Content uploaded by Lenka Skurková
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lenka Skurková on Sep 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Pet’ková, B.; Skurková, L.;
Florian, M.; Slivková, M.; Dudra
Kasiˇcová, Z.; Kottferová, J. Variations
in Canine Behavioural Characteristics
across Conventional Breed Clusters
and Most Common Breed-Based
Public Stereotypes. Animals 2024,14,
2695. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ani14182695
Academic Editor: Rosemary Strasser
Received: 25 July 2024
Revised: 12 September 2024
Accepted: 14 September 2024
Published: 17 September 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
animals
Article
Variations in Canine Behavioural Characteristics across
Conventional Breed Clusters and Most Common Breed-Based
Public Stereotypes
Barbara Pet’ková* , Lenka Skurková* , Martin Florian , Monika Slivková, Zuzana Dudra Kasiˇcová
and Jana Kottferová
Workplace of Applied Ethology and Professional Ethics, Department of Public Veterinary Medicine and Animal
Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy, Komenského 73, 04181 Košice, Slovakia
*Correspondence: barbara.petkova@uvlf.sk (B.P.); lenka.skurkova@uvlf.sk (L.S.)
Simple Summary: The fascination with dog behaviour and public perceptions of breeds has been
long-lasting. Media, literature, and individual experiences shape beliefs about breed behaviour. Most
purebred dogs are now primarily kept as companions rather than for their original purposes. Through
human selection, consistent behavioural traits have emerged in dog breeds. A questionnaire-based
survey revealed that breeds perceived as aggressive are less aggressive than expected, while mixed-
breeds tend to exhibit more aggression. The research proposes refraining from categorising specific
breeds as dangerous and instead adopting a comprehensive approach. By focusing on education,
training, selective breeding, and societal awareness, incidents involving dogs and humans can be
minimised. Context and human influence play significant roles in dog aggression. Shifting away
from breed stereotypes and utilising empirical evidence can enhance human-animal bonds and foster
safer communities. Exploring genetic, environmental, and individual factors is essential for the
implementation of effective dog training and management strategies.
Abstract: Dog breeds are grouped based on scientific agreement, whether for traditional reasons or
specific tasks during their domestication. Discrepancies may occur between public views of breed
behaviour and actual evidence. This research aims to investigate differences in five behavioural traits
(aggression towards people, aggression towards animals, fearfulness, responsiveness to training,
and activity/excitability) by using the Dog Personality Questionnaire (DPQ) across six conventional
groups/clusters of dog breeds (herding, hunting, guarding, companion dogs, potentially aggressive
breeds, and mixed-breed dogs) and to assess hypotheses derived from common public presumptions.
A cohort of 1309 dog owners sourced through diverse online platforms took part in the study.
Contrary to stereotypes, the findings indicate that breeds labelled as “potentially aggressive” display
lower levels of aggression compared to guarding breeds (
χ2
(5) = 3.657, p= 0.041) and mixed-breeds
(
χ2
(5) = 3.870, p= 0.002). Additionally, mixed-breed dogs exhibited the highest levels of fearfulness
among the six conventional clusters. In terms of aggression and gender, males demonstrated higher
aggression levels towards both humans and animals compared to females (p= 0.001). These results
challenge established assumptions and emphasise the necessity of evidence-based methodologies in
the assessment of canine behaviour.
Keywords: dog; behaviour; dog personality; aggression; breed differences
1. Introduction
The dog behaviour and public perception of individual breeds is one of the long-
standing topics of interest not only to dog owners but also to the wider public. Along with
the way dogs naturally fit into our homes and lives, ideas and presumptions about their
personality and behaviour are emerging. The media, literature, and personal experience
Animals 2024,14, 2695. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182695 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Animals 2024,14, 2695 2 of 21
play a key role in this process, shaping our expectations and beliefs about how different
breeds of dogs should behave [
1
–
3
]. But reality often reveals that our perceptions can be
mispresented, and some ideas about our “furry companions” may be just myths [4].
In the modern sense, most of the purebred dogs serve as companions, not for their
working ability or original breeding purpose [
5
–
7
]. During the domestication process,
several reasons and motivations of humans have led to selective dog breeding, consequently
resulting in distinct canine traits; some breeds excel at hunting, guarding, or herding, while
others are ideal as pets and companions [
8
,
9
]. As a result of human (artificial) selection
pressure, dog breeds exhibit diverse and consistent behavioural tendencies [8,10–12].
When discussing breed behavioural differences, there appears to be general agreement
that dog breeds vary in behaviour or that purebred dogs have a specific behavioural
adaptation [
13
]. In fact, Canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies that shows uncommon variation
in morphological and behavioural phenotypes [
8
], and the substantial number of breeds
makes studying breed-typical behaviour demanding [14].
To assess the suitability of dogs for breeding, working, and pet roles [
15
] or to determine
the nature of behavioural traits and canine personalities across multiple
breeds [7,16–19]
, ques-
tionnaires and psychometric approaches can be a viable alternative [
20
] to direct behavioural
observations of large dog samples. The latter approach is time-consuming, logistically chal-
lenging, expensive, and complicated to evaluate [
21
]. Therefore, for estimating canine person-
ality traits, in several studies [
22
–
25
] the focus turned to the surveys and to obtain the same
type of data by the use of valid survey tools rating specific behavioural traits (e.g., aggressive-
ness, fear, etc.), usually completed by the owners, dog trainers, or veterinarians. To name a
few, the Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ(S)) [
22
,
26
], the
Dog Personality Questionnaire (DPQ) [
23
], and the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire
(MCPQ(-R)) [
24
,
25
] are most commonly used, but other useful tools were utilised within the
citizen science approach [
27
,
28
]. However, inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe
the personality, temperament, and characteristic traits of dogs can lead to misunderstandings
and challenges in understanding dog behaviour [
29
,
30
]. This ambiguity can defend com-
munication and comparison of research findings, potentially impacting the generalisability
and applicability of studies on dog behaviour. Therefore, establishing clear and standardised
definitions for these terms is crucial for enhancing our comprehension of dog behaviour and
advancing research in this area [30].
The differences in behavioural tendencies or personality traits among various dog
breeds or groups/clusters of dog breeds formed on conventions or genetic relatedness
were described in a few studies [
12
,
14
,
17
,
31
–
37
]. The personality research focusing on
the behavioural profile or some trait(s) of specific breeds (such as German Shepherds,
Labrador retrievers, Golden retrievers, Hungarian Vizsla, Czechoslovakian wolfdogs, or
others) is covered only by a limited number of studies [38–43]. Studies looking into breed
variations in canine behaviour validated the presence of distinctions both among and within
breeds [
8
,
44
–
46
]. Therefore, caution is advised in the interpretation of personality traits
across dog breeds, as highlighted by Mirkóet al. [
41
] and Wells [
47
], due to the potential
impact of external factors on their genetic foundations and resultant individual differences.
Actually, variability within a breed can be even greater than among breeds [3,37,48].
Moreover, investigations and studies grounded on data provided by canine owners fre-
quently uncover that specific breeds are inaccurately associated with certain traits, while other
traits are underestimated—especially in relation to aggression [
17
,
49
,
50
].
Clarke et al. [50]
conducted research that validated the theory of acculturation or contact hypothesis, determining
that the stereotyping and generalisations of breeds in dogs mirror the phenomenon of racism
in humans—the extent and nature of interaction with dog breeds significantly shape the
predisposition towards making unfair judgements about them. Dog breed stereotypes are
pervasive [
51
], despite the scientific evidence for greater variations within a breed than among
breeds [
3
,
8
,
43
]. In addition, results suggest that people’s perceptions of dog breeds can be
influenced not only by verbal and visual representations [
52
] but also by veterinary education
and experience shape beliefs about dog breeds—ratings for feelings of “warmth” and “trust”
Animals 2024,14, 2695 3 of 21
towards specific dog breeds were lower in veterinary academic respondents compared to the
public and undergraduates [51].
The disparity between public perception and the actual behaviour of dogs can result
in numerous significant implications. Not only does idealising certain breeds result in
unrealistic expectations and miscommunication with dogs [
53
], but also negative prejudices
and stereotypes about dog breeds lead to discrimination or issues with legislation [
54
,
55
].
Certain dog breeds have a historical association with dog fighting or guarding, which
contributes to their negative perception among the public, e.g., the enduring negative
perception of Pitbull terriers due to their background in dog fighting [
56
]. Similarly, in
the study of Clarke et al. [
57
] focused on the anticipated level of aggressiveness in various
dog breeds, respondents over five times more likely indicated Staffordshire Bull terriers as
dangerous by image alone.
Moreover, some dog breeds are labelled as “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous,”
leading to specific legal repercussions. Dog breed-specific legislation (BSL) has been
established in different countries, such as the UK and the USA, to address issues concerning
dog aggression and bites. Breed-specific legislation (BSL) pertains to laws that regulate
or prohibit the ownership of certain breeds considered to present a heightened risk of
aggression or harm. However, research suggests varying opinions regarding its efficacy.
Studies have shown that while some people believe certain breeds are predisposed to
aggression, there is a lack of consistency in findings regarding breed-specific risk [
43
,
58
].
Furthermore, investigations into the impact of BSL on reducing dog bite injuries have
revealed limited effectiveness, with enforcement measures like muzzles and leash laws
also showing minimal impact [
59
]. An in-depth analysis of selected European countries
where regulations oversee the breeding standards of certain breeds can be found in the
Supplementary Material (Table S1).
