What is a dog breed?

“litter of dogs fall in line beside wall” by Hannah Lim on Unsplash

I talk to a lot of dog owners during my PhD work. I found that when people are looking into getting a dog they want to learn about the breed, to understand “what they are getting into”. Breeds are meant to have very distinct behaviours. But do they? Or is this preoccupation with the breed a reflection of fuzzy science, breed economics, amplified by inaccurate media accounts? What I mean by the breed economics is that it makes economic sense to market breeds as distinct and endowed with stable and unique characteristics that the prospective dog owners are paying for. We want certainty that our dog will be good with children, all-around great pet happy to join you for a morning run and social walk to the pub, happy to be groomed and wearing a Haloween outfit. Commercial breeders sell it to us by coming up with novel mixes of breeds, which inevitably have an ‘oodle’ in them, which offer just that. The rise in popularity of dog DNA tests also reflects the attention we pay to dog breeds (and further fuels the breed economics), because if we didn’t think breeds matter that much why would we want to understand the ancestry of our dogs? In the same time, media analysis research has shown that popular reports of dog attacks centre on the breed of a dog, especially if the breed in question fits with what the prevailing understanding of what at a given time is a “dangerous dog”- our perception of what a breed is meant to be like contribute to what that breed is like. Any dog breed has biological underpinnings which lead to a consistent accentuation of personality traits and behaviours — collies stalks and herd and chihuahuas don’t. But a breed is also a social construct, woven out of media reports, statistics, internet memes, fashion and our need to blame someone when an accident happens.

How did we come up with breeds? What effect does a breed actually have on dog behaviour?

Dogs were bred for particular behaviours and morphology to meet different functions, such as hunting or guarding. Behaviour is a shape- a shape of a body, a shape of neuronal networks that fire together, a shape of proteins that make up this network. By selecting a particular shape, we select behaviour and conversely, by selecting for a particular behaviour, we reproduce a shape. There is a variation in behaviour and look within a litter. Some behaviours or looks may be better suited for certain functions- e.g. a greyhound-shape of a dog may develop a great speed over a short distance, but it won’t win Iditarod (the hardest dog sledge race in the world) where a dog needs to run for days efficiently whilst pulling the sledge. Starting from a generic dog pattern (which you can still see in street dogs anywhere around the world) — early breeders have picked the behaviours which approximate the desired behaviour, and over time, end up with a specialised dog.

Photo by Kamal Joshi on Unsplash

Original purpose vs. modern use

However, most pet dogs are no longer used in the way that their original breed was designed to be used in. People who own ‘tollers’ (Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrivers) enjoy their company probably because they are fun, cute and not too big, not because of their ability to “lure waterfowl within gunshot range”, which Wikipedia states is this breed’s characteristic. It is often assumed that the fundamental differences in behaviour between breeds, including their likelihood of showing aggressive behaviour to people, are in line with the original purpose of the breed- what they were originally bred for. This is not the case.

A study which observed different breeds of dogs in Sweden found no evidence for links between breeds’ typical behaviour and personality and its original function (e.g. herding working, gun dog, terrier). In fact, what they found was a strong link between the modern use of the breed (i.e. being used for dog shows or work) and the behaviour. In general, working lines scored higher on aggressiveness and playfulness and show lines scored lower on aggressiveness, playfulness, fearfulness/ curiosity and sociability. Another Swedish study found that there were little differences between breeds within working dogs group (Malinois, German Shepherd, Aussie, Briard, Doberman, Hovawart, Boxer, Rottweiler, Kelpie, Terveuren, Schnauzer) and non-working dogs group (Golden, Toller, Amstaff, Jack Russell, Berner, Sheltie, Lagotto, Rhodesian and Chihuahua). As a group, the working breeds were more: playful, trainable, energetic and excitable than non-working breeds. Working breeds also showed less fear towards strangers in non-social situations but also more aggression towards other dogs compared to non-working breeds. An Australian study looked specifically at breed personality differences between working breeds. They compared boldness (a combination of characteristics around excitability, high physical activity, extroversion, motivation, degree of positive internal motivation, curiosity, fearlessness, and sociability) and shyness (again, a list of characteristics around apprehension, nervousness, sensitivity to sounds, cautiousness, avoidance behaviour) between and within herding and hunting breeds. The study found that in the hunting group, retrievers (like golden retrievers, Labrador retrievers etc.) were bolder than flushing and pointing breeds (spaniels, pointers, setters). Tending breeds (e.g. German Shepherds and other breeds developed for keeping a herd together) and loose-eyed herding breeds (breeds that don’t use hard eye when working, work closer to and with more upright stance like rough collies or Australian shepherds) were bolder than heading and cattle-herding breeds (here these included Australian cattle dogs and corgis, border collies and kelpies). However, boldness was a composite trait — not every breed was bold in the same way.

