Medical literature is frequently treated as an authoritative source on public health issues, including dog bite–related injuries. However, this review of 156 publications from 1966 to 2015 demonstrates that nonclinical interpretations within these papers often lack accuracy when discussing dog behavior, breed significance, and the real-world likelihood of dog bite incidents.
The analysis identifies multiple kinds of misinformation, including factual inaccuracies, misinterpretations, omissions, exaggerated claims, and emotionally charged language. These recurring errors frequently stem from reliance on secondhand interpretations, misunderstood statistics, and the uncritical repetition of earlier claims lacking empirical support.
The authors found that these inaccuracies cluster into several rhetorical devices—among them generalization, catastrophization, demonization, and negative differentiation. These rhetorical strategies construct dog bites as a social problem rather than a nuanced behavioral and environmental issue. As a result, dogs are often framed as inherently dangerous, while the roles of human behavior, context, and preventable factors receive insufficient attention.
By overstating risk and mischaracterizing canine behavior, the reviewed literature contributes to public misunderstanding about dogs, potentially influencing policy decisions, clinical recommendations, and societal attitudes. The study highlights the need for greater interdisciplinary collaboration between medical professionals and canine behavior experts to ensure accuracy and reduce unwarranted fear.
Ultimately, the findings underscore the importance of grounding discussions of dog bites in evidence-based understanding rather than rhetorical framing, thereby supporting more balanced perspectives on human–dog relationships.
Source: Arluke, A., Cleary, D., Patronek, G., & Bradley, J. (2018). Defaming Rover: Error-Based Latent Rhetoric in the Medical Literature on Dog Bites. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science.
