Is My Dog “Just Acting Out”? Why Headlines Can Mislead Us

Home » Latest news » Is My Dog “Just Acting Out”? Why Headlines Can Mislead Us

Recently, an article popped up in my feed from Yahoo News with the headline: “Does My Dog Have Genuine Separation Anxiety or Is It Just Acting Out?”. At first glance, it looks like a helpful guide for concerned owners. Yet, it is a classic example of how clickbait headlines can steer the way we think about our pets.

Clickbait is a part of our daily lives, designed to provoke a reaction, typically curiosity or outrage. As George Loewenstein (1994 in Golman and Loewenstein, 2016) noted, this is the “information gap”: when we notice a gap between what we know and what we want to know, we feel compelled to close it. His concept explains why we click, providing us with a deeper understanding of this phenomenon.

Whilst these headlines can capture our attention, for owners and guardians, they can influence how we interpret pet behaviour, shape our attitudes, and steer decisions, from whether we vaccinate or how we feed our pets, to the training methods we adopt.

The weight of word

Take a closer look at the language in the image from Yahoo News. The headline refers to the dog as it. Referring to a sentient being in this way frames dogs as objects. Research shows that when we deny “mind” to animals, empathy and moral concern drop (Bastian et al., 2012). Using they, or he or she when known, recognises the animal as an individual and reinforces the social bond between guardian and companion.

Now consider the phrase “acting out.” This suggests wilful misbehaviour and, as research in psychology shows, small wording changes shape how we attribute blame and intention (Fausey and Boroditsky, 2010). In child psychology, the same label has often been used to dismiss distress or unmet emotional needs, with studies showing that behaviours seen as disruptive frequently arise from adversity or difficulties with emotional regulation (Malcorps et al., 2023; Cekaite and Ekström, 2019). Applied to dogs, the risk is the same: behaviour that may actually signal anxiety, frustration, or fear gets trivialised. Chewing, howling, or soiling when left alone are usually attempts to cope, not signs of spite. My own work in psychology and neurolinguistics has shown me how much these word choices can shift perception. Whether in broadcast settings or in practice with clients, I have seen how a single phrase can change how behaviour is interpreted, and for dogs, that can mean the difference between punishment and support.

So, why do we fall for it?

Headlines like this are persuasive because they trigger confirmation bias. This well-documented phenomenon (Nickerson, 1998) describes our tendency to notice and accept information that supports what we already believe. If you already think your dog is “stubborn,” you may agree with the idea of “acting out.” If you worry about their emotional wellbeing, you may lean towards “genuine separation anxiety.” Either way, the headline is designed to mirror your belief and draw you in.

Social media algorithms intensify this effect. They are designed to serve you more of what you have already clicked, liked, or lingered on. Over time, this creates an echo chamber that narrows perspective. If you engage with one post that labels dogs as “naughty,” you are more likely to be shown many more of the same. Confirmation bias already draws us towards familiar ideas, and algorithms reinforce that loop, making it harder to encounter alternative viewpoints.

Another factor is the illusory truth effect. The more often we see a claim repeated, the more likely we are to believe it, even if it lacks evidence (Fazio et al., 2015). In the age of social media, repetition is almost guaranteed!

What can we do about it?

Understanding the tricks is the first step. Behavioural science reminds us that problems are rarely as simple as a headline suggests. Separation-related behaviours in dogs, as well as in other species such as cats, rabbits, or parrots, are influenced by multiple factors: genetics, early experiences, personality, health, daily routine, environment, and social interactions. These factors combine in different ways, shaping how each individual copes with being left alone.

This is why labels like “genuine separation anxiety” or “acting out” are misleading. They oversimplify a complex picture and can steer guardians towards unhelpful responses. So, what can we do about it? When you spot a headline that captures your attention – pause, question, and use my checklist to help with mastering the act of reading critically.

• Language check. Does the article/social post refer to animals as “it”? Are behaviours dismissed with terms such as “naughty,” “dominant,”, “stubborn”, or “acting out”? Such terms objectify or oversimplify, and they shape how we interpret behaviour. More importantly, they can justify harsher responses, rather than guiding owners and guardians towards empathy and problem-solving.
• Oversimplification. Does the headline offer a neat either/or, like “real genuine anxiety or acting out”? Behaviour is rarely that clear-cut. Be cautious of claims that reduce complexity to a simple choice.
• Evidence. Does the article cite registered vets, clinical animal behaviourists, or peer-reviewed research, or is it based on anecdote and opinion? Reliable sources will reference guidelines or published studies. Strong articles also acknowledge limitations, for instance, if findings come from a small sample, a single breed, or specific conditions. Without this, treat the claim carefully.
• Bias. Notice your own response. Are you nodding because it fits what you already believe? That is confirmation bias at work. Pause and step back and ask: what evidence would make me think differently?
• Emotional pull. Check how the piece makes you feel. Does it rely on outrage, urgency, or miracle promises? High-arousal emotion is a classic tool of clickbait. Slow down before you share or act on it.

Key takeaway

Clickbait will always appear in our feeds, but how we respond is what counts. Paying attention to language, questioning what we read, and pausing before we share or act helps us make better choices for our pets. When in doubt, turn to reliable sources such as your vet or an ABTC-registered Clinical Animal Behaviourist. Thoughtful decisions, rooted in evidence and empathy, not only keep our animals safe and well, they strengthen the human–animal bond, a mantra I have lived by since founding my practice in 2006. 😊

References

• Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., and Radke, H. R. M. (2012) Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38(2), pp.247-256. DOI: 10.1177/0146167211424291
• Cekaite, A., and Ekström, A. (2019). Emotion socialization in teacher-child interaction: Teachers’ responses to children’s negative emotions in preschool. Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 1506. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01546
• Fausey, C. M., and Boroditsky, L. (2010) Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 17(5), pp.644-650. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.5.644.
  Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., and Marsh, E. J. (2015) Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 144(5), pp.993-1002. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000098.
• Golman, R., and Loewenstein, G. (2016) Information Gaps: A Theory of Preferences Regarding the Presence and Absence of Information. Decision, advance online publication, October 10, 2016. DOI: 10.1037/dec0000068.
• Malcorps, S., Vliegen, N., and Luyten, P. (2023). Childhood adversity and adolescent acting-out behaviours: the mediating role of mentalizing difficulties and epistemic vigilance. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-023-02302-9.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), pp.175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 (Original work published 1998)