et al., 2013; Richards et al.,
2013).
Given the psychological and psychopathological demands of slaughterhouse
employment, the workers engage in a range of coping strategies. Some of the strategies are
helpful and adaptive, such as: taking days off work (Kristensen, 1991), and relying on
prosocial forms of support (e.g. family or religion; Thompson, 1983). However, oftentimes,
the workers employ strategies that are maladaptive, such as: repressing difficult emotions
(McLoughlin, 2018; Victor & Barnard, 2016), sabotaging their working environment as a
form of expression (Thompson, 1983), using illicit substances, and/or engaging in
interpersonal violence (Victor & Barnard, 2016). Therefore, it is unsurprising that crime
statistics indicate a positive association between the presence of slaughterhouse
establishments and crime arrests generally, and rape arrests specifically (Fitzgerald et al.,
2009; Jacques, 2015).
Limitations
The research reviewed was not without its limitations, and these limitations
constrained the bearing of some of the conclusions. In particular, there were variations in the
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 16
rigour of the research designs. For example, the use of control groups to evidence differences
in mental health symptoms and diagnoses was useful to contextualise the vulnerability of
slaughterhouse workers. However, some comparisons were more informative than others. It
is only possible to conclude that there was something unique about slaughterhouse
employment that was driving the prevalence of mental health issues if the groups only differ
on one factor. If multiple differences were found, then conclusions cannot be confidently
drawn as to which of the factors may be driving the effects (i.e., varying prevalence rates).
Ergo, these conclusions must be considered with caution. For example, two papers (Lander et
al., 2016; Leibler et al., 2017) compared mental health prevalence rates against the national
average. Although this provided a normative baseline, this may be a questionable comparison
to make since there is such a large within-group variation of depression rates across the US,
and thus a large number of confounding variables. Lipscomb and colleagues (2007) made a
more informative comparison by recruiting a control group from the same community, but
had not worked in the slaughterhouse for at least five years, and were matched by age,
gender, and controlled for socioeconomic variables, thus reducing the number of confounding
variables. They found that simply working in the slaughterhouse, compared to a similar
individual (in relation to their demographics) from the same town, is still likely to result in a
higher prevalence rate of depression.
Other studies used two comparison groups in order to further reduce confounds: a
theoretically matched control and then a dissimilar group to compare against. These study
designs, although more rigorous, do come with their own issues regarding the matched
controls. The researchers argued that their theoretical controls enabled them to examine
whether an aspect of slaughterhouse work (typically the slaughtering of animals) was
markedly different to jobs that are similar on other variables. For example, two studies
matched slaughterhouse workers with other jobs which involved handling farmed animals
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 17
(i.e., butchers [Emhan et al., 2012] and farmers [Richards et al., 2013]). Although these
comparisons may make intuitive sense, since all of those professions are involved in the meat
production process, they are markedly different from slaughterhouse workers. Farmers work
with live animals and raise/nurture them for slaughter, and butchers process the ‘stock’ (i.e.,
the already slaughtered animals) and provide a service akin to retail work. Richard and
colleagues’ (2013) research was able to identify that slaughterhouse workers differ
significantly on levels of aggression and hostility, but was unable to infer which part of
slaughterhouse employment causes these effects. Two studies attempted to isolate factors
within slaughterhouse employment which they believed were causing the effects. Hutz and
colleagues (2013) hypothesized that it was the stressful environment which decreased the
workers’ psychological wellbeing, but that there was something unique to slaughterhouse
employment over and above stressful conditions. Therefore, they used a control group of
university staff, who they argued had equally stressful jobs. However, they did not provide
any evidence for how they matched the two professions on stress levels. Baran and
colleagues’ (2016) research stemmed from dirty work theory, and thus matched
slaughterhouse workers with similarly ‘dirty’ jobs. Unlike Hutz and colleagues (2013), they
used independent experts in the field to rate 44 occupations on two key areas of dirty work
(prestige and dirtiness), and then selected two professions which had similar mean scores to
the ratings of slaughterhouse workers. Thus, this matched comparison was achieved more
rigorously and it was grounded in theory.
