Public Perception on Dangerous Dog Breeds

Written evidence submitted by Ms Danielle Cooper (DDL0042)

 

Public Perception on Dangerous Dog Breeds and Relevant Legislation

D, Cooper

University of Plymouth; School of Biological Sciences

Abstract

The complex relationship between man and dog that has formed over the centuries has resulted in the evolution of many different breeds, which were bred for specific purposes. Unfortunately, in today’s modern society some breeds of dog are often negatively stereotyped. Many are left in shelters due to breed specific legislation and are eventually euthanised especially if they are labelled aggressive or dangerous such as pit bull type breeds. This study explored the general public’s perceptions on behavioural and psychical characteristics of dog breeds, specifically pit bull type dogs. This study also explored public perceptions on what makes a dog dangerous and whether the law to regulate dangerous dogs is effective. The results of this study indicated there was a significant variation in what influenced the perceptions of the general public regarding dog behaviour and the legislations. However, whilst the results of this study showed some variation in the perceptions of some of the respondents, there was an overall agreement that the breed stereotype of pit bull type dogs is unfair and unfounded, and legislation should be abolished.

Keywords

Breed Specific Legislation, dangerous dogs, pit bull, public perception.

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The relationship that exists between man and dog reaches as far back as 40,000 years when homo sapiens were hunter-gatherers and gradually domesticated dogs into human culture for hunting purposes (Kovačič, 2015). This process of domestication set the trend of artificially selecting individual traits in dogs, which consequently led to the formation of specific breeds (Dotson and Hyatt, 2008). The complex bond between dogs and humans has brought a number of beneficial situations to mankind, ie dogs assisting humans in hunting and herding activities, protecting people and their property, pulling sledges, and carrying cargo (Kovačič, 2015).

Dogs can act as rescuers and assist in the search for different objects or people (Dotson and Hyatt, 2008). Dogs can be used in therapy to assist the elderly, the disabled (Lane, McNicholas and Collis, 1998), the socially isolated and those with developmental disorders to live more independent lives (Berry et al., 2013; Jones and Gosling 2005). Dogs even help humans on the front line in wars and in policing situations (Wiener and Haskell, 2016). Dogs can also be used for entertainment purposes, where dogs fight with other dogs, chase bait or perform in circuses, and there are even some countries across the world where dogs are used as a source of meat (Kovačič, 2015).

In today's modern society the most typical role of a dog is to provide companionship. Unfortunately, some breeds of companion dogs are not always perceived positively, particularly if the breed is associated with undesirable behaviours such as aggression (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012).

While the dog has evolved from a traditional working role to that of companionship, the relationship between man and dog can still be an unknown territory and even dangerous at times (Rooney and Bradshaw, 2002). It has been suggested that many studies have reported that some dogs may cause destruction, or even harm to people or other animals, but distinguishing if this occurs from breed or individual characteristics is difficult (Bennett and Rohlf, 2007; Jones and Gosling, 2005; King, Marston and Bennett, 2012).

It has been well documented that evolution and domestication have helped to shape inherited behavioural predispositions that allow dogs to differ, not only in appearance, but in temperament as well (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012; Svartberg et al., 2005). Previous studies indicate that canine behaviours are only partly controlled by genetic components and that individual dogs respond differently to stimuli due to individual temperaments (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012; Svartberg et al., 2005). Dogs of the same breed can share the same traits, but the way these traits are expressed may vary between individual animals (Duffy, Hsu and Serpell, 2008; Svartberg et al., 2005). These differences may provide insight into an individual dog's temperament and how it might react in various situations (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012; Wiener and Haskell 2016).

While previous studies have shown that genetics play a part in behaviour, it has also been demonstrated that experiences that occur between the ages of three and six months may affect the development of unwanted or destructive behaviours such as avoidance and fear aggression (Mehrkam and Wynne, 2014). Therefore, it is important that breeders and owners should be responsible for establishing a stable environment for puppies during this most crucial period of growth and development so that they mature into appropriate companion dogs (Markwell and Thorne, 1987; Seksel, Mazurski and Taylor 1999; Scott, 1958).

The current literature offers much debate as to why some dog breeds make better companions than others because of the various definitions of a trait and the way they are determined (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012; Ghirlanda et al., 2013; Love and Overall, 2001; Pirrone et al., 2015). The way the media portrays some breeds by using deceptive pictures of snarling aggressive dogs with barred teeth and emotive dialogue regarding incidents of dog bites may be somewhat responsible for people becoming afraid of certain dogs, especially those breeds which have been reported to have been involved in attacks (Burstein, 2004; King, Marston and Bennett, 2012; Patronek, Slater and Marder, 2010).

It has been recognised that media and cultural backgrounds have a reputation for influencing stereotypes held regarding specific breeds (Burstein, 2004). Due to these social stereotypes, some breeds may be labelled as aggressive and even vicious, and therefore avoided by those who are looking for a suitable companion dog (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012; Patronek, Slater and Marder, 2010).

Dog behaviour is so complex that it means developing accurate measuring devices can be difficult (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012). A dog is usually deemed dangerous by assessing its breed, temperament and behaviour (Burstein, 2004; Kovačič, 2015). Various behavioural assessments have been designed for investigating canine personalities such as; using the dog as a model (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012), assessing specific character traits such as fear or aggression (Range and Virányi, 2015) measuring the attachment of pet dogs to their owners (Harvey et al., 2016), evaluating the temperaments and characteristics of working dogs (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012), and examining the heritability of such temperaments and traits (Svartberg et al., 2005). Despite the recognition of these assessments, it has been reported that very few actually provide accurate, reliable measures of behavioural conduct (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012; Svartberg and Forkman, 2002).

