Why Behavioural Science Gets Ignored
When it comes to our own physical health, most of us trust scientific evidence instinctively. If a doctor recommends a treatment based on research, we accept it readily. We would never want an ill-informed surgeon to perform an operation, nor would we casually dismiss medical advice about heart disease or infection.
Yet when it comes to behaviour and mental health—especially in dogs—science seems to face a much harder battle for acceptance. Why?
The answer lies in how humans perceive visible versus invisible problems, how we handle complexity, and how we emotionally relate to the idea of control.
1. The Visibility Bias: "Seeing is Believing"
Humans are strongly biased towards what they can see. In psychology, this is called the availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973)—we tend to judge something's importance by how easily examples come to mind, particularly if we can see or experience them directly.
A broken leg is obvious. A bacterial infection shows up on tests.
But anxiety, fear, or frustration in a dog? That’s much harder to see, measure, or understand without training.
Because behavioural and emotional issues are often invisible, people are more likely to underestimate their seriousness—or question whether they are real at all.
2. The Complexity Problem: Behaviour Is Not Simple
Medical science often offers clear, linear solutions: diagnosis → treatment → recovery.
Behavioural science—especially with complex animals like dogs—is not always so tidy.
Behaviour depends on genetics, environment, experience, learning history, emotional state, and physical health, often interacting all at once. There are fewer simple answers. This complexity can lead to what psychologists call cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957): when faced with information that is complicated or challenges our beliefs, many people prefer to dismiss it rather than engage with the discomfort it causes.
In short: it’s much easier to believe "he's just being stubborn" than to accept that "he’s scared, stressed, and trying to cope."
3. Control and Blame: Behaviour Feels Personal
Physical illness feels external—something that "happens to" us or our dogs.
Behaviour, on the other hand, often feels personal—especially when a dog isn’t behaving the way we expect.
People can unconsciously associate behaviour problems with failure, blame, or lack of leadership. Accepting that behavioural issues are driven by emotional states and neurological processes means letting go of old ideas like "dominance" or "bad dogs," which can be uncomfortable for many.
Instead of seeing behaviour scientifically—as we do with physical health—people may revert to traditional or anecdotal explanations that feel simpler and more familiar.
The Consequences
When we disregard the science of behaviour, dogs suffer. We risk mislabeling fear as stubbornness, punishing anxiety instead of supporting it, and failing to address underlying needs. In human medicine, we demand expertise and evidence-based care. The science behind behaviour is just as real, just as rigorous, and just as necessary as the science behind medicine.
References
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Overall, K. (2013). Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats. Elsevier.