Diverio Et Al. 2008

8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

1/13

RESEARCH

Prevalence of aggression and fear-related behavioral

problems in a sample of Argentine Dogos in Italy

Silvana Diverio, DVM, MSc, PhD, Gabriella Tami, DVM, MSc, PhD,Antonino Barone, DVM, PhD

From the Dipartimento di Scienze Biopatologiche e Igiene delle Produzioni Animali ed Alimentari,

Facolta di Medicina Veterinaria, Perugia, Italy.

KEYWORDS:Argentine Dogo;

aggression;

fear;

potentially dangerous

dog breed;

behavioral problems

Abstract The Argentine Dogo breed is identified frequently as potentially dangerous in worldwide

legislation. To investigate the prevalence of problem behaviors in this breed, 94 Argentine Dogo

owners provided information on aggressive and fearful behaviors shown by their dogs (83 males, 98

females) in a questionnaire. The results were consistent with the origin of the Argentine Dogo (i.e.,

descending from fighting dogs) and subsequent selection exerted to improve hunting qualities. Com-

mon aggressive behaviors included predation on small animals (92.0%), intra-specific conflicts

(69.5%), and territoriality (i.e., vigilance of territory perimeter, 61.3%; aggression toward people vis-

iting the dogs house, 45.3%; vigilance while inside the owners car, 33.1%). Aggression directed to the

owner was marginally represented. Reactions to leashing, bathing, punishment, sleep disturbance, toy

removal, and in other conflict situations occurred in less than 10% of the sample. Reactions to food

removal (13.3%) and handling (19.8%) showed higher prevalence. Chasing cars/running people

(17.6%) and aggression toward strangers, either those who were friendly (19.1%) or those who seemed

threatening on approach (29.4%), were noted. Low anxiety levels reported in social situations con-

firmed that these reactions were not common (e.g., fear of strangers, children, and unfamiliar dogs

%10%). Common anxious behaviors were fear of traffic (10.3%), loud noises (36.2%), startling stimuli

(30.5%), destructiveness (42.9%), excessive body licking (13.6%), and shyness in novel situations

(32.4%). The context and targets of aggression when exhibited by these dogs (e.g., aggression toward

animals when outside the dogs territory, aggression towards people when inside territory) suggest that

the Italian law on potentially dangerous dog breeds may be ineffective in preventing Argentine Dogos

aggression to humans. Social hazards could be reduced by promoting proper social exposure and re-

actions toward people.

2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Dog bites to people represent a serious public health

concern (Sacks et al., 2000; Overall and Love, 2001). All

over the world, the most common approach to this problem

has been outlawing specific dog breeds or restricting their

ownership (American Veterinary Medical Association,

Address reprint requests and correspondence: Silvana Diverio, DVM,

MSc, PhD, Dipartimento di Scienze Biopatologiche e Igiene delle Produ-

zioni Animali ed Alimentari, Facoltadi Medicina Veterinaria, Via San Cos-

tanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy.

E-mail:[email protected]

1558-7878/$ -see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2007.07.009

Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2008) 3, 7486
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

2/13

2001). The Argentine Dogo is among the breeds identified

most frequently as potentially dangerous in worldwide

legislation.

Reliable data on the epidemiology of dog bites are

advocated as part of the necessary platform for designing

effective strategies for the prevention of bite accidents

(Overall and Love, 2001; De Keuster et al., 2006). An anal-

ysis of the prevalence of aggressive and fearful behaviors inpet dogs may provide useful information as well. Respon-

sible owners may prevent accidents if they can recognize

dangerous situations. Therefore, in the analysis of bite

statistics, the risk associated with specific breeds or sce-

narios may be undervalued. Even if the dog has never

bitten anyone the owners interview may show the

dogs tendency to show potentially dangerous behaviors,

thus pointing out management areas that should be ad-

dressed in dog bite prevention policy. Due to the influ-

ence of genetics on behavior (Scott and Fuller, 1965;

Houpt and Willis, 2001; Takeuchi and Houpt, 2003),

the results of owners surveys may also highlight specificbreed-typical behaviors that may be improved by selec-

tive breeding.

Studies regarding the prevalence of canine behavioral

problems have been based on data from veterinary and

animal behavior practitioners (Landsberg, 1991; Lindsay,

2001; Fatjo et al., 2006), or on information directly col-

lected from pet owners (Campbell, 1986; OFarrell,

1992). Previous studies suggested that only a small propor-

tion of people owning a dog with problematic behaviors

considered the latter severe enough to seek professional ad-

vice (Anderson and Vacalopoulus, 1987; OFarrell, 1992).

The reasons for not seeking help may include a lack of in-formation on normal and abnormal dog behavior, a tolerant

attitude toward their pets behavior and, in the case of po-

tentially dangerous dog breeds, the owners concerns about

possibly worsening the public reputation of these breeds.

The use of owners as informants for dog behavior is a

well-established and reliable way to collect information on

dog temperament, based on the main assumption that owners

are the persons who know their dogs best (Goodloe and

Borchelt, 1998; Serpell and Hsu, 2001; Hsu and Serpell,

2003). Several studies on prevalence of dog behavior

problems are based on information provided by owners,

nevertheless, to our knowledge, no study focused primarilyon a potentially dangerous dog breed. In studies conducted

in different dog breeds, 87% of respondent owners in the

United States (Campbell, 1986) and 80% in the United King-

dom (OFarrell, 1992), had experienced some problems with

their dogs behavior. A lower prevalence of behavioral prob-

lems was reported by Endenburg and Knol (1994) in a survey

among pet owners in the Netherlands: only 28% of partici-

pant dog owners reported some problem behaviors in

their animals. However, the disparity in these findings

could have been due to differences in data collection

methods. In some studies researchers asked owners whether

their animals behaved in a certain way (Campbell, 1986;

OFarrell, 1992), whereas in others, researchers asked

whether owners experienced specific behaviors as a prob-

lem (Endenburg and Knol, 1994). When questioned,

owners may not report some problem behaviors that would

be of interest to researchers if they do not consider them a

nuisance.

Prevalence of specific problem behaviors may vary

according to sample characteristics and methodologicaspects of the study. Nevertheless, many studies based on

owner surveys seem to agree in indicating aggression as

the most common canine behavioral problem reported by

owners, followed by inappropriate elimination, destructive

behavior, fears, excessive vocalization, and pulling on the

leash (Beaver, 1994; Borchelt and Voith, 1996; Lindell,

2002).

Although the Argentine Dogo is considered a potentially

dangerous breed almost all over the world, to our knowl-

edge, this breed has never been the object of an investiga-

tion. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence

of potentially dangerous behaviors in this breed and toestablish whether the presence of these behaviors was

associated with any aspect of the dogs demography. Due to

the role of fear in the development of some forms of

aggression (Borchelt, 1983; Overall, 1997), our analysis

focused on aggression and fear-related behaviors. Veteri-

narians and behaviorists caseloads were not likely to be

helpful for studying the prevalence of behavioral problems

in Argentine Dogos because the breed is not common in

Italy (Bueti, 2003). Therefore, a direct survey of Argentine

Dogos owners was considered the best way to estimate the

actual prevalence of behavioral problems in this breed in

the Italian context.

Methods

Participants

A convenience sample of 94 owners of Argentine

Dogos, recruited during dog shows (70 questionnaires)

and with the help of the Italian Argentine Dogo Club

(D.A.C.I.), which promoted the present research among its

members (111 questionnaires), were used for this study.Because of the way the questionnaires were distributed and

made available by D.A.C.I., it is impossible to calculate the

relative response rate.