Therefore, the aim of our study was to find out whether the common stereotyped
statements about the characteristics of dogs (owner perceived) coincide with the individual
statements of the sample of Czech and Slovak respondents. We addressed our aim by
objective to determine variations in aggression (and exploring potential risk factor–sex),
fearfulness, and trainability among different breed group clusters and to compare the
results with five common stereotypes with little, inconsistent, or even no scientific support,
thus either confirming or refuting these prevailing beliefs; (1) potentially dangerous dog
breeds”, or “dangerous dog breeds” are more aggressive than the other breeds, both
towards people and (2) animals, (3) spayed female dogs are more aggressive than intact
ones regardless of the breed (higher likelihood of human-directed aggression and reactive
behaviour,
e.g., in [60–63]
, (4) mix-breeds are more fearful than other dog breeds’ categories
(an increased risk of noise phobia, dog-directed and human-directed fear, or sensitivity
to touch have been reported in mix-breeds e.g., in the studies of Blackwell et al. [
64
],
Schneider et al. [65]
and Temesi and (5) guarding breeds are most responsive to training
e.g., [66,67].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethical Statement
Data were collected from Slovak and Czech dog owners via an online questionnaire.
Participants voluntarily and anonymously completed the questionnaires, ensuring that
their privacy rights were not compromised (no personally identifiable information was
collected). The introductory letter of the questionnaires contained information regarding
informed consent for the data to be used for scientific purposes.
Ethical review and approval were deemed unnecessary for the animal study as it
involved the use of an online questionnaire to gather data on dog demographics and
owner-reported dog personality. In accordance with the prevailing legislation in Slovakia,
the collection of non-invasive observational data on dog demographics and behaviour
does not fall under the category of animal experimentation. Therefore, it can be conducted
Animals 2024,14, 2695 4 of 21
without seeking specific authorisation from the Ethical Committee of the University of
Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy in Kosice.
2.2. Study Design and Data Collection
Researchers collected data through an online survey, where dog owners assessed their
pets’ behavioural characteristics. Participants from Slovakia and Czechia responded to five
demographic items and seventy-five statements about their dogs’ reactions in everyday
situations as part of the Dog Personality Questionnaire (DPQ) [
23
]. Besides the statements
about canine behaviour in general, included in the DPQ, the following demographic data
about the dogs were collected: age (in months), sex, breed, status intact/neutered, pedigree
(Y/N), housing conditions (dog kept only indoors, indoors/outdoors, only outdoors).
The survey was available for the owner/breeders online for 10 months and promoted
through dog-related social media (e.g., Facebook) groups, forums, and breeders. At the
beginning of the survey, respondents were informed about the study and granted in-
formed consent for the scientific use of the data. To maintain statistical independence, they
evaluated only one dog, preferably a well-known one, if they had multiple pets.
2.3. Dog Personality Questionnaire (DPQ)
For the objectives of this study, the Dog Personality Questionnaire (DPQ), a reliable
and valuable tool, was utilised to acquire a standardised dataset [
23
]. The Dog Personality
Questionnaire (DPQ) demonstrated satisfactory levels of inter-rater reliability and test-retest
reliability and showed a significant correlation with a behavioural test battery conducted
by kennel personnel. The DPQ is available in two formats: a 45-item short form and a
75-item long form. The DPQ assesses dogs across five personality factors, which consist
of several facets, which serve as more specific subcategories reflecting different aspects of
each personality trait: Factor 1, fearfulness (fear of people, non-social fear, fear of dogs,
fear of handling); Factor 2, aggression towards people (general aggression, situational
aggression); Factor 3, activity/excitability (excitability, playfulness, active engagement,
companionability); Factor 4, responsiveness to training (trainability, controllability); and
Factor 5, aggression towards animals (aggression towards dogs, prey drive, dominance over
other dogs). The study opted for the longer form to maximise data collection, especially
for additional research purposes. The questionnaire details of the items used are listed
in Supplementary Material in Table S2. The scores for each factor, as assessed in the
questionnaire, were analysed in accordance with established guidelines and a scoring key,
detailed in Supplementary Material in Table S3.
2.4. Clustering the Dog Breeds
Breeds of dogs were categorised into six groups: guarding breeds, herding breeds,
companion breeds, hound breeds, mix-breeds, and potentially aggressive breeds. Cluster-
ing the dog breeds into groups was based on similarities among breeds regarding their
original function, the perception of various breeds in the public, and partly on the status
of modern breeds of dogs (Table 1). The description of breed-group typical behavioural
profiles (outlined in Supplementary Material Table S4) significantly influences our under-
standing of different dog breeds and shapes our expectations regarding their behaviour.
Detailed descriptive data about the categories of the dog breed clusters included in the
study with the list of breeds is available in the Supplementary Material (Table S5).
Animals 2024,14, 2695 5 of 21
Table 1. Conventional categorisation of dog breeds into six categories with respect to their original
function, use, and status in modern society (a detailed list of breeds included in the study is available
in Supplementary Material, Table S5).
Breed
Category
Title
Description
and Historical
Function
Number of
Breeds
Number
of
Individuals
%Characteristic
Behavioural Traits
Examples of Breeds
Represented
in the Research
Companion
breeds
Companionship
42 347 27 High sociability
(friendly), loyal
Cavalier King Charles
Spaniel, Maltese, Poodle,
Yorkshire terrier
Mix-breeds
Non-specified
breed,
unknown
origin, mixture
of two or
more breeds
- 168 13
Diverse traits,
higher prevalence
of fearfulness,
aggressiveness, etc.
Mixture of various breeds,
often living feral and
reproducing freely, or
living in shelters
Hound
(hunting)
breeds
Hunting of prey
29 151 12 Excellent scent,
alert, active
Basset hound, Beagle,
Dachshund, Weimaraner
Guarding
breeds
Bred for work
(police dogs,
etc.)
7 215 16
High trainability,
alert,
intelligent, protective
Belgian shepherd dog,
German shepherd
dog, Hovawart
Herding breeds
Driving
livestock, used
for control of
other animals
18 185 14
Trainability,
intelligence,
herding
ability, protective
Australian Shepherd,
Bernese Mountain dog,
Border collie,
Shetland sheepdog,
Slovakian Cuvac
Potentially
aggressive
breeds *
Category
designed
according to
the legislation
19 243 19
Higher
aggressiveness,
resistance,
boldness *
American Staffordshire
terrier, Bullmastiff,
Doberman, English Bull
terrier, Rottweiler
Summary 115 1309 100
* With respect to the breed, dogs considered to be potentially dangerous included those who fulfilled the majority
or all of the following characteristics: (1) powerful character and big bravery; (2) strong musculature, athletic
physique, and resistance; (3) standard weight >20 kg; (4) large and robust head with deep mouth. Some of these
criteria are not supported by scientific data, but they are based on many legislations of the European Union and
include the breeds most frequently referred to as dangerous by the lay public in our country (a list of the dog
breeds included in the category of potentially aggressive breeds for the purpose of our study is available in the
Supplementary Material Table S6).
2.5. Statistical Analyses
Participants in the study evaluated the dogs’ behaviour using 75 statements, rating
their agreement on a 7-point scale from 1 to 7 for each statement. A score of 1 denoted
“strongly disagree,” while 7 signified “strongly agree,” with 4 representing a neutral
stance of “neither agree nor disagree.” Higher scores indicate a stronger expression of
the corresponding trait. While most items were directly summed into factors, a few were
reverse-coded before factor creation, as per the scoring instructions.
Scores for each factor (fearfulness: fear of people, non-social fear, fear of dogs, fear
of handling; aggression towards people: general aggression, situational aggression; activ-
ity/excitability: excitability, playfulness, active engagement, companionability; respon-
siveness to training: trainability, controllability; and aggression towards animals) were
analysed in accordance as per published guidelines/scoring key (please refer to Table S3).
Test selection depends on data normality; therefore, non-parametric statistical tech-
niques have been chosen for examining differences in dog behaviour: Independent-samples
Mann–Whitney U test and Independent-samples Kruskal–Wallis H test.
To examine variations in aggression, fearfulness, and trainability between different
breed group clusters and explore risk factors for species-specific breed aggression (sex dif-
ferences in aggression towards people and animals), Kruskal–Wallis H-test was performed
with the assumption of homogenous variance between groups, and Mann–Whitney U test
was performed to determine significant sex differences in aggression.
Animals 2024,14, 2695 6 of 21
Pairwise comparisons were done afterwards to find out which groups of dog breeds
differ in terms of aggression towards animals and people, fearfulness, and trainability.
Kruskall–Wallis ANOVA test for independent samples was performed to test the
impact of housing conditions (outdoor, indoor, and outdoor/indoor) in relation to the
evaluated behavioural traits—aggressiveness towards animals and aggressiveness towards
people, fearfulness, and trainability.
For the statistical analyses, the SPSS statistical program (version 21.0) was used.
3. Results
3.1. Demography
In total, the questionnaire data were recorded from 1309 owners with various breeds,
including mix-breeds. In terms of the breed group, the dogs were assigned to six groups:
companion breeds (N = 347), hound breeds (N = 151), herding breeds (N = 185), guarding
breeds (N = 215), mix breeds (N = 168), and potentially aggressive breeds (N = 243). Out of
them, 537 (41%) were males and 772 (59%) were females. The mean age (
±
S.D.) of the dogs
in the sample was 56.76
±
38.96 months. Additionally, 1093 (83.5%) dogs out of 1309 were
intact, and 216 (16.5%) were neutered (20.6% of females and 10.8% of males);
474 dogs
out
of 1309 (36.2%) spent most of their time in indoor housing conditions,
454 dogs
(34.7%)
were mostly kept in outdoor conditions, and 381 dogs (29.1%) were mostly kept both
indoor and outdoor conditions. Finally, 824 dogs (62.9%) were with pedigree, and
485 dogs
(37.10%) were without pedigree. Basic demographic data about the study subjects are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Basic demographic data about the subjects of the study (dogs included in the survey).