Importantly, these studies have highlighted associations between slaughterhouse
employment and detrimental effects on mental health and behaviour (i.e., criminal
behaviour), however, the research designs do not allow us to infer causality. There is a
tendency to assume that slaughterhouse employment causes these poor outcomes. The data,
so far, can neither confirm nor dispute this assumption. Theoretically speaking, there is room
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 18
for counter-arguments, one of which is the process of self-selection. That is, individuals with
mental health difficulties and/or antisocial proclivities could choose this form of employment
for a variety of reasons. Slaughterhouse employment is typically low-skilled, low pay work.
People who already have a criminal record will likely have limited employment opportunities
available to them. Slaughterhouse establishments are also more likely to be located in low-
income areas where mental health issues are more prevalent, resulting in this form of
employment being one of the limited options available. Ultimately, there is insufficient
evidence to substantiate whether slaughterhouse employment causes detrimental effects, or
whether people with existing vulnerabilities are attracted to this form of employment.
What is abundantly clear from this review is that more research is needed. The limited
number of studies is indicative of a wider issue. There are challenges to gaining access to
recruit participants for a number of reasons. Some employers might be concerned that
research would lead to significant policy (and financial) changes if workplace conditions are
indeed found to cause psychological and physical harm. Other employers might be concerned
that the research is underpinned by animal welfare motivations to cease their business
practices. Essentially, their scepticism results in an unwillingness to allow access to
researchers. Nonetheless, people who work in slaughterhouses appear to be particularly
vulnerable regardless of whether this form of employment is the cause or another symptom,
and we have a duty of care to conduct further research.
Future Directions
Future research must first begin with “buy-in” from business allies (i.e.,
slaughterhouse employers) to work collaboratively in setting and carrying out a research
agenda. Slaughterhouse employment is linked to psychosocial sequelae that impact
surrounding communities. Current conditions are not sustainable given the evidence for high
turnover (i.e., Fitzgerald, 2010) and mental health needs of employees as discussed in this
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 19
review. Therefore, a collaborative approach to this research can result in a better
understanding of the problem and an evidence base to inform effective solutions.
With growing opportunities for research must come an improved, rigorous approach
to the study designs. One of the research questions that needs to be urgently addressed is
whether slaughtering animals causes mental health issues and criminal behaviour. The only
way to answer this question is to conduct a longitudinal study that can demonstrate, over
time, whether people who work in slaughterhouses have declining mental health and an
increase in antisocial behaviour. This research must also involve a matched control group of
similar age, ethnicity, socio-economic background, and location/neighbourhood. Only then
can we evidence cause and effect so that the appropriate interventions can be developed to
target appropriately.
Finally, as the number and quality of studies grow, there will be an opportunity to
conduct a meta-analysis across studies. This will enable us to establish within- and between-
study similarities and differences that can inform larger scale policy developments to reduce
physical and psychological harm to slaughterhouse employees.
Conclusions
The findings of this review illustrate the scarcity in research on the psychological
wellbeing of slaughterhouse workers. The existing research evidences the relationship
between this form of employment and negative psychological and behavioural outcomes,
both at the individual level and for the broader society. Also, these findings have clear
implications for mental health and community professionals who are in a position to address
the negative consequences of this industry. However, much more theoretical and empirical
work is needed to develop the evidence base for developing prevention and intervention
strategies.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 20
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 21
References
Animal Aid. (2015, February 2). Extreme cruelty inside Yorkshire slaughterhouse exposed.
Animal Aid. Retrieved from www.animalaid.org.uk/extreme-cruelty-inside-yorkshire-
slaugherhouse-exposed/
Baran, B. E., Rogelberg, S. G., & Clausen, T. (2016). Routinized killing of animals: Going
beyond dirty work and prestige to understand the well-being of slaughterhouse workers.