The mean age of participating owners was 32.3 6 9.7

years (range 5 1459 y). Participants were drawn from all

over Italy. All participants owned at least one Argentine

Dogo: 37.2% of respondents (35 owners) owned just 1 dog,

17.0% (16 owners) owned 2 dogs, and 45.8% (43 owners)

had more than 2 dogs. There were a total of 181 dogs in the

study. Of these, 101 dogs (55.8%) lived without other dogs,

whereas the other 80 dogs (44.2%) lived with at least

another dog.

Diverio, Tami, and Barone Argentine Dogos and behavior 75

8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

3/13

Questionnaire

Participating owners provided dogs demographic infor-

mation (age and sex) and filled in a 28-item questionnaire fo-

cusing on aggressive and fearful behaviors shown by their

animals. The questionnaire was released by the authors and

by the D.A.C.I. personnel on request to interested people,

together with compilation instructions and reply-paidenvelopes. In particular, instructions included an explanation

of what the authors meant by the terms aggression (i.e., dog

showing at least 1 of the following behaviors: baring teeth,

growling, snapping, and biting) and fear (i.e., dog showing

low posture with low or tucked tail and ears back or down,

eventually trembling or attempting to escape).

A total of 181 questionnaires (1 per dog) were returned

and information was collected on the behavior of 83 male

and 98 female Argentine Dogos, ranging from 1 to 14

years of age (mean 6 SD 5 4.6 6 2.6 years). The

minimum age for dogs to be eligible to participate in the

study was 1 year. Almost 50.8% (92) of sampled dogslived in the owners house whereas 49.2% (89) lived in

kennels. If participants owned more than 1 Argentine

Dogo, they could provide information on a maximum of 3

dogs, chosen randomly by the authors. Forty-nine (52.1%)

owners completed 1 questionnaire, 3 (3.2%) filled in 2

questionnaires, and 42 (44.7%) owners provided informa-

tion on 3 of their dogs.

Questionnaires were sent out and returned between

January 2005 and April 2006. Registration figures for the

breed were obtained from the Italian Pure Dog Breed

Society (E.N.C.I.) for the year 2005. According to these

data, 718 Argentine Dogos were registered in 2005. Thisfigures includes 160 Argentine Dogos analyzed in this

study (88.3% of the sample) that were registered with

E.N.C.I. Because the Argentine Dogos sampled in 2006

were at least 1 year old, they were included in 2005

E.N.C.I. registration data. Therefore, the present study

reports results from 22.3% (160/718) of the registered

Italian population of Argentine Dogos. The lack of data for

the population of the unregistered Argentine Dogos pre-

vents us from estimating any relationship between sample

size and the overall Italian population of this breed.

Owners were required to indicate the frequency of

occurrence of specific behaviors in their dogs. Respondentsindicated whether behaviors reported in Table 1 occurred

always, often, sometimes, rarely, or never.

Data analysis

For the purpose of data analysis, the frequency scales

used by owners in answering the questionnaire were

converted into Present/Absent answers (Absent 5 never,

rarely; Present 5 sometimes, often, always). This data re-

duction was intended to limit the possible effects of individ-

ual biases in owners perceptions.

Prevalences of fear and aggression-related behaviors

were calculated. Pearson c2 tests were conducted to exam-

ine whether the dogs age and sex were associated with any

of the problem behaviors. Dogs were divided into 3 age cat-

egories (1-3 years, 4-6 years, .7 years). The age categories

used represent canine developmental stages (social matura-

tion occurring at 2-3 years) and aging process (behavioral

signs of aging occurring in dogs .7 years) (Neilsonet al., 2001; Studzinski et al., 2006). The data were ana-

lyzed by means of the Minitab 14 statistical software (State

College, PA, USA).

Results

Prevalence of aggression and fear-relatedproblems

TheFigureshows aggressive and fear-related behaviorswith a prevalence greater than 10% (more than 18 dogs),

whereas behaviors occurring in less than 10% of the sample

are reported inTable 2. The behaviors with highest preva-

lence in the sample were predation on small animals

(92.0%; 167 dogs) and aggression toward unknown dogs

(69.5%; 126 dogs), followed by vigilance of territory pe-

rimeter (territorial aggression: 61.3%; 111 dogs). Other

territorial behaviors included aggression toward people vis-

iting the dogs house (aggression toward visitors: 45.3%; 82

dogs) and toward strangers approaching the dog while it

was in the owners car (car protection: 33.1%; 60 dogs).

Thirty-five (19.1%) of the sampled Argentine Dogosshowed aggression toward strangers met while outside their

territory, 29.4% (53 dogs) aggressively protected owners

from social threats (owner protection), and 17.6% (32

dogs) chased moving cars/running people.

Some forms of aggression toward the owner occurred in less

than 10% of the sample (i.e., aggressive reactions to leashing,

punishment, bathing, sleep disturbance, toy removal, and

owner-directed aggression) (Table 2). Reactions to food re-

moval (13.3%) and handling (19.8%) showed a slightly higher

prevalence. Nineteen dogs (10.5%) mounted people.

Although the original categories on behavior frequencies

were reduced to a Yes-Present/No-Absent type of data forthe sake of analysis and discussion, the frequencies of occur-

rence of different types of aggression are reported in Table 3.

In the sampled dogs, non-social fears were more com-

mon than social ones. Common anxious behaviors elicited

by environmental stimuli were fear of traffic (10.3%; 19

dogs), loud noises (36.2%; 66 dogs), and startling stimuli

(30.5%; 55 dogs), whereas social fears, such as of strangers,

unknown children, and dogs occurred in less than 10% of

the sampled animals (Table 2). Other behaviors that may be

related to anxiety were destructiveness (Borchelt and Voith,

1982; Overall, 1997; Bennett and Rohlf, 2007), shyness in

novel situations, and excessive body licking (Overall,

76 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 3, No 2, March/April 2008

8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

4/13

1997), which occurred in 42.9% (78 dogs), 32.4% (59

dogs), and 13.6% (25 dogs) of the sample, respectively.

Association between dog behaviorand demographic variables

Due to the high number of intact dogs in the study

sample (94.5%; n 5 171), the influence of the neuter status

on the occurrence of behavior problems was omitted from

further statistic analysis. No difference emerged between

sexes in tendency to show aggressive behavior toward

unknown dogs (P . 0.05), but males were significantly

more likely than females to attack same-sex dogs (c2 5

5.820,df5 1,P 5 0.016) (Table 4). Same-sex dog aggres-

sion occurred in 81.3% of sampled males (67 dogs) and in

65.0% of females (64 dogs). Male Argentine Dogos showed

Table 1 Questionnaire*

A. Aggression-related behaviors

1. Toward strangers when outside its territory

Does the dog behave aggressively when:

-Approached by a non-threatening stranger? (aggression toward strangers)

-Approached by a non-threatening unknown child? (aggression toward children)

2. Toward strangers when inside its territory

Does the dog behave aggressively:

-When a stranger approaches the dog while it is in its owners car? (car protection)

-When a stranger approaches, touches, hits, or shouts at the owner or a family member? (owner protection)

-When a stranger passes by or approaches the dogs territory? (territorial aggression)

-Toward a friendly or indifferent stranger entering the dogs territory? (aggression toward visitors)

3. Toward unknown dogs

Does the dog behave aggressively when approached directly by a non-threatening unknown dog while it is outside its

territory? (aggression toward dogs)

Is the dog more aggressive toward a friendly or indifferent unknown dog of the same sex? (same-sex dog aggression)

4. Toward its owner

Does the dog behave aggressively when:

-Reprimanded or physically punished by a family member? (aggression when punished)

-A family member approaches the dog while it is playing with a toy or touches the dogs toys ? (toy protection)

-Bathed or brushed by a family member? (aggression when groomed)

-A family member approaches it while it is eating or touches its food bowl (food protection)

-Disturbed while sleeping? (aggression to sleep disturbance)

-Touched in some parts of its body by a family member? (aggression when handled)

-Leashed by a family member? (aggression when leashed)

Does the dog behave aggressively toward family members in situations different from the ones listed previously?