Basic Characteristics of the Study Subjects
Sex n % Neutered Status n %
Male 537 41.00 Yes 216 16.50
Female 772 59.00 No 1093 83.50
Housing
conditions n % Pedigree status n %
Only indoors 474 36.20 Yes 824 62.90
Only outdoors 454 34.70 No 485 37.10
Indoors and
outdoors 381 29.10 Total number of
dogs 1309 100
3.2. Variations in Aggression, Fearfulness, and Trainability between Different Breed
Group Clusters
Besides the variations in some of the behavioural traits among six breed groups, we
evaluated several hypotheses summarising the most common prejudices in the public
about behavioural traits (aggressiveness, fearfulness, or trainability) of different categories
of dog breeds and the perception of these categories in modern society. The hypothesis
reflecting the concept of “potentially dangerous dog breeds” was also included. Descriptive
statistical data are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Descriptive statistical data for all the categories of dog breeds included in the study (total
numbers, mean values, and standard deviation) for behavioural categories according to the DPQ.
Category of Dog Breeds Fearfulness Aggression
Towards People
Responsiveness to
Training
Aggression Towards
Animals
Companion breeds (N = 347) Mean 3.3885 2.3802 3.6746 3.7291
SD 0.6179 0.9008 0.5561 0.7545
Hound breeds (N = 151) Mean 3.2967 2.2987 3.7046 3.9815
SD 0.6478 0.8136 0.5252 0.7358
Animals 2024,14, 2695 7 of 21
Table 3. Cont.
Category of Dog Breeds Fearfulness Aggression
Towards People
Responsiveness to
Training
Aggression Towards
Animals
Herding breeds (N = 185) Mean 3.1846 2.0373 3.6724 3.4771
SD 0.5378 0.5730 0.4425 0.6674
Guarding breeds (N = 215) Mean 3.0337 2.4033 3.7642 3.9451
SD 0.4525 0.7972 0.4683 0.7462
Mix-breeds (N = 168) Mean 3.6024 2.5232 3.6970 3.8341
SD 0.6865 0.9571 0.6073 0.7952
Potentially aggressive breeds
(N = 243)
Mean 3.0593 2.1877 3.6815 3.8156
SD 0.5145 0.7713 0.5126 0.7431
SD = standard deviation, N = total number of dogs.
3.2.1. Differences among Breed Categories in Aggressiveness towards People and Animals
The highest levels of aggressiveness towards people were reported by the owners
in the category of mix-breeds, followed by guarding breeds, companion breeds, hound
breeds, and potentially aggressive breeds. The category of herding dog breeds was the
least aggressive towards people (Figure 1). The first tested hypothesis (H1a) “Aggression
towards people is the same across categories of dog breeds” was rejected because the Sig.
value (p-value) of 0.001 is less than the p-value of 0.05 selected for the test as the level
of significance.
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
Tab le 3. Descriptive statistical data for all the categories of dog breeds included in the study (total
numbers, mean values, and standard deviation) for behavioural categories according to the DPQ.
Category of Dog Breeds Fearfulness Aggression To-
wards People
Responsive-
ness to Train-
ing
Aggression To-
wards
(chenchen)Animals
Companion breeds (N = 347) Mean 3.3885 2.3802 3.6746 3.7291
SD 0.6179 0.9008 0.5561 0.7545
Hound breeds (N = 151) Mean 3.2967 2.2987 3.7046 3.9815
SD 0.6478 0.8136 0.5252 0.7358
Herding breeds (N = 185) Mean 3.1846 2.0373 3.6724 3.4771
SD 0.5378 0.5730 0.4425 0.6674
Guarding breeds (N = 215) Mean 3.0337 2.4033 3.7642 3.9451
SD 0.4525 0.7972 0.4683 0.7462
Mix-breeds (N = 168) Mean 3.6024 2.5232 3.6970 3.8341
SD 0.6865 0.9571 0.6073 0.7952
Potentially aggressive breeds
(N = 243)
Mean 3.0593 2.1877 3.6815 3.8156
SD 0.5145 0.7713 0.5126 0.7431
SD = standard deviation, N = total number of dogs.
3.2.1. Differences among Breed Categories in Aggressiveness towards People and Ani-
mals
The highest levels of aggressiveness towards people were reported by the owners in
the category of mix-breeds, followed by guarding breeds, companion breeds, hound
breeds, and potentially aggressive breeds. The category of herding dog breeds was the
least aggressive towards people (Figure 1). The first tested hypothesis (H1a) “Aggression
towards people is the same across categories of dog breeds” was rejected because the Sig.
value (p-value) of 0.001 is less than the p-value of 0.05 selected for the test as the level of
significance.
Figure 1. Pairwise comparison for various categories of dog breeds of aggression towards people.
Regarding the potentially aggressive dogs, statistically significant results (yellow lines) showed they
are less aggressive towards people than the category of guarding (p = 0.004) or mix-breeds (p = 0.002).
No statistically significant differences between categories of dog breeds are represented by black
lines.
Figure 1. Pairwise comparison for various categories of dog breeds of aggression towards people.
Regarding the potentially aggressive dogs, statistically significant results (yellow lines) showed
they are less aggressive towards people than the category of guarding (p= 0.004) or mix-breeds
(
p= 0.002
). No statistically significant differences between categories of dog breeds are represented
by black lines.
Post-hoc test results show significant differences between pairs of independent vari-
ables (categories of dog breeds). Significant differences were between herding dog breeds
(as least aggressive) and companion dog breeds
χ2
(5) = 4.261, p= 0.001, guarding dog breeds
χ2
(5) = 5.190, p= 0.001, and the category of mix-breeds of dogs
χ2
(5) = 5.315,
p= 0.001
. Also,
statistically significant differences were between the category of potentially aggressive dogs
and more aggressive categories, such as guarding dog breeds
χ2
(5) = 3.657, p= 0.004, and
mix-breeds of dogs
χ2
(5) = 3.870, p= 0.002. Detailed post-hoc analysis is available in the
pairwise comparison table in Supplementary Material (Table S7). Statistically significant
differences between categories of dog breeds are represented by yellow lines (Figure 1).
The analysis conducted aimed to investigate the relationship between housing condi-
tions and levels of aggressiveness towards people. The results indicated that there were
no statistically significant differences in aggressiveness based on the different housing
conditions assessed (χ2(2) = 4.9026, p= 0.0862).
Animals 2024,14, 2695 8 of 21
The second hypothesis (H1b), “Aggression towards animals is the same across cate-
gories of dog breeds”, was rejected. The Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 is less than the p-value
of 0.05 selected for the test as the level of significance. The highest levels of aggressiveness
towards animals were reported by the owners in the category of hound breeds, followed by
guarding breeds, mix-breeds, potentially aggressive breeds, and companion breeds. Less
aggressive towards animals was the category of herding dog breeds (Figure 2).
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
Post-hoc test results show significant differences between pairs of independent vari-
ables (categories of dog breeds). Significant differences were between herding dog breeds
(as least aggressive) and companion dog breeds χ
2
(5) = 4.261, p = 0.001, guarding dog
breeds χ
2
(5) = 5.190, p = 0.001, and the category of mix-breeds of dogs χ
2
(5) = 5.315, p =
0.001. Also, statistically significant differences were between the category of potentially
aggressive dogs and more aggressive categories, such as guarding dog breeds χ
2
(5) =
3.657, p = 0.004, and mix-breeds of dogs χ
2
(5) = 3.870, p = 0.002. Detailed post-hoc analysis
is available in the pairwise comparison table in Supplementary Material (Table S7). Statis-
tically significant differences between categories of dog breeds are represented by yellow
lines (Figure 1).
The analysis conducted aimed to investigate the relationship between housing con-
ditions and levels of aggressiveness towards people. The results indicated that there were
no statistically significant differences in aggressiveness based on the different housing
conditions assessed (χ2(2) = 4.9026, p = 0.0862).
The second hypothesis (H1b), “Aggression towards animals is the same across cate-
gories of dog breeds”, was rejected. The Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 is less than the p-
value of 0.05 selected for the test as the level of significance. The highest levels of aggres-
siveness towards animals were reported by the owners in the category of hound breeds,
followed by guarding breeds, mix-breeds, potentially aggressive breeds, and companion
breeds. Less aggressive towards animals was the category of herding dog breeds (Figure
2).
.
Figure 2. Pairwise comparison for various categories of dog breeds of aggression towards animals.
Statistically significant differences between categories of dog breeds are represented by yellow lines,
where the potentially aggressive dog breeds were more aggressive towards the animals than herd-
ing dogs (p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences between categories of dog breeds are
represented by black lines.
Post-hoc test results show significant differences between pairs of independent vari-
ables (categories of dog breeds). Significant differences were between herding dog breeds
(as least aggressive) and every other category: companion dog breeds χ
2
(5) = 3.766, p =
0.002, potentially aggressive dog breeds χ
2
(5) = 4.622, p = 0.001, mix-breeds χ
2
(5) = 4.686, p
= 0.001, guarding dog breeds χ
2
(5) = 6.077, p = 0.001, and category of hound breeds χ
2
(5) =
6.356, p = 0.001. Also statistically significant were differences between the categories of
companion breeds and guarding breeds χ
2
(5) = 3.071, p = 0.032, and hound breeds χ
2
(5) =
3.633, p = 0.004. Detailed post-hoc analysis is available in the pairwise comparison table in
Supplementary Material (Table S8). Independent-samples Kruskal–Wallis H test was ap-
plied to determine differences in aggression towards animals within different breed cate-
gories (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Pairwise comparison for various categories of dog breeds of aggression towards animals.
Statistically significant differences between categories of dog breeds are represented by yellow
lines, where the potentially aggressive dog breeds were more aggressive towards the animals than
herding dogs (p= 0.001). No statistically significant differences between categories of dog breeds are
represented by black lines.
