Words Matter

The Words We Use Matter: How Language Shapes Animal Welfare

Lori Torrini, MPS, BSc, AAS, UW-AAB, FFCP, CPDT-KA

April 14, 2026

Introduction

A substantial body of scientific literature demonstrates that word choice, labels, and framing can influence how people think, feel, and make decisions. What may appear to be small differences in wording such as referring to someone as a tenant versus a resident or referring to animals as a collection versus a group, or as being in captivity versus under human care are not trivial distinctions.

These differences are supported by several well-established areas of psychological research, including framing effects, linguistic framing, and categorization. While language does not determine thought, converging evidence suggests that it can shape perception, attention, and interpretation in meaningful ways.

Framing Effects: The Foundation

One of the most directly relevant concepts is framing effects, originating from the work of Kahneman and Tversky. Framing effects refer to the phenomenon in which the same information, presented in different ways, can lead to different judgments and decisions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1981; Tversky & Kahneman, 1986).

For example, people often respond differently to “90% fat-free” versus “10% fat,” or “lives saved” versus “lives lost.” These descriptions are logically equivalent, yet they reliably produce different responses. This suggests that decision-making is influenced not only by objective information, but also by how that information is presented.

Framing effects have been observed across domains including healthcare, law, and public policy (Chong & Druckman, 2007). Importantly, these effects often operate automatically and outside of conscious awareness.

Linguistic Framing and Word Choice

Closely related is linguistic framing, which refers to how specific word choices shape perception. Research suggests that even subtle differences in wording can influence how people interpret meaning, assign responsibility, and evaluate situations (Semin & Fiedler, 1988). Language helps guide attention by highlighting certain features of a situation while downplaying others. For example, variations in phrasing can influence how individuals remember events or assign blame, indicating that language plays an active role in shaping cognition rather than simply reflecting it (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2010).

Linguistic Relativity

At a broader level, the concept of linguistic relativity, often associated with Sapir and Whorf, proposes that language influences thought. Strong deterministic versions of this theory are not supported; however, there is substantial evidence that does support an interpretation that language can influence perception, categorization, and emotional interpretation (Boroditsky, 2011). In this view, language provides a framework that can shape how individuals organize and interpret their experiences, without rigidly determining them.

Metaphors and Labels

Another important component is metaphorical framing. Research has shown that the metaphors used to describe a problem can influence how people reason about it and what solutions they support. For example, describing crime as a “beast” versus a “virus” can lead individuals to favor different types of interventions, even when the underlying facts are identical (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011).

This principle extends to labeling more broadly. Terms such as collection, group, family, or population may cue different interpretive frames. For instance, collection may emphasize organization and ownership, whereas group or family may highlight social relationships. While these distinctions are not always explicitly studied in animal-care contexts, they are consistent with broader findings that labels can activate different mental models and emotional responses.

Why Language Has These Effects

Several mechanisms help explain why language can influence perception and judgment. With regard to attention and salience, words highlight certain features while drawing attention away from others. Words also influence emotional activation, meaning that different terms can evoke different affective responses. Language also impacts categorization. In other words, labels influence how something is mentally classified. Finally, heuristics or mental shortcuts mean that people rely on quick interpretations based on wording.

For example, describing someone as a tenant versus a resident may emphasize different aspects of their role, legal and economic versus social and communal. This distinction is best understood as an illustration of how framing can shape interpretation, rather than as direct evidence of specific behavioral outcomes. Similar processes may apply in animal care. The terminology used to describe animals and their environments can influence how people conceptualize relationships, responsibilities, and appropriate responses.

Language in Animal Care and Welfare

In animal care, language is often treated as a neutral tool for description. However, research in psychology suggests that language can shape how individuals interpret and respond to situations. Applied to animal welfare, this implies that terminology may influence how animals are perceived and how their needs are prioritized.

Framing research demonstrates that even when two descriptions are logically equivalent, differences in wording can lead to different judgments (Kahneman & Tversky, 1981; Tversky & Kahneman, 1986). Linguistic framing research further suggests that word choice can influence interpretation and categorization (Semin & Fiedler, 1988).