(owner-directed aggression)

B. Predatory behavior

Does the dog chase cats and other small animals? (predation)

Does the dog chase moving cars or running people? (chasing cars/running people)

C. Fear-related behaviors

1. Non-social fears

Does the dog behave fearfully in response to:

-Loud noises? (fear of loud noises)-Moving cars? (fear of traffic)

-Sudden visual or acoustic stimuli? (fear of startling stimuli)

2. Social fears

While outside its territory, does the dog behave fearfully when:

-Approached directly by a non-threatening stranger? (fear of strangers)

-Approached directly by an unknown and non-threatening dog? (fear of dogs)

-Approached by non-threatening unknown child? (fear of children)

3. Signs of anxiety

Does the dog destroy objects by chewing or manipulation? (destructiveness)

Does the dog excessively lick parts of its body? (excessive body licking)

Does the dog behave timidly when exposed to a novel situation, e.g., entering into new places? (shyness in novel situations)

D. Other people-directed behaviors

Does the dog mount or attempt to mount people? (mounting people)

*Names reported in parenthesis are used in the text to refer to specific behaviors.


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

5/13

significantly more mounting of people (c2 5 6.763,df5 1,

P 5 0.010) and owner protection (c2 5 4.746,df5 1,P 5

0.029) compared with females (Table 4). There was no sig-

nificant association between sex of the dog and prevalence

of fear-related behaviors.

Dogs greater than 7 years were significantly more

aggressive toward unknown dogs (c2 5 9.098, df 5 2,

P 5 0.011) than were younger dogs (Table 4). Destructive-

ness diminished as age increased (c25 21.541,df5 2,P ,

0.001) (Table 4). No other associations emerged.

Discussion

Owner as informant

Owner participation in this study was on a voluntary

basis. Prevalence of behavioral problems may have been

different if the entire Argentine Dogo population had been

analyzed. In particular, our results might have been biased

toward those owners with greater motivation to prove that

this breed was no more dangerous than other dog breeds. In

this sense data on aggression obtained from owners may be

an underestimation of the real prevalence of aggression-

related problems because the owners may attempt to avoid

worsening the public image of any breed, Argentine Dogos

included. The fact that 38.7% of the questionnaires were

completed during dog shows may have influenced theresults partially because it is unlikely that owners of highly

aggressive dogs would bring them to a show, even if the

majority of questionnaires were distributed elsewhere. In

addition, the majority of owners participating in the study

were members of the D.A.C.I., so they may be more

dedicated and responsible than are owners of non-registered

dogs. Accordingly, the Argentine Dogos in our study may

show behavioral characteristics that differ from the general

population of Argentine Dogos bred in Italy.

In a survey conducted using the same group of Argen-

tine Dogos owners, 33.0% of owners said that they were

fascinated about the origin of this breed and its toughheritage (Nores Martinez, 1977) and that this was one of

the reasons for choosing a dog of this breed (Tami,

2007). These owners may be keen to reinforce strong

behaviors in their animals, thus possibly affecting the

tendency of the sampled Argentine Dogos to be more ag-

gressive than the general population. The nature of the sur-

vey made impossible to avoid this bias. More information

on the whole population of Argentine Dogos in Italy

(e.g., complete data on registered and unregistered Argen-

tine Dogos, their demographic characteristics, type of hous-

ing, number of dogs per household, etc.) would be

necessary to establish if the analyzed sample was really

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pred

ation

Aggres

siont

owards

dog

s

Territo

riala

ggression

Aggres

siont

owards

visit

ors

Destr

uctiv

enes

s

Fear

oflo

udnois

es

Carp

rote

ction

Shyinno

vels

ituation

s

Fear

ofs

tartling

stim

uli

Owne

rprote

ction

Aggres

sionw

henha

ndled

A

ggression

towa

rdss

trang

ers

Chasing

cars/ru

nnin

gpeo

ple

Exce

ssive

bod

ylick

ing

Food

protectio

n

Mou

nting

peo

ple

Fear

oftraffic

Figure Aggression and fear-related behaviors occuring in more than 10% of the sample.

Table 2 Behaviors occurring in 18 dogs (,10%) of the

sample*

Behavior % (n)

Aggression toward children 9.5 (17)

Fear of strangers 9.4 (17)

Fear of dogs 9.2 (16)

Owner-directed aggression 8.4 (15)

Aggression to sleep disturbance 6.5 (12)

Fear of children 4.8 (9)

Toy protection 2.2 (4)

Aggression when washed 1.1 (2)

Aggression when punished 1.1 (2)

Aggression when leashed 0.6 (1)

*Total number of dogs 5 181.


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

6/13

representative. Nevertheless, 160 dogs in the sample (those

registered with E.N.C.I.) corresponded to 22.3% of the Ital-

ian population of registered Argentine Dogos, thus repre-

senting a high percentage of the Italian Argentine Dogo

population. Such a percentage is quite high in comparison

with those analyzed in similar studies carried out on differ-

ent dog breeds (Reisner et al., 2005).Another important aspect to consider is that the owners

ability to accurately report on their dogs behavior may not

be guaranteed. Borchelt (1984)reported that owners could

interpret fearful behaviors accurately, but other authors

reported misunderstanding in the interpretation of some

aggressive displays in dogs (Tami and Gallagher, 2004).

To reduce bias due to owner perception, questions were for-

mulated in a straightforward way and included explanations

to owners, with a detailed description of the relevant behav-

ioral signs, about how to recognize aggression and fear.

Despite these limitations, owner surveys still remain a com-

monly used method of investigation in studies on dog be-havior (Campbell, 1986; Voith et al., 1992; Beaver, 1994;

Borchelt and Voith, 1996; Podberscek and Serpell, 1997;

Kobelt et al., 2003; Rugbjerg et al., 2003).

Source of epidemiologic data

Comparisons with other studies may be difficult due to

different data sources (surveys of dogs general population

and data from behaviorists and veterinarians caseloads),

questionnaire design, terminology used, and behaviors

included within specific behavioral diagnoses or defini-

tions. Therefore, comparisons should be made only when

the terminology and data are sufficiently similar. In partic-

ular, it may be difficult to compare the results of this study

with those obtained from cases referred to veterinary and

animal behavior practitioners because the latter are not

necessarily representative of the general canine population.

Problem behaviors reported in owner surveys tended to be

those that are more of a nuisance, but which are usually notconsidered serious enough to warrant professional advice.

In the owner survey conducted byBeaver (1994), territorial

aggression was the most common type of aggression

(presented by 28.7% of all dogs showing any form of

aggression), together with owner protection (21.8%), and

predatory aggression (3.0%). Similarly, Campbell (1986)

recorded territorial aggression (18.1%) and owner protec-

tion (15.7%) as the most common forms of aggression no-

ticed by sampled owners. These are not the common cases

seen by veterinary behaviorists.