Aggressive behaviour in dogs raises both public health and animal welfare concerns (Duffy, Hsu and Serpell, 2008), and many governments have introduced breed-specific legislation (BSL) to try and reduce the number of people who own banned breeds that have a reputation for being dangerous, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA). This breed specific approach is usually based on two beliefs: Firstly, that certain breeds have a bite frequency record that supports the perception that those breeds can exhibit a considerable amount aggression toward people (King, Marston and Bennett, 2012). Secondly, that certain breeds have the likelihood to be dangerous because of their physical characteristics (Collier, 2006).

Considering the pit bull was known as an uncontroversial dog for more than a century, it developed its reputation as being a dangerous breed in the 1980's when media reports of pit bull attacks became more frequent (Burstein, 2004; Collier, 2006). Pit bull terriers are either banned or restricted by BSL across some parts of The United States and throughout the United Kingdom. It is important to note that although the name ‘pit bull’ is not actually a recognised breed, it is a term used to describe a group or type which include purebred dogs as well as dogs suspected to be mixes of those breeds (Olson et al., 2015).

Bull terriers, American bulldogs, English bulldogs, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and pit bull terriers are all commonly classed together in a group known as bull breeds (Burstein, 2004; Hoffman et al., 2014). The UK government defines pit bull type dogs as different from Staffordshire bull terriers, which are not banned but are often confused as pit bull types (Hoffman et al., 2014).

In the UK, The Kennel Club fails to acknowledge the pit bull or American pit bull terrier as a breed and so there are no breed standards for them, which makes identification more difficult (Lodge and Hood, 2002). Dogs are regarded as being of “pit bull type” if they meet a criterion of physical characteristics which include a tail that looks like a pump-handle and almond shaped eyes. These are set out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) which were originally copied from an issue of the American Pit Bull Gazette (Hoffman et al., 2014; Maher and Pierpoint, 2011). However, many dogs that physically look like pit bulls are commonly still kept as companions (Collier, 2006).

Veterinarians and shelter staff across America regularly identify breeds based on appearance, however this approach regarding pit bull-type breeds is not always accurate because there are discrepancies between the way breeds are visually identified by individuals within animal shelters in America and DNA analysis (Olson et al., 2015). Specifically, 50% of dogs that were labelled as pit bulls did not have the DNA signatures of those classed as pit bull breeds (Gunter, Barber and Wynne, 2016; Hoffman et al., 2014).

In some legal cases, genetic testing has been used to dispute the fact that a dog is not a pit bull type and it has been proposed that genetic testing is by far the most objective and reliable method of identification, rather than visually observing physical characteristics (Barnett, 2017). Unfortunately, validating genetic testing to determine the ancestry of a pit bull is also considered problematic because of the pit bull being a type that may have originated from various purebred bull breeds (Hoffman et al., 2014).

The media often portrays pit bulls as ‘demon dogs’ that are unpredictable and even vicious towards humans especially children (Twining, Patronek and Arluke, 2000). An example arises from an article from The US News and World Report in 1987, which reported that that pit bulls were the most dangerous dogs in America (Twining, Patronek and Arluke, 2000). Media portrayal of bite-related injuries from pit bull type dogs have been shown to be more extensive than those of other breeds, and reports of attacks are more frequent when witnesses claim that a pit bull breed was involved (Olson et al., 2015). This negative press led to cities passing laws that have either restricted or banned pit bulls and the media frenzy has continued by reporting every pit bull attack, while playing down incidents regarding other breeds (Twining, Patronek and Arluke, 2000).

Orritt and Oxley (2015) in their seminal research reported that perception on dog bites and nature of dog breeds were mostly influenced by media. The authors concluded that in most situations the fatalities caused by dog bites in England were overrepresented by the British media. Such overrepresentation could have increased apprehensions of the general public and dog owners on dog bites and dangerous dog breeds.

This negative image from the press can cause repercussions for people who have pit bulls as companion animals because pit bulls may appeal to some people with the idea of exploiting their bad reputation for personal gain (Burstein, 2004). These types of owners often use their dogs as status symbols of power and benefit from their intimidating reputation (Maher and Pierpoint, 2011). Whereas, others may see aspects of this breed that oppose its unfavourable image and want to promote a harmonious human-dog relationship with their pit bulls (Twining, Patronek and Arluke, 2000). This negative perception where the animal has a tainted identity can be considered as breed stigma (Twining, Patronek and Arluke, 2000).

Studies in countries such as the UK, the USA and Australia have implied that the pit bull is responsible for a significant number of attacks which have resulted in human fatalities (Bradley, 2014; Collier, 2006), but the data from these studies are often misleading and can be considered flawed. This misleading information is due to different methodological approaches from reports that are based on bite statistics, behavioural clinic caseloads and the opinions of experts (Duffy, Hsu and Serpell, 2008). In fact, studies on dog aggression have shown the Dachshund to be the most aggressive breed regarding aggression towards humans and other dogs (Duffy, Hsu and Serpell, 2008). Not only is there not enough evidence to support the view that the pit bull is a dangerous breed, but the BSL intended to control it has been shown to be ineffective (Collier, 2006).

The UK DDA is believed to have been put into effect by a number of adverse media reports associated with vicious attacks by American pit bull terriers, as well as an increasing public and police awareness which put a huge amount of pressure on the government to act (Oxley 2012). Four types of dogs are banned in the UK under the DDA; the Japanese tosa, fila brasileiro, dogo argentino, and pit bull terrier. Under Section 1 of the Act, these breeds cannot be imported, bred, bought, sold or given away. Non-compliance can result in a fine of around £5,000 and a six-month prison term, as well as the destruction of the dog (Collier, 2006; Sentencingcouncil.org.uk, 2012).

