Advocacy Should Not Mean a Pile-On!
As behavior professionals, understanding the science of behavior means knowing the crucial difference between holding people accountable and resorting to punitive reactions.
Advocating fiercely for animal welfare and holding practitioners accountable to high ethical standards is not only valid—it is our professional responsibility. But how we do it matters.
Accountability is:
- Objective & Mechanics-Focused: It addresses the observable action, the methodology used, and the measurable impact on the animal’s welfare.
- Standards-Based: It measures behavior against clear ethical frameworks and evidence, not personal offense.
- Constructive: It aims for consumer transparency, ethical clarity, and systemic change.
Punitive behavior, on the other hand, is:
- Personal & Retaliatory: It shifts the target from the technique to the individual’s character through ad hominem attacks, public shaming, or social pile-ons.
- Emotionally Driven: It reacts out of irritation or dislike rather than objective standards.
- Counterproductive: Applied behavior analysis tells us that purely punitive responses create defensiveness, avoidance, and polarized division—not learning or meaningful reform.
We do not have to stay silent about poor welfare or harmful practices to remain professional. True advocacy doesn’t shy away from hard boundaries or rigorous standards.
Hold the standard. Critique the mechanics. Demand accountability. But leave the personal attacks behind—our credibility and our advocacy depend on it.
0 Comments