Post-hoc test results show significant differences between pairs of independent vari-
ables (categories of dog breeds). Significant differences were between herding dog breeds
(as least aggressive) and every other category: companion dog breeds
χ2
(5) = 3.766,
p= 0.002
, potentially aggressive dog breeds
χ2
(5) = 4.622, p= 0.001, mix-breeds
χ2(5) = 4.686
,
p= 0.001, guarding dog breeds
χ2
(5) = 6.077, p= 0.001, and category of hound breeds
χ2(5) = 6.356
,p= 0.001. Also statistically significant were differences between the categories
of companion breeds and guarding breeds
χ2
(5) = 3.071, p= 0.032, and hound breeds
χ2(5) = 3.633
,p= 0.004. Detailed post-hoc analysis is available in the pairwise comparison
table in Supplementary Material (Table S8). Independent-samples Kruskal–Wallis H test
was applied to determine differences in aggression towards animals within different breed
categories (Figure 3).
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22
Figure 3. Statistical analysis showed that there was a statistically signicant dierence in aggression
towards animals score between the potentially aggressive breeds and herding breeds, χ2(5) = 4.622,
p = 0.001.
Additionally, the results indicated that there were no statistically signicant varia-
tions in aggressive behaviour towards animals when comparing dierent housing condi-
tions (χ2(2) = 0.6206180, p = 0.7332).
3.2.2. Dierences among Breed Categories in Fearfulness
The hypothesis (H2) “Fearfulness is the same across categories of dog breeds” was
rejected because the Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 is less than the p-value of 0.05 that we
were using for our test. The post-hoc test results (detailed post-hoc analysis is available in
the pairwise comparison table in Supplementary Material; Table S9) reveal a signicant
dierence between pairs of independent variables. Specically, this indicates that there
exists a notable variation in fearfulness across various categories of dog breeds. In sum-
mary, the highest levels of fearfulness were reported by the owners in the category of mix-
breeds, followed by companion dogs, hound dogs, herding dogs, and potentially aggres-
sive dogs. The least fearful was the category of guarding dog breeds (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Pair-wise comparison of fearfulness in dierent breed categories. Statistically signicant
results (yellow lines) showed that mix breeds are more fearful than potentially aggressive breeds
(p = 0.001), hound breeds (p = 0.001), companion breeds (p = 0.006), guarding breeds (p = 0.001),
Figure 3. Statistical analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference in aggression
towards animals score between the potentially aggressive breeds and herding breeds,
χ2
(5) = 4.622,
p= 0.001.
Animals 2024,14, 2695 9 of 21
Additionally, the results indicated that there were no statistically significant variations
in aggressive behaviour towards animals when comparing different housing conditions
(χ2(2) = 0.6206180, p= 0.7332).
3.2.2. Differences among Breed Categories in Fearfulness
The hypothesis (H2) “Fearfulness is the same across categories of dog breeds” was
rejected because the Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 is less than the p-value of 0.05 that we
were using for our test. The post-hoc test results (detailed post-hoc analysis is available in
the pairwise comparison table in Supplementary Material; Table S9) reveal a significant
difference between pairs of independent variables. Specifically, this indicates that there
exists a notable variation in fearfulness across various categories of dog breeds. In summary,
the highest levels of fearfulness were reported by the owners in the category of mix-breeds,
followed by companion dogs, hound dogs, herding dogs, and potentially aggressive dogs.
The least fearful was the category of guarding dog breeds (Figure 4).
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22
Figure 3. Statistical analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference in aggression
towards animals score between the potentially aggressive breeds and herding breeds, χ
2
(5) = 4.622,
p = 0.001.
Additionally, the results indicated that there were no statistically significant varia-
tions in aggressive behaviour towards animals when comparing different housing condi-
tions (χ2(2) = 0.6206180, p = 0.7332).
3.2.2. Differences among Breed Categories in Fearfulness
The hypothesis (H2) “Fearfulness is the same across categories of dog breeds” was
rejected because the Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 is less than the p-value of 0.05 that we
were using for our test. The post-hoc test results (detailed post-hoc analysis is available in
the pairwise comparison table in Supplementary Material; Table S9) reveal a significant
difference between pairs of independent variables. Specifically, this indicates that there
exists a notable variation in fearfulness across various categories of dog breeds. In sum-
mary, the highest levels of fearfulness were reported by the owners in the category of mix-
breeds, followed by companion dogs, hound dogs, herding dogs, and potentially aggres-
sive dogs. The least fearful was the category of guarding dog breeds (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Pair-wise comparison of fearfulness in different breed categories. Statistically significant
results (yellow lines) showed that mix breeds are more fearful than potentially aggressive breeds
(p = 0.001), hound breeds (p = 0.001), companion breeds (p = 0.006), guarding breeds (p = 0.001),
Figure 4. Pair-wise comparison of fearfulness in different breed categories. Statistically significant
results (yellow lines) showed that mix breeds are more fearful than potentially aggressive breeds
(
p= 0.001
), hound breeds (p= 0.001), companion breeds (p= 0.006), guarding breeds (p= 0.001), and
herding breeds (p= 0.001). No statistically significant differences between categories of dog breeds
are represented by black lines.
The analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in levels of fearfulness
associated with the different housing conditions (
χ2
(2) = 2.499, p = 0.2867). When ex-
amining mix-breeds of dogs (which tend to be the most fearful), the statistical analysis
revealed notable differences in fearful reactions compared to other breed types. Mix-
breeds were more fearful than potentially aggressive breeds
χ2
(5) = 8.857, p= 0.001, hound
breeds
χ2(5) = 4.611
,p= 0.001, companion breeds
χ2
(5) = 3.539, p= 0.006, guarding breeds
χ2(5) = 9.250
,p= 0.001, and herding breeds
χ2
(5) = 6.135, p= 0.001. Independent-samples
Kruskal–Wallis H test was applied to determine differences in fearfulness within different
breed categories (Figure 5).
3.2.3. Differences among Breed Categories in Responsiveness to Training
The hypothesis (H3), “Trainability/Responsiveness to training varies across categories
of dog breeds”, was rejected. No statistically significant differences in responsiveness to
training were found based on dogs’ breed
χ2
(5) = 7.144, p= 0.210 (Figure 6). Multiple
comparisons were not performed because the overall test does not show significant differ-
ences across samples (p= 0.210, non-significant). Moreover, the analysis showed that there
were no statistically significant differences in trainability related to the various housing
conditions (χ2(2) = 0.9818, p= 0.6121).
Animals 2024,14, 2695 10 of 21
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
and herding breeds (p = 0.001). No statistically signicant dierences between categories of dog
breeds are represented by black lines.
The analysis revealed no statistically signicant dierences in levels of fearfulness
associated with the dierent housing conditions (χ2(2) = 2.499, p = 0.2867). When examin-
ing mix-breeds of dogs (which tend to be the most fearful), the statistical analysis revealed
notable dierences in fearful reactions compared to other breed types. Mix-breeds were
more fearful than potentially aggressive breeds χ2(5) = 8.857, p = 0.001, hound breeds χ2(5)
= 4.611, p = 0.001, companion breeds χ2(5) = 3.539, p = 0.006, guarding breeds χ2(5) = 9.250,
p = 0.001, and herding breeds χ2(5) = 6.135, p = 0.001. Independent-samples Kruskal–Wallis
H test was applied to determine dierences in fearfulness within dierent breed catego-
ries (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Independent-Samples Kruskal–Wallis Test for fearfulness in various categories of dog
breeds.
3.2.3. Dierences among Breed Categories in Responsiveness to Training
The hypothesis (H3), “Trainability/Responsiveness to training varies across catego-
ries of dog breeds”, was rejected. No statistically signicant dierences in responsiveness
to training were found based on dogs’ breed χ2(5) = 7.144, p = 0.210 (Figure 6). Multiple
comparisons were not performed because the overall test does not show signicant dif-
ferences across samples (p = 0.210, non-signicant). Moreover, the analysis showed that
there were no statistically signicant dierences in trainability related to the various hous-
ing conditions (χ2(2) = 0.9818, p = 0.6121).
Figure 5. Independent-Samples Kruskal–Wallis Test for fearfulness in various categories of
dog breeds
.
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22
Figure 6. Independent-Samples Kruskal–Wallis Test for responsiveness to training in various catego-
ries of dog breeds.
3.3. Sex Dierences in Dogs in Aggressiveness towards People and Animals
The hypotheses (H4a and H4b) “Aggression towards people is the same across cate-
gories of sex” and “Aggression towards animals is the same across categories of sex” were
rejected because the Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 was less than the p-value of 0.05 selected
for the test as the level of signicance. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test was
applied and showed there is a signicant dierence between male and female dogs in
aggression towards people, U = 168,171.000, z = 5.825, p = 0.001. Males were signicantly
more aggressive towards people (mean rank 727.83) in comparison to female dogs (mean
rank 604.34) (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test (p-value 0.05, signicance level): Comparison
of the aggressiveness towards people in dog males and females–frequency histogram quantifying
the frequency of observations from one group ranking higher than those from another (comparison
of distributions).
Moreover, male dogs were also signicantly more aggressive (mean rank 701.94) to-
wards animals in comparison to female dogs (mean rank 622.35) U = 182 075.000, z = 3.748,
p = 0.001 (Figure 8).
Figure 6. Independent-Samples Kruskal–Wallis Test for responsiveness to training in various categories
of dog breeds.
3.3. Sex Differences in Dogs in Aggressiveness towards People and Animals
The hypotheses (H4a and H4b) “Aggression towards people is the same across cate-
gories of sex” and “Aggression towards animals is the same across categories of sex” were
rejected because the Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 was less than the p-value of 0.05 selected
for the test as the level of significance. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test was
applied and showed there is a significant difference between male and female dogs in
aggression towards people, U = 168,171.000, z = 5.825, p= 0.001. Males were significantly
more aggressive towards people (mean rank 727.83) in comparison to female dogs (mean
rank 604.34) (Figure 7).
Moreover, male dogs were also significantly more aggressive (mean rank 701.94)
towards animals in comparison to female dogs (mean rank 622.35) U = 182 075.000,
z = 3.748
,
p= 0.001 (Figure 8).