Section 3 of the DDA states that it is illegal for an owner or any person in charge of a dog to allow their dog to be ‘dangerously out of control in a public place’ and this applies to all dogs in England no matter what the breed (Collier, 2006; Legislation.gov.uk, 1991). In 1997, an amendment was added to the act that permitted the courts to make the decision on whether a dog could be given back to its owner or destroyed. Reuniting a dog with its owner can only occur if the dog is not deemed to be dangerous to the public and specific requirements are met, such as the dog being registered, microchipped and tattooed, as well as being muzzled in public (Oxley, 2012).

Reports claim that the numbers of dogo argentino and fila brasileiro are almost non-existent in the UK compared to that of the pit bull terrier (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2015). The number of pit bull terriers in the UK are now estimated to be greater than before the DDA was implemented which indicates that the law has not had the desired effect (Beach, 2012; Oxley, 2012).

The DDA has attracted a large amount of criticism and is highly controversial for several reasons, which include the difficulty in identifying any of the four banned dog types. There are similarities between banned types such as the pit bull and other dog breeds such as the Staffordshire bull terrier which are evident, and experts are required for correct identification (Eken Asp et al., 2015; Oxley 2012). Even though the act has attracted much controversy, the lack of people’s awareness of the law and the lack of knowledge of the term ‘types’ that are described in the act are an issue and many people may not know if they own a pit bull type or not (Hoffman et al., 2014).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the public perceptions on dangerous dogs, specifically the pit bull and the relevant legislation that governs them.

This study explored one main research question and several sub-research questions. The main research question that was explored in this study is “whether public perception on behavioural characteristics of a dog breed significantly varies as a function of their age, gender, dog ownership status, previous unpleasant experiences and employment status”.

Sub-Research questions:

 

Method

A questionnaire was designed using the survey monkey tool to identify respondent’s knowledge and perception of various dog breeds, including the pit bulls. The questionnaire also assessed the respondents on awareness and opinions of the DDA. The questionnaire consisted of a mixture of open and closed-ended questions which were formulated to gauge the perceptions of the respondents as a function of their age, gender, dog ownership, unpleasant experiences, employment, as well as knowledge on legislated guidelines, and media influence.

A message was posted at the beginning of the questionnaire asking anyone over 18 years of age to consent to the survey. The message explained that everything was in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and all respondents would remain anonymous. Data will be destroyed at the end of the study and reviewed by the project supervisor within the university and any queries could be directed to the project supervisor. Ethical approval was applied for and granted by the ethics board.

Web links were sent out across a variety of social media sites to collect data responses over a period of three months. 1421 responses were collected over the total period, although only 837 completed the survey. For the purpose of this study, only the 837 complete responses were used as relevant data.

Both descriptive and inferential statistics were performed to answer the main and sub-research questions. Chi-squared tests were performed on IBM SPSS to perform the statistical test of inference. All statistical tests of inference that were undertaken in the present study were interpreted at the 0.050 level of significance. Cramer’s V tests were performed to test the strength of association between variables (Cohen 1988). Any data that showed counts of less than five was initially grouped together, eg strongly agree and agree become agree etc. A Pearson’s product moment correlation was conducted with the behavioural attributes of dog breeds and their corresponding perceptions in the general public. The relationship between ‘trainability’ and ‘friendliness’ attributes was explored to confirm such assumptions. All figures have been rounded to two decimal places, apart from P values which remain at three decimal places. Formatting of this paper is set to conform with the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare journal (UFAW).

 

 

 

 

 

Results

Whether the ability to identify a pit bull is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, employment and unpleasant experience.

The number of respondents belonging to the age group of 18-25 who were able to identify the pit bull was significantly higher (52.98%) than those from the age group of 45+ (33.44%) (X2 = 27.75, df = 6; P < 0.001). All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. The association was small (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.129.

The number of male respondents who were not able to provide an identity for the pit bull was significantly higher (21.13%) than females (9.17%) (X2 = 17.57, df = 2; P < 0.001). All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. The association was small (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.146.

The number of non-dog owners who were not able to identify the pit bull was significantly higher (21.40%) than those who did own a dog (6.26%) (X2 = 42.27, df = 2; P < 0.001). All expected cell frequencies were greater than five. The association was moderate (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.226. Hence, the ability to identify the pit bull was influenced by age, gender and dog ownership status.

However, there was no statistical significance between employment groups on identifying the pit bull (X2 = 6.77, df = 4; P = 0.149), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.064. Nor unpleasant experiences (X2 = 9.00, df = 4; P = 0.061), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.074.

Further analysis between gender and the responses that were correct or incorrect showed no significance (X2 = 0.75, df = 1; P = 0.387). All expected cell frequencies were greater than 5 with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.032. The same is said for dog ownership status (X2 = 0.23, df = 1; P = 0.631). All expected cell frequencies were greater than 5 with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Overall responses for identifying the pit bull.

 

Whether public perceptions on the trainability of pit bulls is influenced by age, gender, dog-ownership, employment and unpleasant experiences.

   The number of females who perceived pit bulls to be trainable was higher (85.98%) than males (76.06%) (X2 = 8.93, df = 2; P = 0.011), one expected cell frequencies was less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.103.

   Those who were dog owners also perceived pit bulls to be trainable (86.32%) compared to those who did not own a dog (79.78%) (X2 = 6.16, df = 2; P < 0.046), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.086. Therefore, gender and dog ownership influenced the perceptions of trainability of the pit bull.