Another study found that taller dogs of different breeds were generally more affectionate when greeting and being handled by humans, more cooperative and playful than shorter dogs. Heavier dogs were more inquisitive toward a dummy, more attuned to the source of a metallic noise and to a study assistant. Heavier dogs were also more attentive to the ghosts than lighter dogs. Yes, that study did test dogs’ response to ghosts. In other studies, dog’s sex and age influenced the behaviours as well, often more than breed (e.g. in one study male dogs showed more interest, more aggression, less fear and less trainability than female dogs). This was also true for puppies: looking at 2-month old puppies of 12 different breeds, scientists found significant differences in the behaviour, but only 10% of these differences were attributed to the breed. Litter line was a far better explanation.

Why is there so much confusion about dog breeds and what’s up with those ghost used in behaviour tests?

At this point you may be questioning the techniques used for assessing dog behaviour — and rightly so. Studies which looked at differences in behaviours between breeds show hugely inconsistent results, i.e. the methods used in a given study determine the results more than the breed itself. You’d expect that if the differences between breeds were real and significant, different methods would coalesce on the same differences, but they don’t.

Using the same standardised, validated dog-personality questionnaire, a study in the USA explored aggression towards people and other dogs among 30 different breeds. The same breeds scored differently on personality assessments when the same, high quality, validates questionnaire was answered in Sweden and USA. This suggests that local breeding practices, local “doggy families”, have more of an impact on the behaviour than the breed overall. The American study reported significant between-breed differences as well. Breeds which were most likely to bite or attempt to bite were: Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, Jack Russell Terriers, American Cocker Spaniels and Beagles (i.e. not the dogs usually covered by breed specific legislations). Pit bull terriers, Akitas and Jack Russell Terriers scored highly in dog-directed aggression, but not aggression towards people. More generally, when looking at the statistics around dog bites, a breed that bites most often is usually the breed that’s particularly common in a given area.

What these studies suggest that whilst breed contributes to dog behaviour, so does dog’s sex and shape. A breed should not be treated as a homogenous group. Some of the tools are whacky, but in this case, the differences are driven by different breeding lines, not different tools for assessment. The modern profile of breeds does not reflect their historical function, and the most recent breeding pressures and geographical differences lead to a more fragmented picture of breed and behaviour. Indeed, the review of research into cognitive and personality differences among breeds concluded that “environmental stimuli, rather than breed alone, play a major role in the propensity to exhibit aggression”.

Pace of change

Belyaev bred wild foxes with an aim of producing tame animals. Only the most friendly foxes were bred. Within 10 generations, 18% of pups were “elite”- super friendly to people. If you haven’t heard of the taming foxes experiment, you absolutely should: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/domesticated-foxes-genetically-fascinating-terrible-pets. Much like Belyaev’s foxes- the local selection pressures may influence the behaviour more than the ancient nature of the animal. Let’s say that we had 2 dogs selected for generations to be less aggressive towards people. In each litter of these dogs, some individuals will be less aggressive. It’ll take only 10 years to breed out the ‘dangerous’ or ‘breed-specific’ behaviour. When talking about pit bull crosses or other mutts, which are usually bred without any selection other than broken fences and open gates, it makes no sense to talk about the ancient behaviour of a breed that predisposes that dog to be more aggressive to people just because some potential ancestors of that dog may have been bred for that reason.

