Everybody is doing it! (And why watching our language would help our cause)

Peer pressure is one of the most influencing factors in the human brain. People WANT to do what other people are doing, and fear being different -- because often, being different means being ostracized.

There is a popular, old, psychology study that put 5 people in a room -- four were 'plants' and one was an actual test subject. Then, all of the subjects were shown a slide with 5 lines on it and asked to identify which line was longest. The obvious answer was line #4. However, in the study, the first four subjects (all 'plants')answered that the longest line was line #5. So when it came time for the true test subject to answer, 1/3 of the test subjects actually answered that the longest line was line #5 - even though the answer was obviously incorrect. But to them, it was "safer" to answer the question like everyone else even though it was obviously wrong, than to be correct and be different.

We know this about peer pressure - -that people want to do what they perceive everyone else to be doing. And yet, it seems in the animal welfare world, we all too often act as if everyone is doing it wrong (even though, most often the statement isn't true). Instead of focusing on the positive and the reality that most people are really doing it right and creating positive peer pressure so others will follow, we tend to focus on the opposite and act like everyone is doing it wrong.  This often leads to having the exact opposite impact that we'd really prefer.  Instead of feeling like they are different for doing it wrong, we provide very little motivation for people to do it right, because they perceive that no one else is doing it right.

Examples are easy to come by:

"BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) is spreading like wildfire"

It sure seems like it sometimes, doesn't it?  But every week in my weekly roundup, I keep tabs on cities that are discussing breed specific legislation.  And over the past several years, even though a large number of cities have discussed the idea of breed bans, the vast majority decide against it. And yet, it is common for cities to introduce breed bans because they feel like "everyone else" is doing it.

They're not.

By and large, most cities listen to the experts in their communities and decide against breed bans of any type. While cities passing it are still more common than they should be, they are the exception, not the rule. And treating them like the "rule", we create the image that that is what other cities are doing. And look no further than the recent rash of cities discussing mandatory spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in California or the cities looking to ban pet sales in pet stores (which none have approved) to see that most cities do what they think others are doing.  And what most end up doing is passing responsible laws.

"The reason we have pet overpopulation is because most people don't spay/neuter their pets"

We hear this one a lot -- however, the reality is that most people already do alter their pets. According to last year's Pet Smart survey, 65% of all recently acquired pets are altered.  This number jumps dramatically for pets that have been owned for a long time.  According to research from Ally Cat Allies, over 80% of house cats are already altered, and that number may be closer to 96% in households with a household income of $35,000 or more.

Instead of creating the narrative that most people don't alter their pets (and thus, why would you want to be different?), why not create the narrative that most people DO alter their pets (which is true), and thus, if you don't, you're the outsider? 

"We should ban pets stores to keep people from buying puppy mill dogs because people don't understand about puppy mills".

Back to that pesky Petsmart Survey again, but only about 8% of the population gets their pets from pet stores. Meanwhile, most people have a negative impression of 'puppy mills' (although they admittedly don't always make the connection between pet stores and puppy mills).  Currently, more than 1/2 of the population expects to get their next pet from a shelter. Wouldn't we be better off promoting how "everyone" is adopting to make it seem like it is the right thing to do?

"Most pet owners are irresponsible"

As a society, we have never taken better care of our animals. In spite of the down economy, spending on pet care has continued to grow. More pets rae sharing our homes, and our beds than ever before. And yet, we tend to want to focus on the few people who are not responsible.

*********

There just seems to be a better way to do this, and to talk about the needs of animals. I feel like if we focused on the positive situations, we could dramatically improve things for animals.

Calgary, AB has one of the lowest incidents per capita of aggressive dogs in North America. One of the reasons for their success, in my opinion, is that the leader of animal control up there, Bill Bruce, always focuses on the positives of the pet-owning population in Calgary. It is amazing the number of times you see the man quoted as saying that most pet owners in Calgary are responsible and that he just needs to get the few that aren't to be better. He has created a culture in the city where the expectation is that people are, and will be, responsible pet owners.  And the people have responded by wanting to do what "everyone else" is doing.

In Oakland, CA, the folks at Bad Rap have reached out into communities where proper pet care, vaccinations and spay/neuter were not the norm -- and have begun creating a culture where it is becoming more commonplace. And instead of condemning those who are not yet taking advantage of their services, they are celebrating the ones that do.  And thus, creating a culture where "all the cool kids" are taking pride and expert care of their pets (including spay/neuter).  

I really do think that how we speak about animal welfare issues has a major impact on how the public views how we treat our animals. While we shouldn't necessarily hide from the negative, it shouldn't be our sole talking point (or even our primary one), because it creates the image that everyone is irresponsible -- and we know peer pressure can be a very influential tool.

So instead of focusing on the people who are using dogs to fight (and thus promoting the negative culture), we should celebrate the families that love their dogs and made them part of the family.

Instead of focusing so much attention on the people who buy their pets from pet stores, we should spend more time celebrating the people who adopt.

Creating peer pressure toward the positive can be very motivating...because people want to do what everyone else is doing and celebrating.

Comments

[Tomdock]

Thanks Brent...once again, an outstanding and perceptive article. Reminds me of something that came across my email today...

"If you want better from others...be better yourself"

[Lisa]

Thank you, Brent. You're consistently one of the most reasoned and thoughtful voices out there, even beyond animal welfare.

One commonly repeated myth I'd like to see stopped is this bizarre 'statistic' floating around that only one in every 600 pit bulls finds a home. I've seen it repeated any number of times, usually along with weasel words like 'it is estimated that...' but I can't find a single cited source for it, or really, any indication of what exactly that's referring to. And yet, I've seen it repeated many times, always by pit bull advocates. I've even seen it as a product design on CafePress, so people can buy t-shirts and shopping bags trumpeting this 'fact.' (Some people illogically extend their argument to claim that this means that, for every pit bull you breed and place in a home, you cause 599 others to be killed. Which doesn't remotely follow, even if the statistic were true.)