   However, there was no statistical significance between the age on the perceptions of the trainability of pit bulls (X2 = 5.88, df = 6; P = 0.437), three expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.059. The same is true for unpleasant experiences (X2 = 7.25, df = 4; P = 0.123), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.066. Employment groups showed the same (X2 = 8.10, df = 4; P = 0.088), one expected cell frequencies was less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.070.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Overall responses for the trainability of pit bulls.

 

Whether public perceptions of the friendliness of pit bulls is influenced by age, gender, dog-ownership, employment and unpleasant experiences.

   The number of female respondents who perceived pit bulls to be friendly was significantly higher (76.45%) than males (64.54%) (X2 = 8.79, df = 2; P = 0.012) all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.103.

   Those who were dog owners perceived pit bulls to be friendly (78.25%) compared to those who did not own a dog (65.93%) (X2 = 14.52, df = 2; P = 0.001), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.132. Therefore, gender and dog ownership influenced the perception of the friendliness of the pit bull.

   However, age showed no influence as to the perception of friendliness of pit bulls (X2 = 8.57, df = 6; P = 0.199), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.072. The same is said for unpleasant experiences (X2 = 4.23, df = 4; P = 0.376), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.050. Employment also showed this (X2 = 7.37, df = 4; P = 0.118) one expected cell frequencies was less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.067.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Overall responses for the friendliness of pit bulls.

 

Whether public perceptions on the aggressiveness of pit bulls is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, employment, unpleasant experiences?

   Those from the age group of 36-45 who gave a neutral perception as to the pit bulls aggressiveness was significantly higher (37.65%) compared to the age group of 45+ (22.40%) (X2 = 20.62, df = 6; P = 0.002), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.122.

   The number of respondents who did not have an unpleasant experience who perceived the pit bull to not be aggressive was significantly higher (64.82%) than those who were exposed to at-least two unpleasant experience (50.00%) (X2 = 11.38, df = 4; P = 0.023), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.083. Therefore, age and unpleasant experiences influenced the perception the aggressiveness of the pit bull.

   However, gender showed no significant variation in the perception of the aggressiveness of pit bulls (X2 = 2.15, df = 2; P = 0.342), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.051. Dog ownership shared this view (X2 = 2.62, df = 2; P = 0.270), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.056. Employment further showed this (X2 = 2.87, df = 4; P = 0.579), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.042,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Overall responses for the aggression of pit bulls.

Whether public perceptions on the suitability of pit bulls as a family pet is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, unpleasant experiences or employment?

   Respondents of the age group 18-25 considered the pit bull to be a suitable family pet more (66.45%) compared to the 45+ group (51.09%) (X2 = 17.63, df = 6; P = 0.007), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.103.

   The number of females who perceived the pit bull is a suitable pet was significantly higher (59.48%) compared to males (44.37%) (X2 = 11.26, df = 2; P = 0.004), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.116.

   The number of dog owners who perceived the pit bull to be a suitable pet was significantly higher (60.68%) compared to those who did not own a dog (48.53%) (X2 = 11.13, df = 2; P = 0.004), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.116. So, age, gender and dog ownership influenced the perception of the pit bull being a suitable family pet.

   However, there was no significant variation in unpleasant experiences on the perceptions of pit bulls being a suitable family pet (X2 = 7.04, df = 4; P = 0.134), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.065. Employment also shared this (X2 = 2.96, df = 4; P = 0.564), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.042,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Overall responses for the suitability of pit bulls being family pets.

 

Whether public perceptions of any breed having the potential to become dangerous is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, employment or unpleasant experiences?

   The number of female respondents who perceived that any breed was likely to become dangerous was significantly higher (97.40%) compared to male respondents (91.55%) (X2 = 15.37, df = 2; P < 0.001), two expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.136.

   The number of respondents who had a single unpleasant experience that considered any breed to become dangerous was significantly higher (98.49%) than those who did not have an unpleasant experience with a dog (92.16%) (X2 = 19.93, df = 4; P = 0.001), four expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.109. So, gender and unpleasant experiences influence the perception that any breed is likely to become dangerous.

  However, age showed no significance in perceiving any dog breed as dangerous (X2 = 2.89, df = 6; P = 0.823), six expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.042. So too did dog ownership status (X2 = 1.82, df = 2; P = 0.403), two expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.047. Employment also showed the same (X2 = 1.20, df = 4; P = 0.878), three expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.027.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: Overall responses for any breed having potential to be dangerous.

 

Is the media’s role in public perceptions of dangerous dogs influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, employment or unpleasant experiences?

   The number of female respondents who perceived that the media played a significant role in influencing perceptions of dangerous dog breed was significantly higher (95.95%) compared to males (90.14%) (X2 = 8.63, df = 2; P = 0.013), two expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.102.

   The number of dog owners who perceived that the media played a significant role in influencing perceptions of dangerous dog breeds was significantly higher (96.27%) compared to the number of those who did not own dogs (92.28%) (X2 = 6.11, df = 2; P = 0.047), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.086.

   The number of the respondents who had no unpleasant experience who perceived the media to influence opinions about dangerous dogs was significantly higher (97.27%) compared to those who had had multiple experiences (93.60%) (X2 = 10.79, df = 4; P = 0.029), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.080. Gender, dog ownership status and unpleasant experiences influenced the perception of the medias role in the portrayal of dangerous dog breeds.

   However, there was no significance influence of age on the perceptions of media influencing the perceptions of the general public on dangerous dogs (X2 = 2.12, df = 6; P = 0.908), five expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.036. The same is said for employment (X2 = 2.67, df = 4; P = 0.614), two expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.040.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7: Overall responses for media influencing perceptions of the general public on dangerous dogs.

Whether public perceptions of the pit bull being a dangerous breed is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, unpleasant experiences, and employment domains?

