# Odds ratio and likelihood. Fallacy?

It seems clear to me odds ratio ($OR$) is not equivalent to difference in probability and it's not possible to derive the difference knowing nothing but the odds ratio.

As an example, say on a given day cat's have 49% chance of getting sun-burn while dogs have 52% chance. The difference between cats and dogs is 3 percentage points or $\frac{3}{49} \approx 6.12\%$ increase in probability for dogs over cats.

Meanwhile the odds ratio is $\dfrac{\frac{0.52}{1-0.52}}{\frac{0.49}{1-0.49}} \approx 1.128$

However I am finding a lot of social science literature intpreting $OR-1$ as equivalent to increase in probability. Example:

children whose parents were living together at the index observation were 5.4% more likely to be male than children whose parents were living apart (odds ratio of 1.054)

What am I missing?