Photo by Jonatan Pie on Unsplash

The case of a pit bull

One reason why differences between breeds are hard to spot is that neither the general public nor dog-professionals can recognise breeds often included in these studies, like a Pit bull terrier (PBT) and may disagree over what defines this breed/ type of a dog. Sometimes recognising a dog as PBT reflects at least to an extend individual perceptions of what a PBT is, not an objective standard. It’s an extreme example which shows how breeds are biological entities, but also how they are socially constructed and it illustrates my point quite well. For instance, in the UK, the legislation which bans dangerous breeds speaks about dogs that are pit-bull types, not pit-bull terriers as such. Pit bull types are defined by a range of proportions (e.g. the length of a skull- width of a skull, length of the nose etc.), joint-angles, stance and so on. This is even more problematic, as the UK legislation speaks of pit bull terriers, pit-bull types and their crosses whilst the definition used for the purpose of this identification is lifted off the American description of show Pit-bull terrier, which in the USA seems to be more of a defined breed. Meanwhile, a “type” is not a precise, clear-cut definition. Consequently, in the UK a pit bull may no longer be a bit bull if he stands on gravel and the specified angles in joints are not met or his stance changes because he’s lame. Or when the grass is tall and obfuscates details of his legs. Most of the time these measurements take place in police kennels after a dog has been seized or in dog shelters. Having worked and volunteered in dog shelters for years, I can tell you that putting a harness on a dog that hasn’t been out for a day is a mission, even if you are an experienced handler. I am not sure how people manage to put callipers onto those dogs and precisely measure the angle between their nose and forhead. A pit bull type, according to the legislation, is meant to have a shiny coat. Does it mean that if a dog’s coat is dull it’s no longer a pit bull?

How do we construct breeds?

I’ll start with an example. People perceive the risk of bites in different breeds differently, even though the evidence which underpins it is shaky. If you grew up with a particular breed you see the risk posed by this breed differently than people who are not familiar with that breed. We don’t assess the dog or the risk objectively- we use our experience, our mental models of understanding, to construct that breed or risk. Perception of dogs is also affected by subtle external cues, e.g. PBT’s are seen as less dangerous when depicted with a child or elderly person than a tattooed man. Breed label alone influences how dogs are perceived. In a clever experiment, dogs labelled as PBTs were rated as more dangerous, less friendly and less likely to be rehomed than ‘lookalike’ dogs presented without a breed label.

We explored popular perceptions of dog bites in online videos. All recognized breeds of dogs were stereotyped. Stereotypes were used to shift the blame away from the dog and onto a bite victim; victims or dog owners were blamed for not knowing about the perceived breed predispositions. In our study, when viewers thought that a dog on the video was a PBT, they interpreted its behaviour differently to that of other dogs — it was the only case when a dog was blamed for the bite. Viewers argued that a breed limits the extent to which a dog can be controlled. PBT behaviour was often talked as inflexible and pre-determined by their history, nature and being bred for fighting. This perception reflects how the media-portray PBTs. They are depicted as simply different to other dogs, a part of a dangerous sub-culture, a status symbol, a weapon and not as a dog or pet.

Historically, within the Western media PBTs have been described as hyper-aggressive, vicious and demonic more often than other breeds- no other breeds have been consistently depicted in this way and no other breed has been consistently linked with gangs and dodgy neighbourhoods. The perceptions of bad owners shaped the image of PBTs and were used when framing the Breed Specific Legislation debate in the UK before 1991. It’s not my interpretation of facts because I pity the pitty- at that time, a similar number of people were attacked by Rottweilers, German Shepherds and PBTs. The government officials responsible for coming up with a policy that was aimed at reducing the number of dog bites at the time said that he fears the “green wellies brigade” linked with the German Shepherds and Rottweilers, and the damage they could do to his political career, so he picked Pit bulls to go on the list of banned breeds, as their owners were not that articulate and had tattoos. Some scholars suggest that this made it possible to single out PBT as responsible for fatal dog attacks. Stereotypes around all breeds exist. German Shepherds are thought to be more loyal and their aggression more noble and justifiable. Labradors are meant to have an inborn ability to handle children. Chihuahuas are thought to be more aggressive because they are small, not fully dog-like. Huskies and malamutes are whacky because they are more wolf-like, and so on. A few of these differences have been validated scientifically. Yes, it could be that to an extent, the tools we use for this validation are not sharp enough. It could also be that our perception drives how we interact with different dogs and how they end up behaving.