Animals 2024,14, 2695 11 of 21
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22
Figure 6. Independent-Samples Kruskal–Wallis Test for responsiveness to training in various catego-
ries of dog breeds.
3.3. Sex Differences in Dogs in Aggressiveness towards People and Animals
The hypotheses (H4a and H4b) “Aggression towards people is the same across cate-
gories of sex” and “Aggression towards animals is the same across categories of sex” were
rejected because the Sig. value (p-value) of 0.001 was less than the p-value of 0.05 selected
for the test as the level of significance. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test was
applied and showed there is a significant difference between male and female dogs in
aggression towards people, U = 168,171.000, z = 5.825, p = 0.001. Males were significantly
more aggressive towards people (mean rank 727.83) in comparison to female dogs (mean
rank 604.34) (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test (p-value 0.05, significance level): Comparison
of the aggressiveness towards people in dog males and females–frequency histogram quantifying
the frequency of observations from one group ranking higher than those from another (comparison
of distributions).
Moreover, male dogs were also significantly more aggressive (mean rank 701.94) to-
wards animals in comparison to female dogs (mean rank 622.35) U = 182 075.000, z = 3.748,
p = 0.001 (Figure 8).
Figure 7. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test (p-value 0.05, significance level): Comparison
of the aggressiveness towards people in dog males and females–frequency histogram quantifying
the frequency of observations from one group ranking higher than those from another (comparison
of distributions).
Animals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
Figure 8. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test (p-value 0.05, significance level): Comparison
of the aggressiveness towards animals in dog males and females–frequency histogram quantifying
the frequency of observations from one group ranking higher than those from another (comparison
of distributions).
Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test was applied also to test potential dis-
tinctions in aggression between spayed and not spayed female dogs. When testing the
hypotheses (H5a), “Aggression of females towards people is the same across categories of
neutered/intact status”, and (H5b), “Aggression of females towards animals is the same
across categories of neutered/intact status”, no statistically significant differences in ag-
gression towards people U = 48 784.500, z = 0.020, p = 0.984 nor in aggression towards
animals were found, U = 46 737.500, z = 0.797, p = 0.425.
3.4. Stereotypes Associated with Breed-Specific Behaviour
Comparing the results based on the DPQ in variations in aggression, fearfulness, and
trainability with the most common stereotypes associated with canine breed-specific be-
haviour, we found out that only the stereotype related to higher fearfulness of mixed-
breeds corresponds to the findings presented in the section above. Beliefs (or stereotypes)
about “dangerous dog breeds” perceived by the public as more aggressive than the other
breeds, or more aggressive females than males (or neutered than intact ones), or guarding
breeds as the most responsive to training are not supported by the results of our DPQ
survey.
4. Discussion
4.1. Variations in Aggression, Fearfulness, and Trainability Between Different Breed Group
Clusters
Differences in aggression, fearfulness, and trainability between different breed
groups point to diverse behavioural profiles within the canine population. Our study
based on the owner-reported canine behaviour reveals significant differences, with some
breed groups showing higher levels of aggression towards humans or animals, while oth-
ers showed lower timidity or greater trainability. Understanding these differences is crit-
ical not only in dog training but also in developing dog ownership laws. It is critical that
these go beyond common-breed stereotypes.
4.1.1. Variations in Aggressiveness Levels towards People and Animals Across Different
Breed Categories
Our study revealed notable differences in the frequency of aggression reported by
owners towards both humans and animals across various dog categories, challenging the
initial hypothesis that proposed a consistent level of aggression among different dog
breeds. Mixed-breeds and guarding breeds showed the highest rates of aggression to-
wards humans while herding breeds showed the lowest rates of aggression. These results
align with prior studies suggesting that genetic predispositions and historical functions
Figure 8. Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test (p-value 0.05, significance level): Comparison
of the aggressiveness towards animals in dog males and females–frequency histogram quantifying
the frequency of observations from one group ranking higher than those from another (comparison
of distributions).
Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test was applied also to test potential dis-
tinctions in aggression between spayed and not spayed female dogs. When testing the
hypotheses (H5a), “Aggression of females towards people is the same across categories
of neutered/intact status”, and (H5b), “Aggression of females towards animals is the
same across categories of neutered/intact status”, no statistically significant differences in
aggression towards people U = 48,784.500, z = 0.020, p= 0.984 nor in aggression towards
animals were found, U = 46,737.500, z = 0.797, p= 0.425.
3.4. Stereotypes Associated with Breed-Specific Behaviour
Comparing the results based on the DPQ in variations in aggression, fearfulness, and
trainability with the most common stereotypes associated with canine breed-specific be-
haviour, we found out that only the stereotype related to higher fearfulness of mixed-breeds
corresponds to the findings presented in the section above. Beliefs (or stereotypes) about
“dangerous dog breeds” perceived by the public as more aggressive than the other breeds,
or more aggressive females than males (or neutered than intact ones), or guarding breeds
as the most responsive to training are not supported by the results of our DPQ survey.
4. Discussion
4.1. Variations in Aggression, Fearfulness, and Trainability between Different Breed
Group Clusters
Differences in aggression, fearfulness, and trainability between different breed groups
point to diverse behavioural profiles within the canine population. Our study based on the
owner-reported canine behaviour reveals significant differences, with some breed groups
showing higher levels of aggression towards humans or animals, while others showed
lower timidity or greater trainability. Understanding these differences is critical not only in
Animals 2024,14, 2695 12 of 21
dog training but also in developing dog ownership laws. It is critical that these go beyond
common-breed stereotypes.
4.1.1. Variations in Aggressiveness Levels towards People and Animals across Different
Breed Categories
Our study revealed notable differences in the frequency of aggression reported by
owners towards both humans and animals across various dog categories, challenging the
initial hypothesis that proposed a consistent level of aggression among different dog breeds.
Mixed-breeds and guarding breeds showed the highest rates of aggression towards humans
while herding breeds showed the lowest rates of aggression. These results align with prior
studies suggesting that genetic predispositions and historical functions of breeds play a
significant role in shaping their aggressive tendencies [
31
,
32
]. Due to their innate protective
instincts, guarding breeds, traditionally bred to protect property and livestock, exhibit
more aggressive behaviour. The perpetuation of this innate trait through generations of
selective breeding has led to escalated aggression levels [55,68,69].
Research conducted by Casey et al. [
70
] proposes that aggression frequently emerges as
a learned response to circumstances rather than being a universal trait among individuals.
Advancing age in dogs may constitute a risk factor, as evidenced by its association with
an elevated likelihood of aggression towards unfamiliar individuals in both indoor and
outdoor settings. Their study also identified hound dogs as posing a potential aggression
risk towards household members. It is essential to acknowledge that the variables measured
only accounted for a minimal proportion of the variability (<10%) observed between
aggressive and non-aggressive animals, suggesting that factors unique to individual dog
experiences have a more substantial impact on the development of aggression. These
findings imply that while principal characteristics of dogs and their owners may influence
aggression at a population level, it is inappropriate to extrapolate assumptions regarding
aggression risk in individual animals based solely on breed characteristics.
Conversely, our results present a challenge to prevailing stereotypes that categorise
specific dog breeds as inherently predisposed to aggression. The research indicated that
breeds frequently subjected to societal stigma and negative media representation as “poten-
tially aggressive” did not demonstrate the highest levels of aggression towards humans
or other animals. This disparity indicates that societal perceptions do not consistently
correspond with objective evidence. The stigmatisation of breeds as more dangerous may
arise from isolated occurrences or historical prejudices rather than a holistic comprehension
of the breed’s typical behaviours [55,71].
4.1.2. Variations in Fearfulness across Different Breed Categories
The analysis of fear responses across different dog breed categories revealed remark-
able disparities, notably with mix-breeds displaying the highest levels of fearfulness. The
heightened fearfulness observed in mix-breeds could potentially be attributed to their
diverse genetic backgrounds and potentially more complex early life encounters [
72
]. Dogs
in shelters or those lacking a clear historical background are more predisposed to encounter
adverse and stressful circumstances, resulting in escalated fear responses and subsequent
behavioural challenges [73,74].
Guarding breeds demonstrated the lowest level of fearfulness, in accordance with
their traditional duties that require confident and stable temperaments. Svartberg [
32
]
categorised these breeds based on variations in behaviour, specifically emphasising low
fearfulness, to guarantee their effectiveness in fulfilling their tasks. This intentional selection
for specific behavioural traits highlights the significant influence of genetic factors on the
development of fear-related behaviours.
Companion breeds, conversely, displayed moderate levels of fearfulness, which could
potentially stem from their selective breeding for characteristics that are favourable for
cohabitation with humans, where an excessive degree of fear would not be advantageous.
Individuals often choose companion breeds due to their friendly nature and calm disposi-
Animals 2024,14, 2695 13 of 21
tions, which make them ideal for domestic life and close human interaction [
75
]. Regardless,
there is variability observed within this group, emphasising the notable influence of indi-
vidual encounters and training in shaping responses to fear [76].
The observation that mix-breed dogs exhibited a notably higher level of fear com-
pared to various other breed categories, including potentially aggressive breeds, hound
breeds, companion breeds, guarding breeds, and herding breeds, implies that fear-related
behaviours are greatly influenced by early life encounters and socialisation. This discovery
is in accordance with existing literature that highlights how fearfulness in canines fre-
quently stems from insufficient socialisation and exposure to diverse settings during critical
developmental stages [
76
–
78
]. Therefore, the management of fearfulness in dogs requires a
comprehensive approach that prioritises positive early interactions, proper socialisation,
and ongoing behavioural guidance.
4.1.3. Variations in Responsiveness to Training across Different Breed Categories
The findings deviated from our initial expectations, as there was a lack of signifi-
cant differences in the responsiveness to training among various categories of dog breeds.