   Respondents from the 18-25 group did not perceive pit bulls to be dangerous (78.29%) compared with to those from the group 45+ (59.50%) (X2 = 26.58, df = 6; P < 0.001), three expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.133.

   The number of female respondents who did not perceive the pit bull to be dangerous was significantly higher (66.71%) than the males (51.41%) (X2 = 12.16, df = 2; P = 0.002), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.121.

   The number of respondents who did not own a dog perceived pit bulls to be dangerous (44.65%) compared to those who did own a dog (31.79%) (X2 = 14.22, df = 2; P = 0.001), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.131.

   Respondents who were not employed in animal-orientated employment perceived pit bulls to dangerous (41.21%) compared to those who were (29.81%) (X2 = 15.30, df = 4; P = 0.004), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.096. So, age, gender, dog ownership, and employment influenced the perception of the pit bull being a dangerous breed.

   However, unpleasant experience showed no significance (X2 = 8.56, df = 4; P = 0.073), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.072, on perceptions that pit bulls are dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Overall responses for public perceptions of pit bulls being dangerous.

 

Whether public perception of pit bulls and Staffordshire bull terriers being given a bad reputation more than other breeds is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, employment status and unpleasant experiences?

   The number of respondents from the group 18-25 percieved pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers to be given a bad reputation of being dangerous more than other breeds (98.03%) compared to those from to the 45+ group (91.90%) (X2 = 24.50, df = 12; P = 0.017), three expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.070.

   The number female respondents that perceived that the pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers were given a bad reputation of being dangerous more than other types of dog were significantly higher (95.65%) compared to males (85.92%) (X2 = 19.79, df = 2; P < 0.001), one expected cell frequency was less than five with a moderate association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.154.

   The number dog owners who perceived that the pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers were given a bad reputation of being more dangerous than other types of dog was significantly higher (95.54%) than those who did not own a dog (90.81%) (X2 = 7.28, df = 2; P = 0.026) all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.093. Age, gender, and dog ownership influenced the perception that Staffordshire bull and pit bull terriers get a bad rep more than other breeds.

   However, unpleasant experiences did not influence the perceptions that Staffordshire bull and pit bull terriers get a bad reputation more than other breeds (X2 = 8.21, df = 4; P = 0.084), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.070. Employment also had no influence (X2 = 6.18, df = 4; P = 0.186), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.061,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9: Overall responses for public perceptions of pit bull and Staffordshire bull terriers having a bad reputation compared to other breeds.

 

 

 

Whether public perception of the environment’s role in shaping dog behaviour is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, unpleasant experiences, and employment?

   Respondents from to the age group of 45+ years perceived the environment an influence of on dog behaviour (95.65%) compared to the 36-45 group (89.02%) (X2 = 16.96, df = 6; P = 0.009), three expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.101.

   Likewise, those who were dog owners perceived the environment was a strong influencer of a dog’s behaviour (94.49%) compared to those who did not own a dog (88.60%) (X2 = 9.36, df = 2; P = 0.009), one expected cell frequency was less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.106. Therefore, age and dog ownership status influenced the perception the environment a dog is in influences its behavioural traits.

   However, gender did not influence the perceptions of the role of environment in shaping dog behaviour (X2 = 2.68, df = 2; P = 0.262), one expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.057. Unpleasant experiences also did not influence the perceptions of the role of environment in shaping dog behaviour. (X2 = 5.66, df = 4; P = 0.226), two expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.058. Neither did employment (X2 = 2.70, df = 4; P = 0.610), two expected cell frequencies were less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.040.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10: Overall responses for perceptions of environment influencing behaviour more than breed alone.

 

Whether the public perception regarding the effectiveness of the dog legislations is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, unpleasant experiences, and employment?

   Those from the 45+ group thought the legislation was ineffective (73.50%) compared to those in the 36-45 group (61.35%) (X2 = 18.44, df = 6; P = 0.005), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.106.

   Male respondents were more unsure about the effectiveness of the legislation (41.84%) compared to females (22.45%) (X2 = 23.11, df = 2; P < 0.001), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a moderate association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.167.

   Dog owners thought the DDA was ineffective (73.07%) compared to non-dog owners (54.24%) (X2 = 29.90, df = 2; P < 0.001), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a moderate association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.190. Hence age, gender and dog ownership status influenced perceptions of the effectiveness of the DDA.

   However, unpleasant experience did not influence perceptions on the effectiveness of dog legislations (X2 = 1.97, df = 4; P = 0.741), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.034. Nor employment (X2 = 1.90, df = 4; P = 0.754), one expected cell frequency was less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.034.

   Further analysis conducted on gender showed no significance between those who did and did not feel the act was effective (X2 = 5.49, df = 2; P = 0.064), two expected cell frequencies was less than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.095.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11: Overall responses for perceptions of the effectiveness of the DDA.

 

 

 

Whether public perception regarding the termination of the DDA is influenced by age, gender, dog ownership, unpleasant experiences, and employment?

   Respondents from the 45+ group agreed it should be terminated (75.94%) compared to those in 26-35-year group (62.44%) (X2 = 15.94, df = 6; P = 0.014), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.098.

   The number of female respondents who agreed the DDA should be terminated was significantly higher (75.18%) compared to males (54.93%) (X2 = 23.84, df = 2; P < 0.001), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a moderate association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.169.

   The number of dog owners who agreed the DDA should be terminated was significantly higher (75.40%) than those who did not own a dog (63.47%) (X2 = 17.50, df = 2; P < 0.001), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.145. Hence, age, gender and dog ownership significantly influenced the opinion on terminating the legislations of DDA.