Organization, 23(3), 351-369. doi: 10.1177/1350508416629456
Beirne, P. (2004). From animal abuse to interhuman violence? A critical review of the
progression thesis. Society & Animals, 12(1), 39-65. doi: 10.1163/156853004323029531
Bennett, P., & Rohlf, V. (2005). Perpetration-induced traumatic stress in persons who
euthanize nonhuman animals in surgeries, animal shelters, and laboratories. Society &
Animals, 13(3), 201-220. doi: 10.1163/1568530054927753
British Meat Processors Association (2019). Meat industry labour shortages signal it’s time
to get serious. Retrieved from:https://britishmeatindustry.org/industry-news/meat-
industry-labour-shortages-signal-its-time-to-get-serious/
Campbell, D. S. (1999). Health hazards in the meatpacking industry. Occupational
Medicine, 14(2), 351-372.
Cook, E. A. J., de Glanville, W. A., Thomas, L. F., Kariuki, S., de Clare Bronsvoort, B. M.,
& Fèvre, E. M. (2017). Working conditions and public health risks in slaughterhouses in
western Kenya. BMC public health, 17(1), 1-12. Doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3923-y
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2016) 10 questions to help you make sense of
qualitative research. Retrieved from www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). Results of the 2018 FSA survey
into slaughter methods in England and Wales. Retrieved from:
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 22
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/778588/slaughter-method-survey-2018.pdf
Dillard, J. (2008). A Slaughterhouse Nightmare: Psychological Harm Suffered by
Slaughterhouse Employees and the Possibility of Redress through Legal Reform.
Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 15(2), 398.
Eisnitz, G. A. (1997). Slaughterhouse: The shocking tale of greed, neglect, and inhumane
treatment inside the American meat industry. New York: Prometheus Books.
Embury-Dennis, T. (2018, December 5). Animal welfare activists ‘appalled’ as
slaughterhouses fail to install CCTV despite deadline. The Independent. Retrieved from
www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-welfare-cctv-slaughterhouses-abattoir-
michael-gove-farm-meat-dairy-defra-a8637391.html
Emhan, A., Yildiz, A. S., Bez, Y., & Kingir, S. (2012). Psychological symptom profile of
butchers working in slaughterhouse and retail meat packing business: A comparative
study. The Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Kafkas, 18(2):
319–322. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2011.549
Fitzgerald, A. J. (2010). A social history of the slaughterhouse: From inception to
contemporary implications. Human Ecology Review, 17, 58-69. doi:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24707515
Fitzgerald, A. J., Kalof, L., & Dietz, T. (2009). Slaughterhouses and increased crime rates:
An empirical analysis of the spillover from “The Jungle” into the surrounding
community. Organization & Environment, 22(2), 158-184. doi:
10.1177/1086026609338164
Harmse, J. L., Engelbrecht, J. C. & Bekker, J. L. (2016). The impact of physical and
ergonomic hazards on poultry abattoir processing workers: A review. International
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 23
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 13(2), 197 doi:
10.3390/ijerph13020197
Hendrix, J. A., & Brooks Dollar, C. (2017). American slaughterhouses and the need for
speed: An examination of the meatpacking-methamphetamine hypothesis. Organization
& Environment. 31(2), 133-151, doi: 10.1177086026617697038
Horton, R. A., Lipscomb, H. J. (2011) Depressive symptoms in women working in a poultry-
processing plant: A longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
54(10): 791-799. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20991
Human Rights Watch (2004) Blood sweat and fear: Workers’ rights in U.S. meat and poultry
plants. Retrieved from: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/usa0105.pdf
Hutz, C. S., Zanon, C., & Brum Neto, H. (2013). Adverse working conditions and mental
illness in poultry slaughterhouses in Southern Brazil. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica,
26(2), 296-304. doi: 10.1590/S0102-79722013000200009
Jacques, J. R. (2015). The slaughterhouse, social disorganization, and violent crime in rural
communities. Society & Animals, 23(6), 594-612. doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341380
Kristensen, T. S. (1991). Sickness absence and work strain among Danish slaughterhouse
workers: An analysis of absence from work regarded as coping behaviour. Social Science
& Medicine, 32(1), 15-27. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90122-S
Lander, L., Sorock, G. S., Smith, L. M., Stentz, T. L., Kim, S. S., Mittleman, M. A., & Perry,