The result indicates that breeds might share the ability for training equally, a concept
that challenges previous assumptions. The implementation of positive reinforcement
training techniques, which have proven to be effective despite the genetic predispo-
sitions of various breeds, could be responsible for the lack of substantial variability
observed [79,80]
. This presents a challenge to the stereotype that specific breeds, such
as those bred for guarding (or working) purposes, inherently possess higher trainability
due to their historical functions.
The data implies that the differences among individuals within breeds often exceed
the breed averages in terms of trainability, which is in line with the findings of earlier
studies [
23
,
50
,
81
–
83
]. The impact of individual characteristics and training methods em-
ployed appears to have a more considerable influence on trainability, despite the potential
impact of breed-specific traits on certain behavioural aspects. Utilising positive reinforce-
ment strategies, which concentrate on reinforcing desirable behaviours, can effectively
improve trainability across various breeds, underscoring the significance of employing
ethical and scientifically validated training approaches [84].
Our findings highlight the importance of considering the individual dog’s disposition,
educational background, and the trainer’s approach when evaluating
trainability [31,85]
.
This perspective suggests that relying on assumptions regarding breeds for training suitabil-
ity may be misguided and counterproductive. When considering the results of studies, the
robustness of the human-canine connection and the consistency in training methodologies,
as opposed to solely the dog’s breed, have a substantial effect on training efficacy [
86
,
87
].
This highlights the importance of positive interactions and training routines in improving
dogs’ responsiveness to training.
4.2. Sex Variations in Dogs in Aggressiveness towards People and Animals
Sex differences in aggression were significant, with male dogs exhibiting higher levels
of aggression towards both individuals and animals in comparison to female dogs. This
observation aligns with existing literature on sexual dimorphism in canine behaviour, at-
tributing such variances to hormonal influences and sex-specific socialisation patterns. The
impact of testosterone on aggressive behaviours is well documented, potentially explaining
the increased aggression in male dogs [
88
]. Correspondingly, the study by Goodloe and
Borchelt [
89
] reported similar patterns. Moreover, an investigation by Takeuchi et al. [
90
]
illustrated that male dogs were predisposed to facing issues linked to aggression targeted
at owners but not towards strangers. Pérez-Guisado and Muñoz-Serrano [
91
] further
identified males as exhibiting elevated levels of dominance aggression in comparison to
females, although their study did not explore other forms of aggression.
To summarise, our investigation and previous studies imply that the difference be-
tween male and female dogs in owner-directed aggression is more obvious and easily
Animals 2024,14, 2695 14 of 21
identifiable than differences in other forms of aggression. Furthermore, societal and owner
expectations frequently influence distinct handling and training strategies for male and
female dogs, potentially affecting these behavioural distinctions [82,92].
Within certain contexts, individuals could choose to neuter or spay to address dog
aggression; nevertheless, the studies have generated conflicting outcomes, e.g., [
93
–
95
].
Research has demonstrated a lack of significant variation in levels of aggression [
49
,
96
],
whereas other studies have suggested an increase in aggression among neutered or spayed
dogs [
97
,
98
]. Pérez-Guisado and Muñoz-Serrano [
91
] clarified the connection between the
process and the display of dominance aggression in male (decreased) and female (increased)
dogs. Significantly, it revealed a lack of substantial variance in aggression levels between
spayed and intact female dogs.
Conversely, a recent investigation by Kolkmeyer et al. [
99
] analysed the behavioural
connections between neutering and breed, particularly emphasising huskies and bulldogs.
The results indicated that castrated males from both breeds displayed higher levels of
aggression towards humans compared to their intact counterparts, showing distinct varia-
tions in aggression towards other dogs and stress-related behaviours depending on neuter
status and breed.
These results present a challenge to established beliefs regarding the correlation
between spaying and increased aggression in female dogs, indicating that the role of
reproductive status in shaping aggressive tendencies may be less significant than previously
proposed [
53
]. This aligns with studies indicating that alterations in behaviour following
spaying are predominantly influenced by individual disposition and external circumstances
rather than solely hormonal variations [100].
4.3. Stereotypes Linked to Behaviour Specific to Certain Breeds
Our study highlights the importance of utilising empirical data to challenge societal
perceptions and stereotypes related to different dog breeds. This awareness possesses the
potential to enhance the efficacy of managing, educating, and decision-making processes
regarding dog ownership and legislation specific to breeds [50,53,55,72].
The significant differences in aggression, fearfulness, and trainability across various
breed categories highlight the complex interaction among genetics, environment, and
personal interactions in influencing the behaviour of dogs. Addressing behavioural issues in
dogs requires a comprehensive approach that considers genetic predispositions, individual
differences, and environmental factors rather than relying on simplistic and potentially
misleading breed stereotypes. Understanding that mix-breed dogs could demonstrate
increased fearfulness because of their miscellaneous backgrounds and shelter experiences
can support the creation of specific interventions to meet their individual needs [73].
Our findings suggest that it would be beneficial for public education campaigns and
policies to highlight the importance of proper socialisation, responsible dog ownership,
and training methods rather than focusing on restrictions based on specific breeds. Mis-
conceptions surrounding behaviours specific to breeds possess the potential to induce
unjustified concerns and discriminatory actions, which may not effectively address the
underlying issues related to aggression and fearfulness in dogs [
12
,
55
,
83
]. Furthermore,
there is a growing demand for further exploration of alternative strategies, such as public
education concerning animal behaviour and more strict regulations on leashes, to enhance
public safety without needing to implement restrictions that target specific breeds [101].
The ethical and legal implications of breed-specific legislation (BSL) have been stud-
ied, with suggestions that addressing breeding practices and ownership regulations may
be more effective in promoting responsible dog ownership and reducing dog-related
incidents [43,58,102].
Genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors influence the intricate nature of aggres-
sive behaviour in dogs. It’s important to focus on each dog’s unique characteristics and
specific context rather than relying solely on breed stereotypes or assumptions related to
gender and reproductive health. In conclusion, this nuanced comprehension of aggression
Animals 2024,14, 2695 15 of 21
has the potential to contribute to the development of more efficient approaches for the
management and reduction of aggressive or fearful tendencies in dogs, thus improving the
safety and well-being of both dogs and humans alike.
4.4. Limitations of the Study
However, we must admit that our study has some limitations, highly relevant for
cautious interpretations of our results. First, the behavioural data were obtained using the
self-reporting questionnaire (DPQ), which is a method often used in behavioural studies
both in humans and animals. The disadvantage of this method of obtaining data includes
the possibility of providing invalid answers and not answering truthfully, especially on
questions that respondents perceive as “sensitive” questions—they have tendencies to
respond in a more acceptable or expected way (so-called social desirability bias). Another
issue of self-reporting studies is a response bias, or the individual’s inclination to respond
in a certain way regardless of the topic or question, which affects the reliability and validity
of studies based on the use of questionnaires. Some other issues include the questionable
clarity of the items to the respondents or lack of flexibility [103].
The second limitation we would like to address is that our study evaluated only the
factor of breed type (plus variable “sex”). We did not collect nor statistically analyse the
additional data about the history of dogs, socialisation or experiences, which would be
highly relevant, especially regarding canine aggression or fearfulness.
Development and variations in those traits are multifactorial and may be related
not only to breed type but could be also a function of current or past living conditions,
age, or some other factors. Those factors (increasing or decreasing the level of fear or
aggression) can be defined as risks [
104
]. The category of companion-related risk (the
biological characteristics of participants) includes breed (evaluated in our study), size, age,
gender, neutering, and health status. The category of socialisation-related risk (the social
(in)experience of the participants) involves the lack of early socialisation and issues around
hierarchy, interpersonal relationships in the group, or inappropriate social experiences.
Lastly, the situational risk is the context or circumstances of the situation in which the
aggressive attacks occur (predatory, territorial, fear-based). Finally, it is important to
remember the possible interaction between those three categories of risk factors, e.g., the
risk of socialisation might depend on the biological features of the companions [
105
].
According to Miklósi [
104
], all three types of risks can and should be identified for both
humans and animals, although there is a bias in the literature emphasising the dog’s side
of companion-related risks.
The benefits of outdoor housing, especially in encouraging increased activity levels,
should be considered alongside the unique traits of individual dogs and the overall quality
of the outdoor environment. Dogs do not react the same way to these settings; instead,
their ability to adapt to different housing conditions is greatly affected by factors such as
their previous experiences and natural temperament. Research indicates that the aspect of
“outdoor living” may be a contributing factor to the increased occurrence of behavioural
issues in dogs, as well as a higher prevalence of aggression [
41
,
106
,
107
] among those who
spend more time outdoors.
Potential explanations for this phenomenon may include reduced interaction with
humans compared to dogs that live indoors, insufficient mental or physical stimulation lead-
ing to frustration or anxiety, and inadequate training. Additionally, territorial aggression
appears to be more frequently observed in these dogs.
Nevertheless, research conducted in Czechia and Slovakia [
108
,
109
] has not identified
significant disparities in aggression levels between dogs that are housed outdoors and
those that are kept indoors, nor between rural and urban settings. It can be speculated
that “outdoor living,” along with factors such as urbanisation and the rural-urban living
comparison, is not an isolated determining factor; rather, it is likely a multifaceted issue. The
aggression levels of dogs living outdoors may be influenced by the quality of the human-
dog relationship, the degree of human proximity to the animal, the owner’s awareness
Animals 2024,14, 2695 16 of 21
regarding training and the dog’s need for mental and physical engagement, the daily
routines of both the dog and the owner, and other related factors.
Focusing on the aim of our study to challenge the prevalent stereotypes, we argue that
a complex perspective and multifactorial approach to this topic are crucial.
5. Conclusions
The utilisation of questionnaire-based data presents a significant opportunity for
further analysis of behavioural traits across different dog breeds. Our survey supports pre-
vious findings, revealing that breeds often classified as potentially aggressive or dangerous
exhibit less aggression in many aspects compared to other breeds. Notably, mixed-breed
dogs display the highest levels of aggressive behaviour across various categories.