When breeds do matter?

There are a few occasions when paying attention to the breed matters and health is the main one. All brachycephalic breeds (those with short noses, like a pug) have a broad range of health problems that will seriously affect their health and welfare. A number of breeds have a higher risk of different health problems you should be aware of. See this website for a comprehensive list: http://www.dogbreedhealth.com/irish-wolf-hound/.

Studies show a significant difference between working and non-working lines. If you don’t want to work with your dog, you probably shouldn’t get a dog from a working line.

Some dogs bred for work- which carry on being used in this way- will have pronouncedly different behaviours. This may be particularly apparent in herding dogs (like collies), spaniels and potentially some terriers. Learn what these behaviours involve.

Finally, be aware that our perceptions of breeds are likely to be skewed and that we probably do perceive breeds through the prism of stereotypes. Each dog is first and foremost an individual and research consistently show that within-breed differences are greater than between-breed differences. So, if you want to pick up a dog from a shelter, and they suggest a match with a dog you may not expect to be matched with, be open-minded.

References

1. Winter, J. (2015). “Provisional Monthly Topic of Interest: Admissions Caused by Dogs and Other Mammals.” Health and Social Care Information Centre. [http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB17615/prov-mont-hes-admi-outp-ae-April 2014-to-February 2015-toi-rep.pdf].
2. Lakestani, N.,N. (2007) A Study of Dog Bites and their Prevention: University of Edinburgh.
3. Newman, J. (2012). Human-directed dog aggression; a systematic review. MPhil Thesis, University of Liverpool.
4. Westgarth, C., et al., (2017). Chapter 10: Risk Factors for Dog Bites — An Epidemiological Perspective. In C. Westgarth, & D. Mills (Eds.), Dog Bites: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (pp. 133–158). Sheffield: 5M publishing.
5. Saetre, P., et al.,(2006). The genetic contribution to canine pesonality. Genes, Brain & Behaiour, 5(3): 240–248.
6. Strandberg, E., et al. (1993). Direct genetic, maternal and litter effects on behaviour in German shepherd dogs in Sweden. Livestock Production Science, 33–42.
7. Mehrkam, L., R., Wynne, C., D. (2014). Behavioral differences among breeds of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris): Current status of the science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 155:12–27.
8. Webster, C.,A., Farnworth, M.,J. (2018). Ability of the public to recognize dogs considered to be dangerous under the Dangerous Dogs Act in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1476864.
9. Hoffman, C.,L., et al. (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.
10. Svatberg, 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, 91:103–128.
11. Barnard, S., et al. (2017). Breed, sex, and litter effects in 2-month old puppies’ behaviour in a standardised open-field test. Scientific Reports, 7:1802.
12. Duffy, D., L., et al. (2008). Breed differences in canine aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(3): 441–460.
13. Amat, M., et al. (2009). Aggressive behaviour in the English Cocker Spaniel. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4:111–117.
14. Beaver, B.,V. (1983). Clinical classification of canine aggression. Applied Animal Ethology, 10: 35–43.
15. Fatjó, J., et al. (2006). The epidemiology of behavioural problems in dogs and cats: a survey of veterinary practitioners. Animal Welfare, 15:179–185.
16. Wright, J.,C., Nesselrote, M.,S., (1987). Classification of behaviour problems in dogs: Distributions of age, breed, sex and reproductive status. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 19: 169–178.
17. Guy, N., C., U. A., et al. (2001). Risk factors for dog bites to owners in a general veterinary caseload. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 74 (1): 29–42.
18. Landsberg, G. M. (1991). The distribution of canine behavior cases at three behavior referral practices. Veterinary medicine (USA).
