Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40723546›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

How Changing Portraits and Opinions of "Pit Bulls" Undermined Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States.

Michael Tesler, Mary McThomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael TeslerDepartment of Political Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Mary McThomasDepartment of Political Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scholars and journalists typically trace the diffusion of breed-specific legislation (BSL) in the U.S. to the surge in negative media portraits of pit bull-type dogs (PBTDs) during the late twentieth century. Yet, while news coverage still portrays these dogs unfavorably, we document a sharp rise in countervailing sources of "pit bull positivity" over the past two decades. Drawing on insights from the respective social science research on changes in attitudes and public policy, we argue that this influx of positivity should powerfully impact opinions and policies towards PBTDs. Our data and analyses consistently support that argument. We analyze two different series of repeated cross-sectional surveys to show that public support for "pit bulls" grew considerably from 2014 to 2024. We also show that voters' support for ballot measures overturning local "pit bull bans" increased substantially during that same ten-year period. Finally, our analysis of the frames and narratives deployed in recent state and local policy debates shows how this growing pit bull positivity has helped overturn over 300 discriminatory laws against these dogs since 2012. We conclude with a discussion of how shifts in portraits and opinions of PBTDs will likely continue eroding breed-specific legislation going forward.

Indexed as

breed-specific legislationpit bullspolicy narrativespublic opinionpublic policysocial construction of target populations

Identifiers

PMID40723546
PMCPMC12291974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.