Addressing the frequently debated issue of identifying specific breeds as dangerous,
we argue that such categorisation is unjustified. Instead, a comprehensive approach that
includes public education, training, selective breeding for appropriate temperaments based
on future individual use, and promoting social tolerance toward dangerous animals aims
not to isolate them from society but to enhance their social interactions and skills. This
multifaceted strategy contributes to reducing incidents of attacks and sudden accidents
involving both humans and dogs. However, mismanaged conflicts can still result in
serious harm, especially when dealing with large, unbalanced dogs. Aggression in dogs
is context-dependent and often subject to human influence. This study provides valuable
insights into canine behaviour by dispelling myths and offering evidence-based information.
Through these findings, we can promote responsible dog ownership, eliminate breed-
specific regulations with legislation focused more on overall responsible dog ownership
regardless of breed, and encourage safer interactions between dogs and humans.
In conclusion, our research emphasises the need to move beyond breed-based stereo-
types. By focusing on empirical data and evidence-based practices, we can improve canine
welfare and strengthen the human-animal bond, creating safer and more harmonious com-
munities. To achieve more effective and humane dog training and management strategies,
continued exploration of the complex interactions between genetic, environmental, and
individual factors shaping dog behaviour remains essential.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information is available online at https://www.
mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani14182695/s1, Table S1: Regulations governing breeding conditions
for selected breeds in chosen European countries; Table S2: Dog Personality Questionnaire (Jones,
2008); Table S3: Scoring key for Dog Personality Questionnaire; Table S4: Description of breed-group
typical behavioural profiles; Table S5: List of breeds included in each of the categories of dog breeds;
Table S6: List of breeds included in the group, potentially aggressive breeds; Table S7: Pairwise
comparison table for the H1a (aggression towards people); Table S8: Pairwise comparison table for
the H1b (aggression towards animals); Table S9: Pairwise comparison table for the H2 (fearfulness).
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, B.P., L.S. and J.K.; methodology, B.P. and J.K.; data
collection, B.P.; formal analysis, B.P., L.S., M.F., M.S., Z.D.K.; investigation; B.P., L.S. and J.K.; writing—
original draft preparation, B.P.; writing—review and editing, B.P., L.S., J.K., M.F., M.S., Z.D.K.;
visualisation, B.P. and L.S.; supervision, L.S. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Education, Research, Development, and Youth
of the Slovak Republic (KEGA 009UVLF-4/2022 and VEGA 1/0038/24).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were not required for the animal
study because we collected the data using an online questionnaire designed to assess dog personality
via owner report. According to the currently operating Slovakian law, the ethical evaluation of
research involving animals is governed by Act No. 39/2007 Coll. on Veterinary Care. According to
this legislation, our study qualifies for an ethics approval exemption. Specifically, non-experimental
agricultural methods, clinical veterinary studies, and practices that are unlikely to induce pain,
suffering, or distress are not subject to the requirement of formal approval from an Institutional Ethical
Board. Additionally, the collection of non-invasive observational data regarding canine personality
Animals 2024,14, 2695 17 of 21
traits does not fall under the category of animal experimentation, thus permitting such activities
to proceed without the need for special authorisation from the Ethical Committee of the UVMP in
Košice for animal procedures. The legislative framework relevant to our research encompasses Act
No. 39/2007 Coll. pertaining to Veterinary Care, with a particular focus on the sections addressing
animal protection and welfare. Additionally, it includes Decree No. 436/2012 Coll. issued by the
Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic, which operationalises the Veterinary Care Act, as
well as Directive 2010/63/EU concerning the protection of animals utilised for scientific endeavours.
Informed Consent Statement: The completion of the questionnaires was entirely voluntary and
conducted anonymously, ensuring that the privacy of respondents was upheld. The introduction of
the online questionnaire included a section on informed consent. In this introduction, we outlined
the study’s objectives, the procedures involved, and the measures taken to ensure confidentiality. We
specifically assured participants that all data collected would remain anonymous, with no personally
identifiable information being recorded, thereby preventing any possibility of tracing the information
back to them. Additionally, we highlighted that participation was voluntary. Participants were
informed that by reading and comprehending the consent form, they confirmed that they were at
least 18 years of age. By clicking the hyperlink to access the survey, they expressed their willingness to
participate voluntarily in the study. Completing the survey constituted their consent for the scientific
utilisation of the data collected.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article and supplementary materials. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors on request.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank all the owners who filled out the online survey and
participated in this study. Finally, we extend our heartfelt appreciation to Noema Gajdoš Kme-
cováfor her invaluable guidance, insightful suggestions, and dedicated contributions during the
study’s finalisation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coren, S. How Dogs Think: Understanding the Canine Mind, 1st ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN 0-7432-8814-9.
2.
Serpell, J. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, NY,
USA, 1995; ISBN 9780521425377.
3.
Morrill, K.; Hekman, J.; Li, X.; McClure, J.; Logan, B.; Goodman, L.; Gao, M.; Dong, Y.; Alonso, M.; Carmichael, E.; et al.
Ancestry-Inclusive Dog Genomics Challenges Popular Breed Stereotypes. Science 2022,376, eabk0639. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Udell, M.A.R.; Wynne, C.D.L. A Review of Domestic Dogs’ (Canis Familiaris) Human-Like Behaviors: Or Why Behavior Analysts
Should Stop Worrying and Love Their Dogs. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2008,89, 247–261. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Bennett, P.C.; Cooper, N.; Rohlf, V.I.; Mornement, K. Factors Influencing Owner Satisfaction with Companion-Dog-Training
Facilities. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 2007,10, 217–241. [CrossRef]
6.
King, T.; Marston, L.C.; Bennett, P.C. Breeding Dogs for Beauty and Behaviour: Why Scientists Need to Do More to Develop Valid
and Reliable Behaviour Assessments for Dogs Kept as Companions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012,137, 1–12. [CrossRef]
7.
Asp Eken, H.; Fikse, W.F.; Nilsson, K.; Strandberg, E. Breed Differences in Everyday Behaviour of Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
2015,169, 69–77. [CrossRef]
8.
Mehrkam, L.R.; Wynne, C.D.L. Behavioral Differences among Breeds of Domestic Dogs (Canis lupus Familiaris): Current Status of
the Science. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014,155, 12–27. [CrossRef]
9.
Friedrich, J.; Arvelius, P.; Strandberg, E.; Polgar, Z.; Wiener, P.; Haskell, M.J. The Interaction between Behavioural Traits and
Demographic and Management Factors in German Shepherd Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019,211, 67–76. [CrossRef]
10. Bradley, J. The Relevance of Breed in Selecting a Companion Dog; National Canine Research Council: Bangall, NY, USA, 2011.
11.
Howell, T.J.; Bennett, P.C. Puppy Power! Using Social Cognition Research Tasks to Improve Socialization Practices for Domestic
Dogs (Canis Familiaris). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011,6, 195–204. [CrossRef]
12.
Serpell, J.A.; Hsu, Y.A. Effects of Breed, Sex, and Neuter Status on Trainability in Dogs. Anthrozoös 2005,18, 196–207. [CrossRef]
13.
Coppinger, R.; Coppinger, L. Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution, 4th ed.; University of Chicago
Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0226115634.
14.
Starling, M.J.; Branson, N.; Thomson, P.C.; McGreevy, P.D. Age, Sex and Reproductive Status Affect Boldness in Dogs. Vet. J. 2013,
197, 868–872. [CrossRef]
15.
Duffy, D.L.; Kruger, K.A.; Serpell, J.A. Evaluation of a Behavioral Assessment Tool for Dogs Relinquished to Shelters. Prev. Vet.
Med. 2014,117, 601–609. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Rugbjerg, H.; Proschowsky, H.F.; Ersbøll, A.K.; Lund, J.D. Risk Factors Associated with Interdog Aggression and Shooting
Phobias among Purebred Dogs in Denmark. Prev. Vet. Med. 2003,58, 85–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 2024,14, 2695 18 of 21
17. Duffy, D.L.; Hsu, Y.; Serpell, J.A. Breed Differences in Canine Aggression. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008,114, 441–460. [CrossRef]
18.
Temesi, A.; Turcsán, B.; Miklósi, Á. Measuring Fear in Dogs by Questionnaires: An Exploratory Study toward a Standardized
Inventory. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014,161, 121–130. [CrossRef]
19.
Tamimi, N.; Jamshidi, S.; Serpell, J.A.; Mousavi, S.; Ghasempourabadi, Z. Assessment of the C-BARQ for Evaluating Dog Behavior
in Iran. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015,10, 36–40. [CrossRef]
20.
Wiener, P.; Haskell, M.J. Use of Questionnaire-Based Data to Assess Dog Personality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016,16, 81–85.
[CrossRef]
21.
van Belle, M.J.R.; Gajdoš Kmecová, N.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Mills, D.S.; De Keuster, T.C.B.M. Involving Caregivers in Behavioural
Research: A SWOT Analysis of Two Citizen Science Research Methodologies to Study Cat-Cat Interactions at Home. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 2024,270, 106133. [CrossRef]
22.
Hsu, Y.; Serpell, J. Development and Validation of a Questionnaire for Measuring Behavior and Temperament Traits in Pet Dogs.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2003,223, 1293–1300. [CrossRef]
23.
Jones, A.C. Development and Validation of a Dog Personality Questionnaire. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA,
2008. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/development-validation-dog-personality/docview/
288213001/se-2 (accessed on 15 May 2024).
24.
Ley, J.M.; Bennett, P.C.; Coleman, G.J. A Refinement and Validation of the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire (MCPQ).
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009,116, 220–227. [CrossRef]
25.
Ley, J.M.; McGreevy, P.; Bennett, P.C. Inter-Rater and Test–Retest Reliability of the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire-
Revised (MCPQ-R). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009,119, 85–90. [CrossRef]
26.