With reference to the prevalence of aggression, our study

showed a similar trend, with territorial and owner-protectiveaggression being among the most common aggressive

behaviors. Territorial behaviors could include the behaviors

named territorial aggression, aggression toward visitors,

and car protection (Table 1), which all occurred in more

than one-third of the sample. The Argentine Dogos ten-

dency toward territoriality was well known because early

in the artificial selection process for behaviors in the breed,

Nores Martinez, the breed creator, suggested the use of

Argentine Dogos both as hunting and guard dogs (Nores

Martinez, 1977). It should be noted that territorial protection

was often considered a desirable behavior by the Dogos

owners, although the dogs were adopted primarily for

Table 3 Frequency of occurrence of different forms of aggression in the sample

Frequency (%)

Behaviors Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never Total *

Aggression toward strangers 1 (0.6) 8 (4.4) 19 (10.5) 43 (23.8) 110 (60.8) 181

Aggression toward children 1 (0.6) 4 (2.4) 11 (6.5) 10 (6.9) 143 (84.6) 169

Car protection 12 (6.6) 33 (18.2) 2 (1.1) 43 (23.8) 91 (50.3) 181

Owner protection 22 (12.2) 32 (17.7) 24 (13.3) 53 (29.3) 50 (27.6) 181

Territorial aggression 79 (43.6) 12 (6.6) 20 (11.0) 43 (23.8) 27 (14.9) 181

Aggression toward visitors 24 (13.4) 30 (16.8) 27 (15.1) 26 (14.5) 72 (40.2) 179

Aggression toward dogs 27 (14.9) 34 (18.8) 64 (35.4) 37 (20.4) 19 (10.5) 181

Same-sex dog aggression 116 (65.5) 10 (5.6) 2 (1.1) 4 (2.3) 45 (25.4) 177

Aggression when punished 0 2 (1.1) 0 0 179 (98.9) 181

Toy protection 0 2 (1.1) 2 (1.1) 2 (1.1) 175 (96.7) 181

Aggression when groomed 1 (0.6) 0 1 (0.6) 6 (3.4) 168 (95.5) 176

Food protection 19 (10.5) 8 (4.4) 1 (0.5) 5 (2.8) 149 (82.3) 181

Aggression to sleep disturbance 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 3 (1.7) 0 176 (97.2) 181

Aggression when handled 5 (2.8) 28 (15.8) 2 (1.1) 4 (2.3) 138 (78.0) 177

Aggression when leashed 0 1 (0.6) 0 2 (1.1) 178 (98.3) 181

Owner-directed aggression 0 2 (1.1) 13 (7.3) 24 (13.4) 140 (78.2) 179

Predation 156 (88.1) 3 (1.7) 4 (2.3) 1 (0.6) 13 (7.3) 177Chasing cars/running people 2 (1.1) 16 (8.8) 14 (7.7) 6 (3.3) 143 (79.0) 181

*Total number of answers for each question. Total numbers less than 181 are due to missing values and percentages have been calculated accordingly.


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

7/13

companionship. Owners also seem to appreciate their use as

guard dogs (Tami, 2007). Nevertheless, in the sampled Ar-

gentine Dogos, other behaviors were even more common

than protective ones. Predation and inter-dog aggression

were reported commonly by owners. These behavioral con-cerns may be reported rarely in veterinary and behavior prac-

titioners surveys because they do not always pose direct risk

to human health. As a result, owners often do not consider

them serious enough to seek professional advice.

There is a large variation in prevalence of behavioral

problems reported by dog owners in the published litera-

ture. For the sake of brevity, only the prevalence of

behaviors relevant to the present study is discussed.Borch-

elt and Voith (1996) found aggression (46%), destructive

behavior (16%), and fear (9%) among the most frequent

problems. Lower prevalence of the same behaviors was

recorded by Voith et al. (1992) (aggression, 6.8%;

destructiveness, 4.8%; fear, 2.0%). According to Lindell

(2002), 76% of dogs had been referred for showing some

forms of aggression, 57% for pulling on the leash, and

48% for being easily excitable. In a study on dogs adopted

from a rescue shelter, fearfulness occurred in 53.4% of thesample, destructiveness in 24.5%, aggression toward dogs

in 8.9%, and aggression toward humans in 5.5% (Wells

and Hepper, 2000).

Our findings seem to agree with the aforementioned

studies, with some forms of aggression and destructiveness

being among the most common behavioral problems in the

sampled Argentine Dogos. However, the prevalence of

some behaviors (e.g., predation, inter-dog aggression, ter-

ritorial aggression, aggression toward visitors, fear of loud

noises and startling stimuli, destructiveness, owner protec-

tion, shyness in novel environment, car protection) seems to

be higher in the Argentine Dogo than in studies that

Table 4 Different behavior problems in the sample of Argentine Dogos*

Sex Age (sexes combined)

Behavior M F 13 years 46 years .7 years

A. Aggression related behaviors

1. Toward strangers when outside its territory

Aggression toward strangers 12.0 (10) 18.4 (18) 13.7 (25) 18.8 (34) 16.2 (29)

Aggression toward children 10.4 (9) 8.7 (9) 12.0 (22) 9.8 (18) 5.9 (11)

2. Toward strangers when inside its territory

Car protection 31.3 (26) 21.4 (21) 26.0 (47) 23.4 (42) 24.3 (44)

Owner protection (P5 0.029) 51.8 (43) 35.7 (35) 43.8 (79) 53.1 (96) 29.7 (54)

Territorial aggression 63.9 (53) 59.2 (58) 60.3 (109) 65.6 (119) 54.1 (98)

Aggression toward visitors 47.6 (40) 43.3 (42) 37.5 (68) 42.9 (78) 54.1 (98)

3. Toward unknown dogs

Aggression toward dogs (P5 0.011) 69.9 (58) 68.4 (67) 56.2 (102) 75.0 (136) 81.1 (147)

Same-sex dog aggression (P5 0.016) 81.2 (67) 64.9 (64) 69.0 (125) 77.8 (141) 66.7 (121)

4. Toward its owner

Food protection 18.1 (15) 12.2 (12) 15.1 (27) 17.2 (31) 13.5 (24)

Aggression when handled 21.3 (18) 18.5 (18) 21.1 (38) 23.8 (43) 5.6 (10)

Owner-directed aggression 10.8 (9) 6.3 (6) 9.7 (18) 7.8 (14) 8.4 (15)

B. Predatory behaviorPredation 95.0 (79) 89.7 (88) 90.1 (163) 96.8 (175) 88.9 (161)

Chasing cars/running people 23.8 (20) 18.6 (18) 28.2 (51) 11.1 (20) 19.1 (35)

C. Fear-related behaviors

1. Non-social fears

Fear of loud noises 31.2 (26) 40.2 (39) 39.4 (71) 28.6 (52) 44.5 (81)

Fear of traffic 11.5 (10) 9.4 (9) 9.9 (18) 6.6 (12) 16.7 (30)

Fear of startling stimuli 23.8 (20) 36.1 (35) 33.8 (61) 22.2 (40) 36.1 (65)

2. Social fears

Fear of strangers 8.4 (7) 10.2 (10) 10.9 (20) 9.4 (17) 8.1 (15)

Fear of dogs 6.3 (5) 11.6 (11) 15.9 (29) 3.2 (6) 5.6 (10)

3. Signs of anxiety

Destructiveness (P, 0.001) 43.8 (36) 42.3 (41) 57.7 (104) 39.7 (72) 11.1 (20)

Excessive body licking 15.0 (12) 12.4 (12) 14.1 (26) 12.7 (23) 13.9 (25)Shy in novel situations 30.8 (26) 33.7 (33) 40.6 (73) 22.6 (41) 34.3 (62)

D. Other people-directed behaviors

Mounting people (P5 0.01) 16.9 (14) 5.1 (5) 9.6 (17) 15.6 (28) 5.4 (10)

*Behaviors occurring in ,6.5% of the sample, reported inTable 2, are not included. Significant Pvalues refer to c2 test. Number of dogs in each category

is parenthetical.


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

8/13

analysed dogs of different breeds (Campbell, 1986; Voith

et al., 1992; Borchelt and Voith, 1996; Lindell, 2002).