Together, these findings support the idea that the language used in animal care may play a role in shaping attention, expectations, and decision-making.

Object-Based Language and Its Consequences

Terms such as collection, specimens, or inventory may frame animals in object-like terms, emphasizing ownership, management, or quantification. Research on mind perception and dehumanization suggests that when entities are perceived as lacking mental states or individuality, they may be afforded less moral consideration (Haslam, 2006; Waytz et al., 2010; Bastian et al., 2012; Loughnan et al., 2010).

Although much of this research focuses on human groups or animals used for food, the underlying mechanism, how perceived mental capacity influences moral concern, may extend to other contexts.

In contrast, referring to animals as individuals or as animals in one’s care may emphasize variability, agency, and internal states. This shift in framing is consistent with approaches that prioritize observation, environmental adjustment, and responsiveness to the animal’s behavior.

Language, Categorization, and Welfare

Language also influences how behavior is interpreted. For example, describing an animal as aggressive versus defensive can suggest different underlying causes and may bias responses. While both terms may refer to similar observable behavior, aggressive often implies intent, whereas defensive places the behavior in context.

Research on framing and metaphor suggests that such differences in wording can influence reasoning and decision-making (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011). In animal care, this may affect whether responses focus on control, avoidance, or environmental modification. Similarly, the term handling may emphasize physical control, whereas terms such as interaction or choice-based engagement may highlight the animal’s role in the interaction. These distinctions reflect different conceptualizations of the animal’s agency.

Why This Matters for Reptiles

These considerations may be particularly relevant for reptiles. Compared to mammals, reptiles are often perceived as less expressive and less cognitively complex, which can influence how their needs are interpreted.

Recent research suggests that public understanding of reptile cognition and welfare is often limited and influenced by experience and knowledge (Crisante et al., 2023). At the same time, growing evidence indicates that reptiles are capable of behavioral flexibility and may experience different affective states (Burghardt, 2013; Hoehfurtner et al., 2025).

In this context, the language used to describe reptiles may play a role in shaping expectations and guiding care practices, particularly when scientific understanding is still developing in public awareness.

Language, Expectations, and Human–Animal Interactions

Language also shapes expectations before an animal is acquired. Describing a species as an “easy, low-maintenance pet” creates different expectations than describing it in terms of its ecological and behavioral characteristics.

Research on human attitudes toward animals indicates that beliefs, knowledge, and cultural framing all contribute to how animals are treated (Serpell, 2004; Knight et al., 2009). When expectations do not align with reality, this may contribute to inappropriate care or rehoming.

Moving Forward: Shifting Language to Shift Practice

Changing language is not simply about terminology preferences. It is about aligning how we describe animals with current scientific understanding of their behavior and needs.

Small, consistent shifts, such as moving from collection to animals in my care, or from aggressive to defensive behavior may help direct attention toward factors that are relevant to welfare. Over time, these shifts in perception may influence how individuals observe, interpret, and respond to animals.

The Bottom Line

The psychological literature provides strong evidence that word choice and framing can influence perception, judgment, and decision-making. While direct causal links between specific terminology and animal welfare outcomes are still developing, the existing evidence suggests that language is one factor that may shape how animals are understood and treated.

The words we use do not just describe reality; they help guide how it is interpreted.

References

Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & 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), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62

Burghardt, G. M. (2013). Environmental enrichment and cognitive complexity in reptiles and amphibians: Concepts, review, and implications for captive populations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 147(3–4), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.04.013

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Crisante, A., Burman, O. H. P., & Wilkinson, A. (2023). Does ownership impact perception of reptile cognitive abilities and welfare needs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 268, 106067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106067

Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eyewitness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

Hoehfurtner, T., Wilkinson, A., Moszuti, S. A., & Burman, O. H. (2025). Evidence of mood states in reptiles. Animal Cognition, 28(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-025-01973-y

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K., & Brandon, D. (2009). Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of social issues, 65(3), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01609.x

Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55(1), 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043

Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558

Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(S1), S145–S151. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600014500

Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278. https://doi.org/10.1086/296365

Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006