The term Pit bull is widely used. However, is it assigned a specific definition, or is it associated with overly inclusive and contradictory meanings? At the beginning of the 1900s, dogs identified as Pit bulls were known for their love of children. Media sensationalism has contributed to a shift in perceptions of Pit bulls from favorite companion animals to problem nonhuman animals. Thus, the process of constructing “problem animals” is examined. A qualitative study was conducted to explore what the term Pit bull represents for a sample of fifty-six adults. The data collection tool was the Personal Meaning Map. Respondents seemed to have vague and conflicting definitions of Pit bulls. For some, they are gentle companions, but for others they are gang-related status symbols. For some, Pit bulls represent one breed, whereas for others they represent many breeds. Finally, they were perceived to be both victims of cruelty and predators.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Aberbach, J. D., & Christensen, T. (2001). Radical reform in New Zealand: Crisis windows of opportunity, and rational actors. Public Administration, 79, 2, 403-422.
Antoniades, K. (2006). Pit bull poll. Retrieved from http://www.animalsheltering.org/resources/magazine/sep_oct_2006/pit_bull_poll.pdf.
Armstrong, M. C., Tomasello, S., & Hunter, C. (2001). From pets to companion animals. In D. Salem & A. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals (p. 76). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.
ASPCA wants to reduce number of Pit bulls in New York City. (2008, October 22). Retrieved from http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/10/aspca-wants-to-reduce-number-of-pit.html.
Atkinson, M. D., Dean, M., & Uscinski, J. E. (2014). What is a dog story worth? PS, October, 819-823.
AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions. (2001, June 1). A community approach to dog bite prevention. JAVMA, 218(11).
Beck, U. (2000). Risk society revisited: Theories, politics, and research programmes. In B. Adam, U. Beck, & J. Van Loon (Eds.), The risk society and beyond: Critical issues for social theory (pp. 211-299). London, UK: Sage.
Boyne, R. (2003). Risk. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Bradley, J. (2005). Dogs bite, but balloons and slippers are more dangerous. Berkeley, CA: James and Kenneth Publishers.
Burrows, T. & Fielding, W. (2005). Views of college students on pit bull “ownership”: New Providence, The Bahamas. Society & Animals, 13, 2, 39-52.
Burstein, D. (2004). Breed specific legislation: Unfair prejudice and ineffective policy. Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark Law School, 10, 313-361.
Chris, C. (2006). Watching wildlife. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cohen, J., & Richardson, J. (2002). Pit bull panic. Journal of Popular Culture, 36, 2, 285-302.
Cohen, S. (1973). Folk devils and moral panics. St. Albans, UK: Paladin.
Collins, K. K. (2006). Does negative media cause societies’ dislike of pit bulls? Retrieved from http://www.webclearinghouse.net/volume/9/COLLINS-DoesNegati.php.
Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Delise, K. (2007). The pit bull placebo: The media, myths and politics of canine aggression. Sofia, Bulgaria: Anubis publishing.
Dutton, J. E. (1986). Understanding strategic agenda building and its implications for managing change. Journal of Management Studies, August, 3-24.
Gladwell, M. (2006, February 6). Troublemakers. What pit bulls can teach us about profiling. Annals of Public Policy, 1-12.
Glick, M. H. (2013). Animal instincts: Race, criminality, and the reversal of the ‘human’. American Quarterly, 65, 3, 639-659.
Gosling, S. D., Oliver, P. J., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2003). A dog’s got personality: A cross-species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 6, 1161-1169.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252-264.
Huitson, N. R. (2005). An exploratory analysis of the emergence and implications of breed specific legislation: knee-jerk reaction or warranted response? Unpublished master’s thesis. Simon Fraser University, http://summit.sfu.ca/item/10235.
Hunter, S., & Brisbin, R. (2007). Panic policy making: Canine breed bans in Canada and the United States. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, NV, March 8-10.
Iliopoulou, M. A. (2012). Hope’s story; A veterinarian from Michigan sets an example. The Michigan Veterinarian, VII, 1, Spring.