Wilkins, V.; Evans, J.; Park, C.; The Dog Aging Project Consortium; Fitzpatrick, A.L.; Creevy, K.E.; Ruple, A. Validation of the
Shortened Version of the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) Using Participants from the Dog
Aging Project. PLoS ONE 2024,19, e0299973. [CrossRef]
27.
Sheppard, G.; Mills, D.S. The Development of a Psychometric Scale for the Evaluation of the Emotional Predispositions of Pet
Dogs. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2002,15, 201–202. [CrossRef]
28.
Turcsán, B.; Miklósi, Á.; Kubinyi, E. Owner Perceived Differences between Mixed-Breed and Purebred Dogs. PLoS ONE 2017,
12, e0172720. [CrossRef]
29.
Wright, H.F.; Mills, D.S.; Pollux, P.M.J. Development and Validation of a Psychometric Tool forAssessing Impulsivity in the
Domestic Dog (Canis Familiaris). Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2011,24, 210–225. [CrossRef]
30.
Sánchez-Tójar, A.; Moiron, M.; Niemelä, P.T. Terminology Use in Animal Personality Research: A Self-Report Questionnaire and a
Systematic Review. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2022,289, 20212259. [CrossRef]
31.
Jones, A.C.; Gosling, S.D. Temperament and Personality in Dogs (Canis Familiaris): A Review and Evaluation of Past Research.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005,95, 1–53. [CrossRef]
32.
Svartberg, K. Breed-Typical Behaviour in Dogs—Historical Remnants or Recent Constructs? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006,
96, 293–313. [CrossRef]
33.
Takeuchi, Y.; Mori, Y. A Comparison of the Behavioral Profiles of Purebred Dogs in Japan to Profiles of Those in the United States
and the United Kingdom. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2006,68, 789–796. [CrossRef]
34.
Jakovcevic, A.; Elgier, A.M.; Mustaca, A.E.; Bentosela, M. Breed Differences in Dogs’ (Canis Familiaris) Gaze to the Human Face.
Behav. Process. 2010,84, 602–607. [CrossRef]
35.
Turcsán, B.; Kubinyi, E.; Miklósi, Á. Trainability and Boldness Traits Differ between Dog Breed Clusters Based on Conventional
Breed Categories and Genetic Relatedness. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011,132, 61–70. [CrossRef]
36.
Tonoike, A.; Nagasawa, M.; Mogi, K.; Serpell, J.A.; Ohtsuki, H.; Kikusui, T. Comparison of Owner-Reported Behavioral
Characteristics among Genetically Clustered Breeds of Dog (Canis Familiaris). Sci. Rep. 2015,5, 17710. [CrossRef]
37.
MacLean, E.L.; Snyder-Mackler, N.; vonHoldt, B.M.; Serpell, J.A. Highly Heritable and Functionally Relevant Breed Differences
in Dog Behaviour. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2019,286, 20190716. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Wilsson, E.; Sundgren, P.-E. The Use of a Behaviour Test for the Selection of Dogs for Service and Breeding, I: Method of Testing
and Evaluating Test Results in the Adult Dog, Demands on Different Kinds of Service Dogs, Sex and Breed Differences. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997,53, 279–295. [CrossRef]
39.
Strandberg, E.; Jacobsson, J.; Saetre, P. Direct Genetic, Maternal and Litter Effects on Behaviour in German Shepherd Dogs in
Sweden. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2005,93, 33–42. [CrossRef]
40.
Ott, S.A.; Schalke, E.; Von Gaertner, A.M.; Hackbarth, H. Is There a Difference? Comparison of Golden Retrievers and Dogs
Affected by Breed-Specific Legislation Regarding Aggressive Behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008,3, 134–140. [CrossRef]
41.
Mirkó, E.; Kubinyi, E.; Gácsi, M.; Miklósi, Á. Preliminary Analysis of an Adjective-Based Dog Personality Questionnaire
Developed to Measure Some Aspects of Personality in the Domestic Dog (Canis Familiaris). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012,
138, 88–98. [CrossRef]
42.
Sommese, A.; Valsecchi, P.; Pelosi, A.; Prato-Previde, E. Comparing behavioural characteristics of Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs,
German shepherds and Labrador retrievers in Italy and the Czech Republic. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021,237, 105300. [CrossRef]
43.
Hammond, A.; Rowland, T.; Mills, D.S.; Pilot, M. Comparison of Behavioural Tendencies between “Dangerous Dogs” and Other
Domestic Dog Breeds—Evolutionary Context and Practical Implications. Evol. Appl. 2022,15, 1806–1819. [CrossRef]
44. Gartner, M.C. Pet Personality: A Review. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2015,75, 102–113. [CrossRef]
Animals 2024,14, 2695 19 of 21
45.
Hart, B.L.; Hart, L.A. Breed and Gender Differences in Dog Behavior. In The Domestic Dog; Serpell, J., Ed.; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 118–132. [CrossRef]
46.
Rayment, D.J.; Peters, R.A.; Marston, L.C.; Groef, B.D. Investigating Canine Personality Structure Using Owner Questionnaires
Measuring Pet Dog Behaviour and Personality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016,180, 100–106. [CrossRef]
47. Wells, D.L. Factors Influencing the Expression of Behavior in the Domestic Dog. In Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals,
3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 229–252. [CrossRef]
48. Zapata, I.; Serpell, J.A.; Alvarez, C.E. Genetic Mapping of Canine Fear and Aggression. BMC Genom. 2016,17, 572. [CrossRef]
49.
Bennett, P.C.; Rohlf, V.I. Owner-Companion Dog Interactions: Relationships between Demographic Variables, Potentially
Problematic Behaviours, Training Engagement and Shared Activities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007,102, 65–84. [CrossRef]
50.
Clarke, T.; Cooper, J.; Mills, D. Acculturation—Perceptions of Breed Differences in Behavior of the Dog (Canis familiaris). In
Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2013. [CrossRef]
51.
Caddiell, R.M.P.; White, P.; Lascelles, B.D.X.; Royal, K.; Ange-van Heugten, K.; Gruen, M.E. Veterinary Education and Experience
Shape Beliefs about Dog Breeds. Part 2: Trust. Sci. Rep. 2023,13, 13847. [CrossRef]
52.
Wells, D.L.; Morrison, D.J.; Hepper, P.G. The Effect of Priming on Perceptions of Dog Breed Traits. Anthrozoös 2012,25, 369–377.
[CrossRef]
53.
Hart, B.L.; Hart, L.A. Selecting Pet Dogs on the Basis of Cluster Analysis of Breed Behavior Profiles and Gender. J. Am. Vet. Med.
Assoc. 1985,186, 1181–1185.
54.
Patronek, G.J.; Slater, M.; Marder, A. Use of a Number-Needed-to-Ban Calculation to Illustrate Limitations of Breed-Specific
Legislation in Decreasing the Risk of Dog Bite–Related Injury. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2010,237, 788–792. [CrossRef]
55.
Collier, S. Breed-Specific Legislation and the Pit Bull Terrier: Are the Laws Justified? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006,1, 17–22.
[CrossRef]
56. Cohen, J.; Richardson, J. Pit Bull Panic. J. Pop. Cult. 2002,36, 285–317. [CrossRef]
57.
Clarke, T.; Mills, D.; Cooper, J. “Type” as Central to Perceptions of Breed Differences in Behavior of Domestic Dog. Soc. Anim.
2016,24, 467–485. [CrossRef]
58.
Kogan, L.R.; Packman, W.; Erdman, P.; Currin-McCulloch, J.; Bussolari, C. US Adults’ Perceptions of Dog Breed Bans, Dog
Aggression and Breed-Specific Laws. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022,19, 10138. [CrossRef]
59. Loeb, J. Dog Control: Questions Begging for Answers. Vet. Rec. 2022,191, 477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60.
Podberscek, A.L.; Serpell, J.A. The English Cocker Spaniel: Preliminary Findings on Aggressive Behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
1996,47, 75–89. [CrossRef]
61.
Bálint, A.; Rieger, G.; Miklósi, Á.; Pongrácz, P. Assessment of Owner-Directed Aggressive Behavioural Tendencies of Dogs in
Situations of Possession and Manipulation. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017,4, 171040. [CrossRef]
62.
D’Onise, K.; Hazel, S.; Caraguel, C. Mandatory Desexing of Dogs: One Step in the Right Direction to Reduce the Risk of Dog Bite?
A Systematic Review. Inj. Prev. 2017,23, 212–218. [CrossRef]
63.
Lorenz, K.; Kaufmann, C.; Ganslosser, U. Comparison of the Social Behaviour of Intact and Neutered Female Domestic Dogs
(Canis lupus Familiaris): Questionnaires and Case Studies. J. Dairy Vet. Sci. 2019,12, 1–4.
64.
Blackwell, E.J.; Bradshaw, J.W.S.; Casey, R.A. Fear Responses to Noises in Domestic Dogs: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Co-
Occurrence with Other Fear Related Behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013,145, 15–25. [CrossRef]
65.
Schneider, L.A.; Delfabbro, P.H.; Burns, N.R. Temperament and Lateralization in the Domestic Dog (Canis Familiaris). Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 2013,8, 124–134. [CrossRef]
66.
Coren, S. The Intelligence of Dogs: Canine Consciousness and Capabilities, 1st ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; p. 250. ISBN
978-0747212812.
67.
Helton, W.S. Does Perceived Trainability of Dog (Canis lupus Familiaris) Breeds Reflect Differences in Learning or Differences in
Physical Ability? Behav. Process. 2010,83, 315–323. [CrossRef]
68.
Hecht, E.E.; Zapata, I.; Alvarez, C.E.; Gutman, D.A.; Preuss, T.M.; Kent, M.; Serpell, J.A. Neurodevelopmental Scaling Is a Major
Driver of Brain–Behavior Differences in Temperament across Dog Breeds. Brain. Struct. Funct.