   However, unpleasant experience did no influence perceptions on the opinion on terminating the legislations of DDA. (X2 = 4.55, df = 4; P = 0.337), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.052, Nor employment (X2 = 7.39, df = 4; P = 0.117), all expected cell frequencies were greater than five with a small association (Cohen 1988), Cramer’s V = 0.067.

 

 

Figure 11: Overall responses for perceptions of terminating the DDA

Pearson Product Moment Correlation - Ungrouped Data

Statistic

Variable X

Variable Y

Mean

43.98

33.9925

Biased Variance

50.1638

36.3725

Biased Standard Deviation

7.08264

6.03096

Covariance

56.81416667

Correlation

0.997553551

Determination

0.995113086

T-Test

20.18059095

p-value (2 sided)

0.002446449

p-value (1 sided)

0.001223225

95% CI of Correlation

[0.883732047297919, 0.999951397997009]

Degrees of Freedom

2

Number of Observations

4

Figure 12: Pearson’s Product moment correlation reflecting the correlation coefficient between friendliness and trainability.

 

Discussion.

  The results of this study indicated there was a wide variation in perceptions within some demographics regarding dog breeds and legislations that regulate dangerous breeds. However, the general consensus was that the breed stereotype given to pit bull type dogs is unfair, unreasonable and unfounded (Twining, Patronek and Arluke, 2000).

The results of this study sugests that younger people are better at identifying pit bull type dogs, which could be due to the fact they are more exposed to relevant open minded experiences of modern dog companionship which was previously discussed by Dotson and Hyatt (2008), Hoffman et al (2014) and Olson et al (2015). However, most respondents still incorrectly guessed the breed from the picture(Figure 1) and this coincides with work by Eken Asp et al (2015) and Oxley (2012), that the pit bull is difficult to identify based on appearance alone because it is defined by type not breed and would require a more accurate method of identification to include DNA testing (Voith et al., 2009).

The hypothesis of this study was that people would perceive the pit-bull-type dog unfavourably relative to other breeds which is in line with Wright et al.’s (2007) assertion that physiological characteristics activate certain behavioural expectations about certain dog breeds regardless of information about the particular dog’s behaviour. This was not the case as 34.05% of all respondents gave the pit bull an aggression score of 2, (Figure 4) which indicated they presumed the pit bull was not very aggressive at all. 18-25-year olds gave the pit bull the lowest aggression scores, which again coincides with Dotson and Hyatt (2008) that younger people are more open minded regarding dog companionship.

63.92% of total respondents did not perceive the pit bull to be a dangerous dog which indicates attitudes towards pit bull type dogs are changing. However, those who did not own a dog and those in a non-animal related work role perceived the pit bull to be a dangerous more than their counterparts and this could be due to lack of experiences with canine species (Fidler, 2003).

93.79% of total respondents also agreed that pit bulls and Staffordshire bull terriers have are given a bad reputation for being dangerous more than the other dog breeds (Figure 9). (Lancendorfer, Atkin, and Reece, 2008; Lee, Short, and Gibbons, 2010).

47.31% of all respondents strongly agree that the pit bull is trainable. (Figure 2). However, there was some variation within gender and dog ownership as females and dog owners perceived the pit bull to be more trainable than males and non dog owners, which coincides with Fidler (2003) and Vining (2003). The total respondents equally agreed and strongly agreed that the pit-bull was friendly (36.92%) (Figure 3) and again both females and dog owners perceived the pit bull to be friendly compared to males and non-dog owners.

Those from the 18 25 group, females and dog owners all agreed more that pit bulls make suitable family pets compared to their counterparts and again could be due to females having a caring nature (Vining, 2003), dog owners having more relative experiences and younger people being open minded regarding pit bull’s nature which again is in line with (Dotson and Hyatt, 2008, Hoffman et al., 2014 and Olson et al., 2015).

The correlation outputs (Figure 12) reflect that there was a significant and positive correlation between friendliness and trainability (r = 0.99, P = 0.002). This correlation coefficient suggests that the trainability attribute of pit bulls is positively correlated with their friendly nature. These findings, which are in line with Svartberg (2005), suggest that if a dog breed exhibits friendliness it is perceived to be more trainable and vice-versa.

Whilst gender and unpleasant experiences showed variation of perception that any dog could be become aggressive regardless of breed, 96.30% of all respondents shared the belief that any breed has the potential to become dangerous and 92.59% of total respondents perceived that environment has more to do with behaviour than breed. This concurs with previous research by Cohen and Richardson (2003) and Seksel, Mazurski and Taylor (1999).

This study complemented findings of Cohen and Richardson (2003), Lee, Short, and Gibbons (2010), and Patronek, Slater and Marder (2010) that media plays a major role in influencing the perceptions of the general public on the dangerous dog breeds. Results show females, dog owners and those who had no unpleasant experiences share the view that the media is a major influencer of public perceptions regarding dangerous dogs compared to their counterparts. Although overall the majority of respondents shared this view (Figure 7).

66.43% of total respondents did not think the DDA was effective and 71.33% of total respondents agreed it should be ended. This suggests that the dangerous dogs act needs to be reviewed based not only on public perception but with the use of coinciding scientific literature (Duffy, Hsu and Serpell, 2008; Patronek, Slater and Marder, 2010), as well as information provided by animal charities and official clubs.

It is important to note that the 45+ group agreed to both the act being ineffective and to its termination more so than the remaining groups. This goes against the work of Dotson and Hyatt (2008), Hoffman et al (2014) and Olson et al (2015).