If true, a statistic like that would mean that the problem is truly out of control and insurmountable. It's a sad, hopeless, miserable claim, and one that would effectively mean that, no, you can't make a difference. We just don't have room for 600x as many pit bulls as there already are out there, so we may as well just get used to killing hundreds and hundreds of them.

It's demoralizing and disheartening, and happily, I can pretty confidently say it's not true. I have done some simple calculations based on existing statistics that pretty solidly proves that.

But people keep repeating it anyway. Well meaning and probably sincere animal advocates, whom I honestly believe have the very best of intentions. But it's not just damaging to the goal of finding homes for pets, it's wrong to boot.

[Brent]

Thanks Lisa -- and yes, I've seen that # before, and it is completely ridiculous.

If it were true, there would be 1 pit bull placed in a home from a shelter for every 599 killed at the shelter.

Every year, an (very roughly) estimated 800,000 pit bulls are killed in homes every year. So if the 1 in 600 were true, that'd mean only 1,333 'pit bulls' were rescued every year - heck, we probably get close to 1/3 of that number saved in Kansas City alone each year.

[Lisa in OH]

Brent we have close to 3,000 pit bull type dogs killed in just one local shelter here in Ohio every year. Many counties have multiple shelters/humane societies and most kill all of the pit bull type dogs. We have 88 counties in Ohio. I am pretty confidant in saying that Ohio kills 100,000 - 200,000 pit bull type dogs a year. I think the 800,000 pit bulls number is extremely low

[Brent]

It may be low, but not extremely. Most estimates (HSUS, No Kill Advocacy Center, Merritt Cliffton, Maddies Fund) put the total number of pets killed in shelters each year at about 4 - 4.5 million.

Of these, the majority are cats.

So the total number of dogs, of all breeds, killed in shelters is around 2 million (on the high end). If half of those were pit bulls there would be 1 million killed (again, on the high end). 800,000 may not be the "right" number, but I don't think it's terribly far off. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if Ohio is killing more than their fair share.

[Robert Garnett]

While I agree with your"Accentuate the Positive Eliminate the Negative" ideas I don't see the altered animal statics reflected in my personal experience. In my area at least 95 % of cats that enter our shelter are unaltered(granted 50% + are probably feral) and about 80% of dogs are unaltered. Why are there so many "Free to good Homes" ads if most animals are altered. You have to reduce the flow and it seems to me many more pets must be altered before we will get supply and demand in balance. While many shelters can do much better there is still a pet over population problem and only in theory it can be solved by shelters just doing a better job. As the "No Kill Equation has about 12 different policies(some more effective than others) reducing the number of unaltered animals at least as I see will produce the most immediate results.

[Brent]

Robert, I think this is one area where shelter people projecting their experience as the norm causes problems. Obviously there are tons of responsible pet owners out there who are altering their animals and properly managing them and they never end up in the shelters. However, shelter folks see the ones that DO make it in, many due to owner carelessness. So while shelters feel inundated with the problem owners, they never see the vast majority of animals that are cared for by responsible ones (which is the majority of people).

And obviously feral cats are a completely different scenerio than owned ones - and make up the majority of cats in most shelters.

No doubt that low-cost spay/neuter programs are important, as is outreach into neighborhoods that are filled with people that are largely filled with people who have not altered their pets. But I think that putting the focus on the positives when people in these neighborhoods DO alter their pets will get us further in the long run than bemoaing all of the ones who don't. No doubt there is still a lot of work to be done...

[Dogteacher]

Thanks again, Brent, for your common sense. As a trainer with a wide variety of dogs to work with over many years, I have seen a trend that causes me concern, and in order to truly protect dogs as the unique creatures that they are, with an unparalleled relationship with humans on the planet, I would like to see another "positive" celebration.

Brent's quote: "Instead of focusing so much attention on the people who buy their pets from pet stores, we should spend more time celebrating the people who adopt."

I'd like to see society celebrate those who choose a well-bred dog from a well-researched responsible breeder equally to those who adopt. The advances in health and temperament that many thousands of dedicated show and performance breeders have brought to the canine world could be our only hope for a future with safe, affordable and healthy pets. The canine gene pool in general is very much threatened by a misinterpretation of the phrase "do the right thing" as related to dogs as family pets. The top-heavy movement to "adopt don't buy" could eventually ruin the positive health and behavior trends that have made a big difference in the past 15-20 years that I have seen as a trainer and dog sports competitor. Quality breeders are suffering from a terrible negative image fueled by peer pressure, being labeled "puppy mills" willy nilly. Peer pressure works, as you so clearly explained, both ways.

We need to have some balance. If well-bred dogs are more common, healthy gene pools will deepen. I think we have created a Monster with the guilt-producing movement to adopt that vilifies top quality, responsible breeders (who don't sell to pet stores anyway). Too often these dedicated people are speaking to an empty room, no longer finding newcomers to share their passion for celebrating dogs and "doing the right thing".

People who either prefer - or NEED - to have a dog with predictable qualities and health and temperament should not be made to feel guilty as they currently are. Last fall my dog obedience club had a unit in our city's Holiday Parade, and behind or group of dogs and proud owners, with a huge collection of titles, Therapy dogs, mixed breeds and pure breeds combined (some of which came from shelters), was a unit carrying giant posters saying "Adopt don't buy", and "Buy from a breeder, kill a dog in a shelter" and disgusting images not really suited to a family holiday celebration. Balance? Nope.

Thanks for the reminder that ONLY 8% of dogs come from pet stores, a fact that is routinely denied.