These findings may reflect some typical temperamental as-

pects of the Argentine Dogo breed in Italy. Further research

should take into consideration the analysis of other breeds,

mainly guard and hunting dogs, to allow direct comparisons

on breed characteristics and highlight the potential role of

genetic selection in behavioral expression. In fact, someforms of aggression recorded for our population of Argen-

tine Dogos were similar or lower than those recorded in a

survey for one population of English springer spaniels

(e.g., 48.4% owner-directed aggression, 28.4% aggression

when physically punished, 17.1% food protection, 14.2%

aggression when disturbed while sleeping, and 5.2%

when brushed or groomed) (Reisner et al., 2005), a pure-

bred dog that is not considered a potentially dangerous

dog in worldwide legislation, despite being a breed that is

often referred to behavioral specialists (Landsberg, 1991;

Reisner and Houpt, 1994).

With respect to territorial aggression, the comparisonbetween the aforementioned data available in literature

(Campbell, 1986; Beaver, 1994) and the results obtained in

this study may support the idea that the Argentine Dogo is a

highly aggressive breed. Nevertheless, aggression is not

a unitary phenomenon and different underlying causes or

stimuli may lead to different forms of aggression. Classifi-

cations of aggressive behaviors on the basis of their appar-

ent functions may include up to 15 different forms of

aggression (Moyer, 1968; Borchelt, 1983; Overall, 1997;

Beaver, 1999; Mertens, 2002). The multi-dimensional na-

ture of aggression may imply that a high tendency to

show a specific form of aggression is not associated neces-sarily with a similar tendency to show another form of ag-

gression. For example, genetic selection against offensive

aggression may not affect the expression of defensive ag-

gression and predation (Brain, 1989, cited in Tecott and

Barondes, 1996). Several authors have suggested the exis-

tence of different genetic and physiologic control mecha-

nisms for different forms of aggression (Borchelt, 1983;

Wright and Nesselrote, 1987; Serpell and Jagoe, 1995). A

large tendency to protect the territory may not be associated

with a similarly large tendency to be aggressive toward

strangers met outside the dogs territory, the latter being a

highly dangerous behavior for human health.Another important aspect to consider is that the expres-

sion of aggression is influenced by the genetic make-up of

the individual (Van der Valden et al., 1976; Reinhard, 1978;

Tecott and Barondes, 1996), its environment (Lockwood,

1988), previous experience (Stur, 1987), and its physiologic

(Gershman et al., 1994; Wright and Nesselrote, 1987) and

pathologic state (Overall, 2003). The genetic basis of ag-

gression is the rationale behind the array of studies focusing

on the statistics of bites to humans by dogs of different

breeds (Gershman et al., 1994; Klaassen et al., 1996; Sacks

et al., 1996, 2000; Schalamon et al., 2006). These studies

are controversial and may have methodologic flaws, such

as the lack of complete data on bite accidents (Chomel

and Trotignon, 1992; Guy et al., 2001; Overall and Love,

2001) or problems in the identification of the breed of the

dogs involved in accidents (Lockwood and Rindy, 1987;

Mathews and Lattal, 1994; Overall and Love, 2001). De-

spite these limitations, some of these studies have produced

valuable results that may indicate a higher prevalence of

biting behavior toward people in some breeds. Schalamonet al. (2006)suggested that the calculation of a risk index

(the representation of a dog breed among the total canine

population divided by the frequency of dog bites from

this breed) may provide a way to compare aggressive ten-

dencies of different breeds. A risk index higher than

1 would indicate that a specific breed has provoked more

accidents than expected. In different studies, pit bull, rott-

weiler, chow chow, Doberman pinscher, and German

shepherd have all obtained risk indexes higher than

1 (Miller, 1986; Moore, 1987, cited in Lockwood, 1995;

Schalamon et al., 2006). To our knowledge, the Argentine

Dogo breed has never been listed among those breeds re-sponsible for bites to humans. This finding may be due to

the relatively small population size of the Argentine

Dogo in the countries where these studies were done, af-

fecting its likelihood to be present in the statistics on dog

bites on humans. For example, in Great Britain, in 1991,

when the Dangerous Dog Act was published there were

no Argentine Dogos registered in the country (Podberscek,

1994), so no Argentine Dogos were included in a study on

bites in 1996 in United Kingdom (Klaassen et al., 1996).

Because data on the Argentine Dogo population size are

not available for many countries we would need to verify

if the absence of this breed in the statistics on dog bitesis due to its population size or to other factors, such as

breed behavioral tendencies and owners characteristics.

Differences among breeds in the tendency to show biting

behavior are usually interpreted in the light of breed-

specific genetic characteristics. Nevertheless, other non-

genetic factors may affect the risk index of a breed or, more

in general, dogs tendency to show aggressive behavior

toward people. Individual tendencies to show aggressive

behavior may be increased through specific reinforcement

(Polsky, 1983). Fighting dogs usually reach their full ag-

gressive potential following specific training that starts

when they are puppies (Butcher, 1998), but even averageowners may inadvertently reinforce inappropriate aggres-

sive behavior shown by their dogs (Polsky, 1983; Roll

and Unshelm, 1997; McBride and Jones, 2001). Owners

of specific breeds may tend to purposely train the dog to in-

crease its aggressive potential and to want an aggressive-

looking dog. Similarly, it is more likely for dogs of some

breeds to be adopted by people who keep their dogs irre-

sponsibly or use them for illegal purposes (Lockwood,

1988; Butcher et al., 2002). The fact that pit bulls are asso-

ciated traditionally with illegal dog fights is probably asso-

ciated with the fact that a disproportionately high number

of these dogs belong to a specific kind of owner, i.e., those


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

9/13

who are likely to be less responsible in caring for and con-

trolling their dogs (Lockwood, 1988). The role of owners in

affecting a dogs likelihood to be involved in bite accidents

is well recognized (Van de Kuyt, 2001), and educating

owners is actually one of the preventive strategies consid-

ered critical to the success of any dog bite prevention pro-

gram (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2001;

Schalamon et al., 2006).

Aggression-related behaviors

In epidemiologic studies collecting information from

veterinary practitioners and animal behaviorists, humans

are most often the target of canine aggression (Borchelt and

Voith, 1996; Fatjoet al., 2006). In the Argentine Dogos an-

alyzed in this study, inter-dog aggression was the most

commonly recorded behavior following predation. This dif-

ference may depend on the source of epidemiologic data,

i.e., cases referred to professionals versus owner surveys.

In the first case, owners may perceive more danger in epi-sodes of human-directed aggression than in aggression di-

rected toward other dogs or, if they are tolerant, they may

simply underestimate the latter problem. The high preva-

lence of inter-dog aggression recorded in this study is con-

sistent with the origin of the Argentine Dogo breed, which

descends from fighting dogs (Nores Martinez, 1977).Sher-

man et al. (1996) compared data on cases of inter-dog ag-

gression with the American Kennel Club registrations and

suggested that some breeds were more likely to exhibit ag-

gression toward dogs. According toScott and Fuller (1965),

herding dogs tend to be more aggressive toward other dogs

because of the selective improvement of guarding attitudeagainst predators, whereas hunting breeds tend to display

this behavior less because of selection of bite inhibition

and a tendency to live peacefully with conspecifics. Never-

theless, the type of hunting technique different breeds have

been selected for is likely to have an impact on dogs

tendency to show agonistic behavior. For example, Sher-

man et al. (1996)found that terriers, hunting dogs selected

for their tendency to attack living prey and to continue at-

tacking regardless of injuries and pain (Scott and Fuller,

1965), showed more inter-dog aggression than expected

and they were also over-represented initiators in dog-fights

(Roll and Unshelm, 1997). Notari and Goodwin (2007)found that 5 breeds of terriers belonging to the same Feder-

ation Cynologique Internationale (FCI) group scored as av-

erage or high aggressivity in surveys conducted in Italy, the

United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast re-

trievers have been selected for an inhibited bite when

they retrieve prey birds and bring them to the hunter ( Scott

and Fuller, 1965). Pointers are not allowed to attack the

birds but must stand still to signal the presence of the

prey to the hunter (Scott and Fuller, 1965).