There were several limitations to this study; the sample size may have been too large, even though the larger the sample size the better representation of the population (Elston, 2017). There was difficulty in categorising open-ended questions such as employment ethnic origins and appropriate questions may not have been asked correctly. Also, as described in the results some tests despite being grouped as best as possible still had cell frequencies of less than five (Cohen 1988). Such limitations might have reduced the reliability of the findings because the chances of subjective or experimental bias cannot be ruled out. However, the findings of this study demonstrated the beneficial effects of understanding the behavioural attributes of different dog breeds (Gunter, Barber, and Wynne, 2016; Patronek, Slater and Marder, 2010).

Welfare implications: Previous studies suggest that not only are certain breeds of dog, such as pit bull types, being more frequently abandoned and staying longer in shelters than others, due to them being restricted or banned by BSL (Gunter, Barber and Wynne, 2016), BSL is also contributing to more dogs being randomly seized by police for investigation, along with the breed stereotypes that are enhanced by media sources that pit bulls are used for fighting, often leading to injury or even death (Patronek, Slater and Marder, 2010). In all these cases they are eventually euthanized (Gunter, Barber and Wynne, 2016).

 

Conclusion

Whilst this study highlighted a variation of opinion within some demographics, the overall consensus regarding dangerous dogs and the relevant legislation is that all dogs have the potential become dangerous despite breed and environmental factors are more important in shaping dog behaviour rather than breed characteristics. The majority of respondents also agreed that the media is unhelpful in promoting a negative stereotype of such breeds as the pit bull (Lancendorfer, Atkin, and Reece, 2008).

This study questioned the process adopted by the UK DDA in classifying dangerous dog breeds, with a significant amount of all respondents (p=0.001) agreeing that the law was in effective and should have an immediate review. The RSPCA, Dogs Trust and British Kennel Club are all in agreement that BSL does not work and more needs to be done to advocate change against this law (Cohen and Richardson, 2003).

Progress of outlawing breed stigma and stereotyping could be achieved through specific measures by the media, in influencing public perceptions on dangerous dog breeds by promoting positive aspects of pit bull type breeds instead of the negative stereotypes of demon dogs and gang types owning an aggressive vicious dog which agrees with research by Patronek, Slater and Marder (2010) and Roll and Unshelm (1997).

More research into DNA analysis of breeds would be helpful in the accuracy of breed identification rather than relying on appearance alone (Jones and Gosling, 2005, Voith et al., 2009). Developing tools and methods for identifying individual dog temperaments would also be beneficial and would help to reduce breed stigma rather than just focusing on specific psychological traits of certain breeds (Illska et al., 2017).

Further studies should also pay attention to both shelter dogs and companion animals, with a focus directed at identifying the underlying factors which could have a potential impact on humans’ perceptions concerning dog breeds (Mirkó et al., 2012; Wan et al., 2009).

Thankfully attitudes towards stereotyped breeds are changing and with a younger generation comes a welcomed open mindedness, which promotes a positive outlook for banned breeds. Through an up to date scientific and public opinion-based approach, hopefully it is now time that the outdated legislation caught up with the modern ethical society to punish the deed not the breed and allow dogs to be themselves and co-exist with fellow man without fear or judgment.

 

May 2018

Acknowledgements

Victor Kuri for support and mentoring.

Nikolaus Von-Englehart for support and management of the module.

The University of Plymouth for the opportunity to perform this study.

References

 

Barnett K 2017 The Post-Conviction Remedy for Pit Bulls: What Today’s Science Tells Us About Breed-Specific Legislation. Syracuse Law Review, 67(241), pp 241-302.

 

Beach G 2012 When Fido Sees Red: Aggressive Behaviour in the Domestic Dog. Aggression in the Domestic Dog [online] pp 1-16. Available at http://www.pinkdog.com.au.

 

Bennett P and Rohlf V 2007 Owner-companion dog interactions: Relationships between demographic variables, potentially problematic behaviours, training engagement and shared activities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102(1-2) pp 65-84.

 

Berry A, Borgi M, Francia N, Alleva E and Cirulli F 2013 Use of Assistance and Therapy Dogs for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Critical Review of the Current Evidence. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 19(2) pp 73-80.

 

Bradley J 2014 Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions. Animals and Society Institute [online] (Revised 2014), pp 1-42. Available at: https://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/sites/default/files/Dog-Bites-Problems-and-Solutions-2nd-Edition_0.pdf.

 

Burstein D 2004 Breed Specific Legislation: Unfair Prejudice & Ineffective Policy. Animal Law 10 pp 313-361.

 

Cohen J 1988 Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed) New York NY: Psychology Press

 

Cohen J and Richardson J 2003 Pit Bull Panic. The Journal of Popular Culture 36(2) pp 285-317.

 

Collier S 2006 Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified?. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 1(1) pp 17-22.

 

Department for Environment and Rural Affairs 1997 The Dangerous Dogs Amendment Act. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

 

Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs 2015 Information request: Number of dogs on index of exempted dogs. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418095/RFI_7262-Reply_Redacted.pdf [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018].

 

Dotson M and Hyatt E 2008 Understanding dog–human companionship. Journal of Business Research 61(5) pp 457-466.

 

Duffy D, Hsu Y and Serpell J (2008). Breed differences in canine aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(3-4), 441-460.

 

Eken Asp H, Fikse W, Nilsson K and Strandberg E 2015 Breed differences in everyday behaviour of dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 169 pp 69-77.

 

Elston DM 2017 Sample size, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.006.

 

Fidler M 2003 Animal Status as a response to pet owner experience. Anthrozoös 16(1) pp 75-82.

 

Ghirlanda S, Acerbi A, Herzog H and Serpell J 2013. Fashion vs. Function in Cultural Evolution: The Case of Dog Breed Popularity. PLoS ONE 8(9) pp 74770.

