The exotic pet trade is a global, multi-billion-dollar industry involving the sale and ownership of non-domesticated animals as pets. It has far-reaching implications for biodiversity, public health, and animal welfare. This study examines how the trade is portrayed across two types of media: peer-reviewed journal articles and newspaper stories. Specifically, it analyzes language, taxonomic focus, and thematic framings to determine how different audiences may receive and understand information about the trade.

The authors analyzed 320 peer-reviewed articles and 191 newspaper articles published between 2001 and 2020. Each was coded using five framings:

1. Welfare
2. Conservation
3. Disease
4. Economy
5. Invasive species

Articles that included more than one framing were classified as “multiple frames.” The authors also tracked taxonomic focus, used sentiment analysis to assess emotional tone, and compared citation rates for scientific articles.

Peer-Reviewed Research Focuses On Multi-Issue Framings

Over half (55%) of the peer-reviewed articles used multiple frames, discussing several themes together (e.g., conservation and invasive species). Of the five frames, the most common was conservation (34%), followed by invasive species (25%), disease (18%), and economy (12%). Welfare (11%) was the least common frame found in the scientific literature.

In contrast, newspaper stories used the welfare frame most frequently (31%), making it the dominant narrative in journalistic coverage. Conservation (25%) was the next most common frame, followed by economy (20%), disease (15%), and invasive species (9%).

This suggests that while public-facing media often centers the well-being of individual animals, few scientific papers frame it as the primary concern. Instead, academic research tends to emphasize ecosystem-level concerns or mix several issue areas.

Welfare Remains Marginal In Scientific Literature

Results showed a link between framing and citation rate for peer-reviewed papers. Notably, articles using the welfare frame had the lowest average citation rate (0.75 citations/year), while those focused on the conservation angle were much more popular (3.40 citations/year). Articles using multiple frames were cited the most (3.44 citations/year). This may discourage researchers from using welfare as a central framing, despite its prominence in public discourse.

The study also found that while the use of conservation and disease framings increased over time, the use of welfare framing remained low. The authors speculate that had the study included post-2020 data, the disease frame might have been even more prevalent, given increased awareness of zoonotic risks since COVID-19.

Taxonomic Focus Reveals Research Biases

Peer-reviewed articles showed a taxonomic bias in their coverage. Birds and reptiles appeared more frequently than mammals and fishes, while amphibians were largely overlooked. This bias may reflect species that are perceived as charismatic or problematic, but it doesn’t necessarily match trade volumes or the scale of welfare concerns across all taxa.

For example, amphibians are heavily traded yet rarely mentioned, even though they often experience high mortality and poor welfare in captivity. The overrepresentation of reptiles and birds may stem from their links to disease transmission, invasive species risk, or extinction threats.

Language Use Differs Significantly Between Media Types

Using sentiment analysis, the authors measured the emotional tone of each article. Newspaper articles were both more emotive and more negative than the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles, especially those using the disease and invasive species frames. This language likely aims to convey urgency or evoke empathy.

Perhaps not surprisingly, peer-reviewed literature tended to use neutral or technical language. While this promotes objectivity, it may also reduce the salience of animal welfare concerns. In fact, the language around welfare in peer-reviewed papers was the least negative of all five frames.

The study notes that emotionally resonant messaging can be important for influencing public opinion and policy, but suggests that integrating scientific evidence with public engagement may be key to tackling the challenges associated with the exotic pet trade.

Implications For Advocates

This study reveals important opportunities and gaps that animal advocates should consider:

• Welfare is underrepresented in scientific discourse: Despite being the dominant frame in newspapers, welfare is rarely used as a central theme in scientific articles about the exotic pet trade. Advocates should push for more research that centers animal well-being.
• Citation disparities matter: Welfare-focused studies on the exotic pet trade receive the fewest citations. Advocates and researchers can challenge this dynamic by citing and amplifying welfare research more often.
• Species representation skews awareness: Animals most studied in the scientific literature are not always those most impacted by the trade. Advocates should encourage a focus on underrepresented taxa like amphibians and fishes.
• Emotional messaging may aid advocacy: Scientific detachment has value, but when used carefully, emotionally engaging language can strengthen calls for reform, especially when it comes to framing animals as sentient beings rather than disease vectors or ecological risks.
• Collaborations could bridge gaps: Partnering with journalists, researchers, and policymakers to align welfare narratives across media types could amplify their reach and impact.

While newspaper coverage of the exotic pet trade emphasizes animal welfare and uses emotionally resonant language, peer-reviewed literature more often focuses on conservation and mixed-issue framings. Animal welfare remains marginal in scientific discourse and poorly cited, despite being a top public concern. For advocates, this disconnect presents both a challenge and an opportunity: by encouraging research that centers animal well-being and aligning public and academic narratives, we can improve both visibility and outcomes for the animals caught up in this global industry.