M. J. (2016). Is depression a risk factor for meatpacking injuries? Work, 53(2), 307-311.
doi: 10.3233/WOR-152147
Leibler, J. H., Janulewicz, P. A., & Perry, M. J. (2017). Prevalence of serious psychological
distress among slaughterhouse workers at a United States beef packing plant. Work:
Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 57(1), 105–109. doi:
10.3233/WOR-172543
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 24
Leibler, J. H., & Perry, M. J. (2016). Self-reported occupational injuries among industrial
beef slaughterhouse workers in the Midwestern United States. Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Hygiene, 14(1), 23-30. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1211283
Lipscomb, H. J., Dement, J. M., Epling, C. A., Gaynes, B. N., McDonald, M. A., &
Schoenfisch, A. L. (2007). Depressive symptoms among working women in rural North
Carolina: A comparison of women in poultry processing and other low-wage jobs.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4-5), 284-298. doi:
10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.003
MacNair, R. (2002). Perpetration-induced traumatic stress: The psychological consequences
of killing. Lincoln, NE: Praeger/Greenwood.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 151(4), 264-269. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
McLoughlin, E. (2018). Knowing cows: Transformative mobilizations of human and non‐
human bodies in an emotionography of the slaughterhouse. Gender, Work &
Organization, 26(3), 322–342. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12247
Nagesh, A. (2017). The harrowing psychological toll of slaughterhouse work. Retrieved
from: https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/31/how-killing-animals-everyday-leaves-
slaughterhouse-workers-traumatised-7175087/
Newkey-Burden, C. (2020) Abattoir workers are the forgotten frontline victims at the heart of
the crisis – and now they’re spreading coronavirus. Retrieved from:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-slaughterhouse-abattoir-spread-
infection-ptsd-mental-health-a9593511.html
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 25
Niven, K., Sprigg, C. A., Armitage, C. J., Satchwell, A. (2012). Ruminative thinking
exacerbates the negative effects of workplace violence. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 86(1), 67-84, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02066.x
Oxfam America (2016). No relief: Denial of bathroom breaks in the poultry industry. Boston,
MA: Oxfam America Inc. Retrieved from
www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/No_Relief_Embargo.pdf
Richards, E., Signal, T., & Taylor, N. (2013). A different cut? Comparing attitudes toward
animals and propensity for aggression within two primary industry cohorts—farmers and
meatworkers. Society & Animals, 21(4), 395-413. doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341284
Sanders, B. (2018, October 10). Global animal slaughter statistics and charts. Faunalytics.
Retrieved from https://faunalytics.org/global-animal-slaughter-statistics-and-charts/
Thomas, B. H., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., Micucci, S. (1998). Effective public health practice
project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Hamilton, ON:
Effective public health practice project. Retrieved from https://merst.ca/ephpp/
Thompson, W. E. (1983). Hanging tongues: A sociological encounter with the assembly line.
Qualitative Sociology, 6(3), 215–237. doi: 10.1007/BF00987447
Trespidi, C., Barbui, C., & Cipriani, A. (2011) Why it is important to include unpublished
data in systematic reviews. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 20(2), 133-135, doi:
10.1017S2045796011000217
United States Department of Agriculture. (2020). Livestock slaughter 2019 summary.