The hunting technique of Argentine Dogos is similar to

that of terriers and involves attacking living prey (Nores

Martinez, 1977). In our study, Argentine Dogos aggression

toward conspecifics was a highly prevalent behavior. This

finding seems to suggest that dogs selected for types of

hunting that imply a contact with the living prey show

less bite inhibition than other hunting dogs and that this as-

pect may be related to a higher prevalence of inter-dog ag-

gression in these breeds.

The high prevalence of same-sex dog aggression re-

corded in this study may reflect dominance conflicts andconfirms what already is reported by other studies; that this

is the most common type of conflict among members of the

same species (Campbell, 1975; Borchelt and Voith, 1982;

Overall, 1993; Sherman et al., 1996). Sherman et al.

(1996)found that inter-dog aggression directed toward un-

known dogs was associated with predatory behavior toward

animals. The high prevalence of inter-dog aggression and

predation observed in the Argentine Dogos sample may

be inter-related.

Sherman et al. (1996) observed that dogs that attacked

unknown dogs also tended to show dominance aggression

toward their owners, similarly to what already found byCampbell (1975). In contrast, in the present study, the ma-

jority of behaviors that may be associated with dominance

over owner (Crowell-Davis, 1991; Overall, 1997) were only

marginally represented, with the exception of aggression

when handled, mounting people and owner protection (Fig-

ure). The latter behavior may be related to a dominant

position of the dog in the human family, where it may

feel responsible for the protection of the group (Immelman

and Beer, 1989; Overall, 1997).

Potentially dangerous behaviors include aggression to-

ward strangers outside the dogs territory, whether or not

the strangers are threatening in their approach, aggressiontoward children and chasing cars/running people. However,

fearful behavior may also lead to conflicts that may end up

with defensive aggression (Overall, 1997). In this sense,

fear of strangers and unknown children may pose a health

risk for people, and should be kept as low as possible in

a good citizen dog. The prevalence of aggression and

fear toward children in less than 10% of the sample is a com-

forting finding, even though it may depend partially on the

owners attempt to avoid contact between dogs and children

to prevent potentially dangerous situations. In our study, the

majority of Argentine Dogos had good opportunities to so-

cialize with children, as shown by the analysis of family com-position of Argentine Dogos owners. Twenty-nine owners

(30.6%) had families with 1 or more children younger than

16 years of age and 21 owners (22.4%) had children older

than 16 years of age (Tami, 2007).

In the Argentine Dogo, the high prevalence of aggres-

sion toward strangers, whether or not the strangers were

threatening in their approach, seems to indicate that this

breed could pose a real social risk; however, the reliability

of these data need to be analyzed further by comparison of

questionnaire data with behavioral test results obtained

from the same subjects. This experimental approach has

been used already with this sample of Argentine Dogos


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

10/13

(Tami, 2007) and data analysis is still in progress. Compar-

isons between the present results and those of similar sur-

veys carried out in other breeds may also help in

interpreting the behavioral profile of Argentine Dogo.

Such comparisons have been carried out mainly with

less controversial breeds. It would be interesting to

know if the Argentine Dogo breed poses the same risks

to human safety as other dog breeds.The question of whether the high prevalence for predation

poses a risk for human health because of its potential to lead

to inappropriate or dangerous behaviors needs further inves-

tigation. Thirty-two dogs (17.6%) in this study chased cars/

running people, which may create dangerous situations.

Predatory behavior

Chasing cats and other small animals is an innate canine

behavior usually elicited by movement. This behavior

figures only in a few studies regarding epidemiology of

canine behavioral problems (Campbell, 1986; Blackshaw,1988; Beaver, 1994). Prevalence of predation should be al-

ways considered because chasing other animals is among

the behavioral reasons given for canine relinquishment

(Salman et al., 2000). Predation is a behavior resistant to

extinction (Overall, 1997), and may extend to inappropriate

situations. Chasing moving objects or attacking playing

children are examples of behaviors deriving from a preda-

tory behavior (Overall, 1997). In this sense, the tendency to

chase cars/running people shown by 17.6% of the sampled

Argentine Dogos probably depends on its previous genetic

selection for hunting. Current Italian laws forbid the hunt-

ing technique historically developed in Argentine Dogos intheir country of origin. This technique, called caza mayor,

involves a pack of 4 to 5 dogs that pursues and holds the

prey until the hunter arrives and kills the animal (Law 11-

02-1992. Norme per la protezione della fauna selvatica e

per il prelievo venatorio). Nevertheless, a previous study

showed that hunting was among owners reasons for adopting

an Argentine Dogo (Tami, 2007) and that some breeders still

select this breed on the basis of hunting qualities (Fabrizio

Tili, personal communication). The genetic influence on

prey drive varies with breed. Prey drive showed an intermedi-

ate hereditability in German shepherds (0.31) and a low

hereditability in Labrador retrievers (0.05) (Wilsson andSundgren, 1997). A genetic program selecting against this be-

havioral characteristic would be oneway to reduce predation,

as well as other associated inappropriate behaviors. The rel-

ative roles of genetic, environmental, and management fac-

tors on predation in Argentine Dogos and its relationship

with human aggression related problems need to be evaluated

further.

Fear-related behaviors

The behavioral problems recorded in this study can be the

expressionof breed-related characteristics, and of the owner

dog relationship (Lund et al., 1996). The low prevalence of all

social fears could depend on breed-typical temperamental

characteristics, on good socialization levels, and on the

owners reluctance to admit a fearful, and thus weak, attitude

in Argentine Dogos, usually known as strong dogs. Non-

social fears showed a high prevalence. It is difficult to com-

pare these findings with those of previous studies (Campbell,

1986; Voith et al., 1992; Borchelt and Voith, 1996; Wells andHepper, 2000) because of different data collection methods,

e.g., a behavior simply defined as fearful may include differ-

ent behaviors elicited by a wide array of stimuli.

In our study, owners reported a high prevalence of signs

of anxiety. Among them, destructiveness may be associated

with other problems, e.g., attention-seeking and excessive

object exploration (Overall, 1997). A big-sized dog, like the

Argentine Dogo, may destroy objects simply by playing

with them in the house. Such a hypothesis is confirmed

by the results ofTami et al. (2007).

High prevalence of non-social fears may reflect a lack of

proper habituation to environmental stimuli leading to highreactivity levels. This may be related to the high prevalence

of destructiveness, which is consistent with the view that

dogs who destroy objects and dig tend to do so because of

anxiety or frustration (Bennett and Rohlf, 2007).

Separation anxiety, reported as a relatively common

behavioral problem by veterinary and behavior practi-

tioners (Askew, 1996), was not analyzed in our study due

to the difficulty of diagnosing its prevalence from isolated

behaviors reported by dog owners.

Association between dog behavior

and demographic variables

The high number of intact dogs in the sample could

simply reflect the tendency of purebred dogs owners to

maintain reproductive integrity in their animals (Salmon

and Salmon, 1983), but it did prevent further analysis of

hormone-induced behaviors.

As has been reported previously (Hart and Heckstein,

1997; Wells and Hepper, 2000), male dogs were more likely

than females to exhibit inter-dog aggression and undesirable

sexual behaviors. These behaviors are hormonally driven.

Mounting other dogs or people and fighting with dogs are

behaviors that are markedly reduced or eliminated in 50%to 60% of dogs after castration (Hopkins et al., 1976).Sher-

man et al. (1996)reported that male dogs attacked unfamil-

iar dogs more often than females, whereas females were

found to initiate aggression to household conspecifics

more often than males. In our study, the question on inter-

dog aggression was referred to the dogs reaction toward

dogs met outside its territory (Table 1). We did not explore

this behavior among dogs living within the same territory.

Males also outnumbered females significantly in owner

protection. In the statistics based on behaviorists case-

loads, male dogs are reported to have more behavior

problems than females (Wright and Nesselrote, 1987).