 

Gunter L, Barber R and Wynne C 2016 What’s in a Name? Effect of Breed Perceptions & Labeling on Attractiveness, Adoptions & Length of Stay for Pit-Bull-Type Dogs. PLOS ONE 11(3) pp 0146857.

 

Harvey N, Craigon P, Blythe S, England G and Asher L 2016 Social rearing environment influences dog behavioral development. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 16 pp 13-21.

 

Hoffman C, Harrison N, Wolff L and Westgarth C 2014 Is That Dog a Pit Bull? A Cross-Country Comparison of Perceptions of Shelter Workers Regarding Breed Identification. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 17(4) pp 322-339.

 

Ilska J, Haskell M, Blott S, Sánchez-Molano E, Polgar Z, Lofgren S, Clements D and Wiener P 2017 Genetic Characterization of Dog Personality Traits. Genetics 206(2) pp 1101-1111.

 

Jones A and Gosling S 2005 Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): A review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 95(1-2) pp 1-53.

 

King T, Marston L and Bennett P 2012 Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 137(1-2) pp 1-12.

 

Kovačič T 2015 How to Know whether a Dog is Dangerous: Myth, Superstition and its Influence on the Human-dog Relationship. Ars & Humanitas 9(1) pp 227.

 

Lancendorfer K, Atkin J and Reece B 2008 Animals in advertising: Love dogs? Love the ad!. Journal of Business Research 61(5) pp 384-391.

 

Lane D, McNicholas J and Collis G 1998 Dogs for the disabled: benefits to recipients and welfare of the dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59(1-3) pp 49-60.

Lee S, Short S and Gibbons J 2010 Sympathetic Reactions to the Bait Dog in a Film of Dog Fighting: The Influence of Personality and Gender. Society & Animals 18(2) pp 107-125.

 

Legislation.gov.uk 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/contents [Accessed 8 May 2017].

 

Lodge M and Hood C 2002 Pavlovian Policy Responses to Media Feeding Frenzies? Dangerous Dogs Regulation in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 10(1) pp 1-13.

 

Love M and Overall K 2001 How anticipating relationships between dogs and children can help prevent disasters. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 219(4) pp 446-453.

 

Maher J and Pierpoint H 2011 Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime, Law and Social Change 55(5) pp 405-420.

 

Markwell P and Thorne C 1987 Early behavioural development of dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice 28(11) pp 984-991.

 

Mehrkam L and Wynne C 2014 Behavioral differences among breeds of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris): Current status of the science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155 pp 12-27.

Mirkó E, Kubinyi E, Gácsi M and Miklósi Á 2012 Preliminary analysis of an adjective-based dog personality questionnaire developed to measure some aspects of personality in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 138(1-2) pp 88-98.

 

Olson K, Levy J, Norby B, Crandall M, Broadhurst J, Jacks S, Barton R and Zimmerman M 2015 Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. The Veterinary Journal 206(2) pp 197-202.

 

Orritt R and Oxley J 2015 The history of dog bites misinformation in UK news media and public policy. Conference proceedings ISAZ Conference 2015 New York

 

Oxley J 2012 Dog owners' perceptions of breed-specific dangerous dog legislation in the UK. Veterinary Record 171(17) pp 424-424.

 

Patronek G, Slater M and Marder A 2010 Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite–related injury. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 237(7) pp 788-792.

 

Pirrone F, Pierantoni L, Mazzola S, Vigo D and Albertini M 2015 Owner and animal factors predict the incidence of, and owner reaction toward, problematic behaviors in companion dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 10(4) pp 295-301.

 

Range F and Virányi Z 2015 Tracking the evolutionary origins of dog-human cooperation: The Canine Cooperation Hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology 5 pp 1582.

 

Roll A and Unshelm J 1997 Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52(3-4) pp 229-242.

 

Rooney N and Bradshaw J 2002 An experimental study of the effects of play upon the dog–human relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75(2) pp 161-176.

 

Scott J 1958 Critical Periods in the Development of Social Behaviour in Puppies. Psychosomatic Medicine 20(1) pp 42-54.

 

Sentencingcouncil.org.uk 2012 Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines. [online] Available at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sept-2015-MCSG-pdf1.pdf [Accessed 19 Jan. 2018].

 

Seksel K, Mazurski E and Taylor A 1999 Puppy socialisation programs: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62(4) pp 335-349.

 

Svartberg K 2005 A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consistent boldness-related personality traits in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91(1-2) pp 103-128.

 

Svartberg K and Forkman B 2002 Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79(2) pp 133-155.

 

Svartberg K, Tapper I, Temrin H, Radesäter T and Thorman S 2005 Consistency of personality traits in dogs. Animal Behaviour 69(2) pp 283-291.

 

thekennelclub.org.uk (2017). The Home for Dog Owners and Those Working with Dogs: The Kennel Club. [online] Available at: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk [Accessed 20 Apr. 2017].

 

Twining H, Patronek G and Arluke A 2000 Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners. Society & Animals 8(1) pp 25-52.

 

Vining J 2003 The Connection to Other Animals and Caring for Nature. Human Ecology Review 10(2) pp 87-99.

 

Voith V, Ingram E, Mitsouras K and Irizarry K 2009 Comparison of Adoption Agency Breed Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12(3) pp 253-262.

 

Wan M, Kubinyi E, Miklósi Á and Champagne F 2009 A cross-cultural comparison of reports by German Shepherd owners in Hungary and the United States of America. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121(3-4) pp 206-213.

 

Wiener P and Haskell M 2016 Use of questionnaire-based data to assess dog personality. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 16 pp 81-85.

 

Wright J, Smith A, Daniel K and Adkins K 2007 Dog Breed Stereotype and Exposure to Negative Behaviour: Effects on Perceptions of Adoptability. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10(3) pp 255-265.

 

36