Retrieved from: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-
esmis/files/r207tp32d/34850245n/5712mr72x/lsan0420.pdfVictor, K., & Barnard, A.
(2016) Slaughtering for a living: A hermeneutic phenomenological perspective on the
well-being of slaughterhouse employees. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on
Health and Well-being, 11(1), 30266, doi: 10.3402/qhw.v11.30266
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 27
Table 1. Details of studies included in the systematic review
Authors
Type
Sample
characteristics
(Sample size,
demographics)
Study focus and design
(quantitative/qualitative,
study focus, analysis)
Key findings
Baran,
Rogelberg, &
Clausen
(2016)
Peer
reviewed
article
N= 58
slaughterhouse
workers (SHW)
Location: Denmark
Demographics:
Mage = n/a
Ethnicity = n/a
Gender = n/a
(demographic
breakdown is only
given for all
occupations)
Quantitative design: survey
Utilised dirty work theory
to examine slaughterhouse
workers psychological
wellbeing.
Comparison between
slaughterhouse workers and
44 other professions.
Slaughterhouse workers have lower physical and
psychological well-being (low self-esteem, lack of
purpose, lack of personal development) compared to
other professions, including controls matched on levels of
prestige and dirtiness.
Emhan,
Yildiz, Bez,
& Kingir
(2012)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 43 SHW
Location: Turkey
Demographics:
Mage = n/a
Ethnicity = n/a
Gender = all male
Quantitative design: survey
Psychological symptom
profiles of SHW compared
to butchers and office
workers.
Slaughterhouse workers had higher levels of distress and
psychological issues compared to butchers for
somatization, anxiety, anger-hostility and psychoticism.
There was no significant difference between them on
obsessive-compulsiveness, interpersonal sensitivity,
depression, phobic anxiety, paranoia.
All measures were significantly higher than office
workers.
Fitzgerald et
al (2009)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 581 non-
metropolitan
counties
Quantitative: crime survey
(secondary source)
Slaughterhouse employment was associated with increase
in total arrests and reports, rape arrests, sexual offences.
Found no link between crimes against the family or
violent crimes (after 1997).
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 28
Location: United
States
The link between crime
rates and slaughterhouse
employment
Horton &
Lipscomb
(2011)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 296 SHW
Location: United
States
Demographics:
Mage = 33
Ethnicity = 99%
Black
Gender = all female
A longitudinal analysis of
Lipscomb et al. (2007);
tracking the prevalence of
depressive symptoms over
five years.
Depression rates were 46% at baseline interview (103
participants), however the depression rates decreased
over the five years (as did the number of participants).
Average prevalence of depression was 32% across the
five years.
Hutz et al
(2013)
Peer
reviewed
article
N= 951 SHW
Location: South
Brazil
Demographics:
Mage = 32
Ethnicity = n/a
Gender = mostly
female (63.5%)
Mental illness due to
adverse (stressful) working
conditions
Comparison between
slaughterhouse workers,
university workers and
students
Quantitative.
Slaughterhouse workers had higher levels of
vulnerability, psychological ‘disadjustment’, anxiety and
depression compared to both controls. Within
slaughterhouse work – those involved in cutting
processes have much higher rates.
Jacques
(2015)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 248 non-
metropolitan
counties
Location: United
States
Quantitative: crime survey
(secondary source)
The link between crime
rates and slaughterhouse
employment, when
controlling for social
disorganisation variables.
Increase in total arrests (22%), rape (166%), offences
against the family (90%) but non sig. results for violent
and murder offences.
No indication of whether the workers actually committed
the crime though.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 29
Kristensen
(1991)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 4407 SHW
Location: Denmark
Demographics:
Mage =
Ethnicity = n/a
Gender = mostly
male (78%)
Quantitative: survey
Primary focus was on their
physical health, but also
examined stress symptoms.
Findings demonstrated that half the sample suffered from
stress symptoms (common stress, nervousness, mental
instability, anxiety and sleeplessness).