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

11/13

Similarly, other authors reported males as showing higher

prevalence of aggressive behaviors than females (especially

dominance and possessive aggression) (Voith and Borchelt,

1982; Borchelt, 1983; Landsberg, 1991; Borchelt and Voith,

1996). Owner protective aggression may be associated with

a dominant position of the dog in the house (Immelman and

Beer, 1989; Overall, 1997) and dominance over the owner is

considered a sexually dimorphic behavior, prominent mainlyin male dogs (Hart and Heckstein, 1997).

Lack of gender difference for fear-related problems is

consistent with the findings of others (Bennett and Rohlf,

2007).

The higher inter-dog aggression recorded in dogs greater

than 7 years may be explained by the existing relationship

between social maturity (18 to 24 months) and the occur-

rence of the first conflicts with conspecifics for social status

(Overall, 1997). Adult dogs (.2 years) were more likely to

exhibit aggression toward other dogs than puppies and

juveniles (Wells and Hepper, 2000). Nevertheless, in stud-

ies on geriatric behavioral problems, few old dogs (.10years) were referred because of an increase of their aggres-

sive behavior and in these cases, it was never directed to-

ward other dogs (Chapman and Voith, 1990). Owners

may not seek professional advice for intra-specific aggres-

sion because such behavior is not highly dangerous for peo-

ple. The high prevalence of inter-dog aggression in elderly

Argentine Dogos may reflect a lack of appropriate treat-

ment of this behavior when it appeared for the first time.

The observed tendency of aging dogs to show reduced

destructive behavior agrees with similar results from other

authors (Campbell, 1986), probably suggesting that dogs

naturally engage less in this activity as they age, althoughsome dogs (.10 years) may show an increase in prevalence

of destructiveness (Chapman and Voith, 1990). The hypoth-

esis that destructive dogs may be euthanized prematurely or

relinquished is unlikely on the basis of the outcomes of a

complementary survey carried out on the same group of Ar-

gentine Dogos owners: only 2.1% of them declared that

destructiveness was a problem serious enough to get rid

of their pet (Tami, 2007).

Final considerations

The findings that predation, territoriality, and intra-specific

conflicts are the most common aggressive behaviors are

consistent with selective pressures exerted on this breed, a

derivative of fighting dogs that were selected for hunting

and guarding ability (Nores Martinez, 1977).

Aggressive behaviors shown by the Argentine Dogos in

our study when away from their territory were directed

mainly toward other animals, whereas aggression toward

people was shown mainly inside the dogs house. Because

of this pattern, Italian legal restrictions applied to poten-

tially dangerous dog breeds may be partially ineffective in

preventing Argentine Dogos aggression to humans. In fact,

The compulsory use of leash and muzzle in public areas

may be ineffective to prevent Argentine Dogos territorial

aggression to humans, but would help in preventing bites to

people in the context of owner protection. Social hazards

could be reduced by promoting proper socialization toward

people, promoting information and education campaigns

for owners (American Veterinary Medical Association,

2001), and developing a genetic program aimed at reducinghunting behavior in this breed.

Because this study relies on owners perceptions, results

should be confirmed by direct observation of dogs in their

home, dogs exposure to behavioral testing and collection

of behavior practitioners opinion on the behavior of

Argentine Dogos. Comparisons with prevalence of the

fear and aggression related behaviors in other breeds would

allow a better evaluation of Argentine Dogos behavioral

characteristics. This kind of epidemiologic data, if collected

also for other dog breeds, may help to improve and focus

preventive and educational programs on canine aggression.

Apart from the limits discussed above, this study representsthe first time the behavioral characteristics of a potentially

dangerous dog breed were explored. This study is part of a

larger project in progress. Results from the present study

may be interpreted more easily in light of the comparison

between the data collected in this owner survey and the results

from a behavioral test conducted on the same Argentine

Dogos. Comparison with similar surveys and behavioral

testing on other dog breeds would also be of utmost

importance. Findings from this study may be useful in

addressing important aspects of dog management that should

be supervised in order to reduce the risk of bite accidents.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Perugia University

and by the Italian Argentine Dogo Club (D.A.C.I.). The

authors wish to thank Fabrizio Tili, Flavia Zullo, Alessio

Dini, Michela Rossi, Nicola Falocci, and all the participating

dog owners for their invaluable technical assistance. The

authors wish also to thank the anonymous reviewers whose

comments contributed to the improvement of this manuscript.

References

Anderson, R.K., Vacalopoulus, A., 1987. Demographic characteristics of

dogs: their owners and reported dog behavior problems. Am. Vet.

Soc. Anim. Behav. Newsl. 10, 3.

Askew, H.R., 1996. Treatment of Behavior Problems in Dogs and Cats.

Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

American Veterinary Medical Association, 2001. A community approach

to dog bite prevention. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 218, 1732-1749.

Beaver, B.V., 1994. Owner complaints about canine behavior. J. Am. Vet.

Med. Assoc. 204, 1953-1955.

Beaver, B.V., 1999. Canine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians. W.B.

Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA.

Bennett, P.C., Rohlf, V.I., 2007. Owner-companion dog interactions: rela-

tionships between demographic variables, potentially problematic


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

12/13

behaviors, training engagement and shared activities. Appl. Anim.

Behav. Sci. 102, 65-84.

Blackshaw, J.K., 1988. Abnormal behavior in dogs. Austr. Vet. J. 65,

393-394.

Borchelt, P.L., 1983. Aggressive behavior of dogs kept as companion

animals: classification and influence of sex, reproductive status and

breed. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 10, 45-61.

Borchelt, P.L., 1984. Development of behavior of the dog during maturity.

In: Anderson, R.S. (Ed.), Nutrition and Behavior in Dogs and Cats.Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 189-197.

Borchelt, P.L., Voith, V.L., 1982. Diagnosis and treatment of separation-

related behavior problems in dogs. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small

Anim. Pract. 12, 625-635.

Borchelt, P.L., Voith, V.L., 1996. Aggressive behavior in dogs and cats.

In: Voith, V.L., Borchelt, P.L. (Eds.), Readings in Companion Animal

Behavior. Veterinary Learning Systems, Trenton, NJ, pp. 217-229.

Bueti, S., 2003. Il Dogo argentino. Editoriale Olimpia, Firenze.

Butcher, R., 1998. Dangerous dogs. Eur. J. Companion Anim. Pract. 8,

17-20.

Butcher, R., De Meester, R., Radford, M., 2002. Dangerous dogsdare we

getting it right? Eur. J. Companion Anim. Pract. 12, 41-48.

Campbell, W.E., 1975. Behavior Problems in Dogs. American Veterinary

Publications, Santa Barbara, CA.Campbell, W.E., 1986. The prevalence of behavioral problems in Ameri-

can dogs. Mod. Vet. Pract. 67, 28-31.

Chapman, B.L., Voith, V.L., 1990. Behavioral problems in old dogs: 26

cases (1984-1987). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 196, 944-946.

Chomel, B.B., Trotignon, J., 1992. Epidemiological survey of dog and cat

bites in the Lyon area, France. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 8, 619-624.

Crowell-Davis, S.L., 1991. Identifying and correcting human-directed

dominance aggression of dogs. Vet. Med. October, 990-998.

De Keuster, T., Lamoureux, J., Kahn, A., 2006. Epidemiology of dog bites:

a Belgian experience of canine behavior and public health concerns.

Vet. J. 172, 482-487.

Endenburg, N., Knol, B.W., 1994. Behavioral, household, and social prob-

lems associated with companion animals: opinions of owners and

non-owners. Vet. Q. 16, 130-134.Fatjo, J., Ruiz-de-la-Torre, J.L., Manteca, X., 2006. The epidemiology of

behavioral problems in dogs and cats: a survey of veterinary practi-

tioners. Anim. Welf. 15, 179-185.