19. Reisner, I.,R., Houpt, K.,A. (1994). Risk factors for behaviour-related euthanasia among dominant-aggressive dogs; 110 cases (1989–1992). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 205(6): 855–63.
20. Blackshaw, J.,K. (1991). An overview of types of aggressive behaviour in dogs and methods of treatment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 30(3–4):351–361.
21. Lund, J.D., et al. (1996) Reported behaviour problems in pet dogs in Denmark: age, distribution and influence of breed and gender. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 28(1) 33–48.
22. Haddon, W. (1973). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12:193– 207.
23. Touré G., et al. (2015). Epidemiology and classification of dog bite injuries to the face: A prospective study of 108 patients. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 68: 654–658.
24. Klaassen, B., et al. (1996). Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency department. Injury, 27(2): 89–91.
25. Mannion, C., J., et al. (2015). Dog bites and maxillofacial surgery: what can we do? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 52: 522–525.
26. Reisner, I.,R., et al. (2011). Behavioural characteristics associated with dog bites to children presenting to an urban trauma centre. Injury Prevention; 17: 348–353.
27. Garvey, E.,M., et al. (2015). Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: A case series at a level one pediatric trauma center. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 50: 343–346.
28. Sacks J.J., et al. (2000) Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association; 217: 836–840.
29. Patronek G.,J., et al. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 243:1726–36.
30. Creedon, N., Ó Súilleabháin, P.,S. (2017). Dog bite injuries to humans and the use of breed-specific legislation: a comparison of bites from legislated and non-legislated dog breeds. Irish Veterinary Journal, 70:25.
31. Owczarczak-Garstecka, S.,C., et al. (2018). Exploration of perceptions of dog bites among YouTube™ viewers and attributions of blame. Anthrozoos, 31 (5) 537–549.
32. Clarke, T., et al.. (2013). Acculturation — Perceptions of breed differences in behavior of the dog (Canis familiaris). Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin, 1(2):16–33.
33. Gunter, L. M., et al. (2016). What’s in a Name? Effect of Breed Perceptions and Labelling on Attractiveness, Adoptions & Length of Stay for Pit-Bull-Type Dogs. PloS one, 11(3), e0146857.
34. Mills D.,S., et al.(2012). Stress and Pheromonatherapy in Small Animal Clinical Behaviour. London: Wiley- Blackwell.
35. McCarthy, D. (2016). Dangerous dogs, dangerous owners and the waste management of an ‘irredeemable species’. Sociology, 50(3): 560–575. 37. Cohen, J., Richardson, J. (2002). Pit Bull Panic. The Journal of Popular Culture, 36(2):285–317.
36. Westgarth, C., Watkins, F. (2015). A qualitative investigation of the perceptions of female dog-bite victims and implications for the prevention of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 10 (6): 479–488.
37. Raghavan, M., et al. (2013). Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalisations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Injury Prevention, 19(3): 177–83.
38. Cornellisen, J.,M.,R., Hopster, H. (2010). Dog bites in The Netherlands: A study of victims, injuries, circumstances and aggressors to support evaluation of breed specific legislation. The Veterinary Journal, 186: 292–298.
39. Ó Súilleabháin, P. (2015). Human Hospitalizations due to Dog Bites in Ireland (1998–2013): Implications for Current Breed Specific Legislation. Veterinary Journal, 204 (3):357–59.
40. Rosado, R., et al. (2007). Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 2(5) 166–174.
41. Lund, J., Aaro, L.,E. (2004). Accident prevention. Presentation of a model placing emphasis on human, structural and cultural factors. Safety Science, 42(4): 271–324.
42. The City of Calgary (ND). Responsible Dog Ownership [http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-Services/Responsible-dog-ownership.aspx].