Iliopoulou, M. A. (2014). Construction of children’s canine care and welfare knowledge scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Jerolmack, C. (2008). How pigeons became rats: The cultural-spatial logic of problem animals. Social Problems, 55, 1, 72-94.
Jessup, D. (2005). The working pit bull. Neptune, NJ: T.F.H. Publications.
Kalof, L., & Taylor, C. (2007). The discourse of dog fighting. Humanity & Society, 31, 1-26.
Kim, C. J., & Freccero, C. (2013). Introduction: Dialogue. American Quarterly, 65, 461-479.
Krcatovich, E., & Reese, L. A. (2014). Urban deindustrialization and eco-system change: Comparative policy narratives of roaming dogs. Presented at the City Future’s conference, Paris, June.
Labonte, P. (2005). Bully: It’s the Pits. Toronto: ECW Press.
Lockwood, R. (1995). The ethology and epidemiology of canine aggression. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The domestic dog (pp. 131-137). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lockwood, R. (2005). Tracking the “state of the animals”: Challenges and opportunities in assessing change. In D. J. Salem & A. N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals III (pp. 1-14). Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.
Long, D. (2007). The best dog in the world: Vintage portraits of children and their dogs. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Malamud, R. (2009). Famous animals in modern culture. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.
Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258-279.
Miller, L., & Zawistowski, S. (2004). Shelter medicine for veterinarians and staff. Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Molloy, C. (2011). Contested meanings and canine bodies. In B. Carter & N. Charles (Eds.), Human and other animals: Critical perspectives (pp. 92-111). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Radaelli, C. M. (1999). The power of policy narratives in the European Union: The case of tax policy. In D. Braun & A. Busch (Eds.) Public policy and political ideas (pp. 116-135). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Randour, M. L., & Hardiman, T. (2007). Creating synergy for gang prevention: Taking a look at animal fighting and gangs. Proceedings of Persistently Safe Schools: The 2007 National Conference on Safe Schools.
Reese, L. A. (2015). The dog days of Detroit: Urban stray and feral animals. City & Community, 14, 167-182.
Taylor, S. (2013). Vegans, freaks, and animals: Toward a new table fellowship. American Quarterly, 65, 757-764.
Tuan, Y. F. (2007). Animal pets: cruelty and affection. In L. Kalof & A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The animals reader (pp. 144-146). Oxford, UK: Oxford international Publishers.
Twining, H., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G. (2000). Managing the stigma of outlaw breeds: A case study of pit bull Owners. Society & Animals, 8, 25-52.
Udell, M., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2008). A review of domestic dogs’ (canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: Or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 247-261.
Voith, V. L, Ingram, E., Mitsouras, K., & Irizarry, K. (2009). Comparison of adoption agency breed identification and DNA breed identification of dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12, 253-262.
Weaver, H. (2013). Becoming in kind: Race, class, gender, and nation in cultures of dog rescue and dogfighting. American Quarterly, 65(3), 689-709.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 4696 | 1588 | 282 |
Full Text Views | 424 | 81 | 18 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 568 | 143 | 33 |
The term Pit bull is widely used. However, is it assigned a specific definition, or is it associated with overly inclusive and contradictory meanings? At the beginning of the 1900s, dogs identified as Pit bulls were known for their love of children. Media sensationalism has contributed to a shift in perceptions of Pit bulls from favorite companion animals to problem nonhuman animals. Thus, the process of constructing “problem animals” is examined. A qualitative study was conducted to explore what the term Pit bull represents for a sample of fifty-six adults. The data collection tool was the Personal Meaning Map. Respondents seemed to have vague and conflicting definitions of Pit bulls. For some, they are gentle companions, but for others they are gang-related status symbols. For some, Pit bulls represent one breed, whereas for others they represent many breeds. Finally, they were perceived to be both victims of cruelty and predators.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 4696 | 1588 | 282 |
Full Text Views | 424 | 81 | 18 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 568 | 143 | 33 |