Lander et al
(2016)
Peer
reviewed
article
N= 268 SHW
Location: United
States
Demographics:
Mage = 39
Ethnicity = majority
non-Hispanic
Gender = mostly
male (64%)
Quantitative: survey
Whether depression was a
risk for future injury.
13.8% screened positive for depressive symptoms in the
last six months, compared to 3.4% in general public.
Liebler et al
(2017)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 137 unionised
SHW
Location: United
states
Demographics:
Mage = 44
Ethnicity = 92%
Hispanic
Gender = mostly
male (55%)
Quantitative: Interviews and
survey (Kessler-6)
Examine the prevalence of
serious psychological
distress (SPD; non-specific
anxiety)
SPD was 4.4% in slaughterhouses compared to 3.6% in
general population in the last six months.
81% no reported no distress
Those on the kill-floor experienced more distress
compared to those on the cut floor.
Ethnicity was a significant predictor of SPD; Non-
Hispanic White workers were six times more likely to
report SPD. However, the authors argued this is a result
of being the minority group.
Lipscomb et
al. (2007)
Peer
reviewed
article
N= 291 SHW
Location: United
States
Demographics:
Mage =
Quantitative: surveys
Prevalence of depression in
female poultry processers
compared to locals and
Prevalence of depressive symptoms was 48% compared
to 20% of working women. After adjusting for
socioeconomic variables, the poultry workers depressive
symptoms were still 80% higher.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 30
Ethnicity = 98.5%
Black
Gender = all female
Multiple jobs
examine which factors are
associated with depression.
Prevalence of severe depression was 550% higher than
controls.
McLoughlin
(2018)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 16 SHW
Location: Ireland
Demographics:
Mage = n/a
Ethnicity = n/a
Gender = mostly
male (87.5%)
Kill floor only
Qualitative: Interviews and
participant observation.
Emic phenomenological
emotionography.
Findings indicated that the hegemonic masculine ideals
are the basis of a ‘good slaughterhouse worker’ and thus
workers must deny, repress or diminish any emotions
they feel.
Richards et al
(2013)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 26 SHW
Location: Australia
Demographics:
Mage = 36
Ethnicity = n/a
Gender = mostly
male (54%)
Quantitative: survey
Examine the attitudes
towards animals and
propensity for aggression
Slaughterhouse workers had a substantially higher
propensity for aggression compared to farmers,
particularly within physical aggression and hostility
subscales (similar to incarcerated populations).
Female slaughterhouse workers in particular had lower
attitudes towards animals and higher propensity for
aggression than males.
Thompson
(1983)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 350 SHW
Location: United
States
Demographics:
Mage = n/a
Ethnicity = 2/3
White
Gender = male
Qualitative – 9 week
participant observation.
To examine how
slaughterhouse workers
cope with the strains of
their work and maintain a
sense of self worth
Slaughterhouse workers must struggle with the fear of
physical danger, monotony (which sometimes causes
injury and the dehumanisation of becoming part of ‘the
machine’.
Suggested that workers cope by sabotaging their
own/others work, as it allows them to express their
individuality.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE EMPLOYMENT 31
Victor &
Barnard
(2016)
Peer
reviewed
article
N = 13 SHW
Location: South
Africa
Demographics:
Mage = mostly 30-
40
Ethnicity = n/a
Gender = all male
Qualitative:
phenomenological
To examine the well-being
of slaughterhouse workers
and understand the process
of becoming a slaughterer.
Four themes: becoming a slaughterer [experiencing the
mental trauma of the first kill & experiencing recurring
dreams and nightmares], (mal)adjusting to slaughter work
[heightened emotive responses, personality changes],
coping with and maintaining the work [presenting
psychological defences, finding strength and meaning,
displaying constructive and destructive coping tactics],
and living with psycho-social consequences of being a
slaughterer [work-life spill over, experiencing social
detachment and isolation].