Gershman, K.A., Sacks, J.J., Wright, J.C., 1994. Which dogs bite? A case-

control study of risk factors. Pediatrics. 93, 913-917.

Goodloe, L.P., Borchelt, P.L., 1998. Companion dog temperament traits.

J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1, 303-338.

Guy, N.C., Luescher, U.A., Dohoo, S.E., Spangler, E., Miller, J.B.,

Dohoo, I.R., Bate, L.A., 2001. Demographic and aggressive character-

istics of dogs in a general veterinary caseload. Appl. Anim. Behav.

Sci. 74, 15-28.

Hart, B.L., Heckstein, A., 1997. The role of gonadal hormones in the

occurrence of objectionable behaviors in dogs and cats. Appl. Anim.

Behav. Sci. 52, 331-344.Hopkins, S.G., Schubert, T.A., Hart, B.L., 1976. Castration of adult male

dogs: effects on roaming, aggression, urine marking, and mounting.

J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 168, 1108-1110.

Houpt, K.A., Willis, M.B., 2001. Genetics of behavior. In: Ruvinsky, A.,

Sampson, J. (Eds.), The Genetics of the Dog. CABI Publishing,

New York, NY, pp. 371-400.

Hsu, Y., Serpell, J.A., 2003. Development and validation of a questionnaire

for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs. J. Am. Vet.

Med. Assoc. 223, 1293-1300.

Immelman, K., Beer, C., 1989. A Dictionary of Ethology. Harvard Univer-

sity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Klaassen, B., Buckley, J.R., Esmail, A., 1996. Does the Dangerous Dogs

Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian

bites in the Accident and Emergency department. Injury. 28, 89-91.

Kobelt, A.J., Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Coleman, G.J., 2003. A sur-

vey of dog ownership in suburban Australiadconditions and behavior

problems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 82, 137-148.

Landsberg, G.M., 1991. The distribution of canine behavior cases at three

behavior referral practices. Vet. Med. 86, 1081-1089.

Lindell, L., 2002. Control problems in dogs. In: Horwitz, D., Mills, D.,

Heath, S. (Eds.), BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioral

Medicine. British Small Animal Veterinary Association, Glouchester,

UK, pp. 69-79.Lindsay, S.R., 2001. Handbook of applied dog behavior and training. Vol.

II: Ethology and Assessment of Behavior Problems. Iowa State Uni-

versity Press, Ames, IA, pp. 69-92.

Lockwood, R., 1988. Humane concerns about dangerous dog laws. Univer-

sity of Dayton Law Review. 13, 267-277.

Lockwood, R., 1995. The ethology and epidemiology of canine aggres-

siondChapter 9. In: Serpell, J.A. (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evo-

lution, Behaviour and Interactions With People. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 131-138.

Lockwood, R., Rindy, K., 1987. Are pit bulls different? An analysis of the

pit bull terrier controversy. Anthrozoos. 1, 2-8.

Lund, J.D., Agger, J.F., Vestergaard, K.S., 1996. Reported behaviour prob-

lems in pet dogs in Denmark: age distribution and influence of breed

and gender. Prev. Vet. Med. 28, 33-48.

McBride, A.E., Jones, R.E., 2001. The influence of the owner on the devel-opment of aggressive behaviour in dogs. In: Garner, J.P., Mench, J.A.,

Heekin, S.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Congress of the ISAE.

Center for Animal Welfare, Davis, CA, p. 118.

Mathews, J.R., Lattal, K.A., 1994. A behavioral analysis of dog bites to

children. J. Dev. Behav. Ped. 15, 44-52.

Mertens, P., 2002. Canine aggression. In: Horwitz, D., Mills, D., Heath, S.

(Eds.), BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine.

BSAVA, Glouchester, UK, pp. 195-215.

Miller, K., 1986. Letter to the Editor. Comm. Anim. Control. 5, 7-8.

Moyer, K.E., 1968. Kinds of aggression and their physiological basis.

Comm. Behav. Biol. 2, 65-87.

Neilson, J.C., Hart, B.L., Cliff, K.D., Ruehl, W.W., 2001. Prevalence of

behavioural changes associated with age-related cognitive impairment

in dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 18, 1787-1791.Nores Martinez, A., 1977. El Dogo argentino. Editorial Albatros, Buenos

Aires.

Notari, L., Goodwin, D., 2007. A survey of behavioural characteristics of

pure-bred dogs in Italy. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 103, 118-130.

OFarrell, V., 1992. Manual of Canine Behaviour, 2nd edition. British

Small Animal Veterinary Association, Glouchester, UK.

Overall, K.L., 1993. Canine aggression. Canine Pract. 18, 32-34.

Overall, K.L., 1997. La clinica comportamentale del cane e del gatto. C.G.

Edizioni Medico Scientifiche, Torino.

Overall, K.L., Love, M., 2001. Dog bites to humansddemography, epide-

miology, injury, and risk. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 218, 1923-1934.

Overall, K.L., 2003. Medical differentials with potential behavioral mani-

festations. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small Anim. Pract. 33, 212-229.

Podberscek, A.L., 1994. Dogs on a tightrope: the position of the dog in

British society as influenced by press reports on dog attacks (1988

to 1992). Anthrozoos. 7, 232-241.

Podberscek, A.L., Serpell, J.A., 1997. Environmental influences on the

expression of aggressive behaviour in English cocker spaniels. Appl.

An. Behav. Sci. 52, 215-227.

Polsky, R.H., 1983. Factors influencing aggressive behaviour in dogs.

Calif. Vet. 10, 12-15.

Reinhard, D.W., 1978. Aggressive behavior associated with hypothyroid-

ism. Canine Pract. 5, 69-70.

Reisner, I.R., Houpt, K.A., 1994. Risk factors for behavior-related eutha-

nasia among dominant-aggressive dogs: 110 cases (1989-1992).

J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 205, 855-863.

Reisner, I.R., Houpt, K.A., Shofer, F.S., 2005. National survey of owner-

directed aggression in English Springer Spaniels. J. Am. Vet. Med.

Assoc. 227, 1594-1603.


8/12/2019 Diverio Et Al. 2008

13/13

Roll, A., Unshelm, J., 1997. Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors

affecting them. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 52, 229-242.

Rugbjerg, H., Proschowsky, H.F., Ersboll, A.K., Lund, J.D., 2003. Risk

factors associated with interdog aggression and shooting phobias

among purebreed dogs in Denmark. Prev. Vet. Med. 58, 85-100.

Sacks, J., Lockwood, R., Hornreich, J., Sattin, R.W., 1996. Fatal dog

attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics. 97, 891-895.

Sacks, J., Sinclair, L., Gilchrist, J., Golab, G.C., Lockwood, R., 2000.

Breeds of dog involved in fatal human attacks in the United States be-tween 1979 and 1998. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 217, 836-840.

Salman, M.D., Hutchison, J., Ruch-Gallies, R., Kogan, L., New Jr., J.C.,

Kass, P.H., Scarlett, J.M., 2000. Behavioral reasons for relinquish-

ment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci.

3, 93-106.

Salmon, P.W., Salmon, I.M., 1983. Who owns who? Psychological re-

search into the human-pet bond in Australia. In: Katcher, A.H.,

Beck, A.M. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Our Lives With Companion

Animals. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp.

244-265.

Schalamon, J., Ainoedhofer, H., Singer, G., Petnehazy, T., Mayr, J.,

Kiss, K., Hollwarth, M.E., 2006. Analysis of dog bites in children

who are younger than 17 years. Pediatrics. 117, 374-379.

Scott, J.P., Fuller, J.L., 1965. Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Serpell, J., Jagoe, J.A., 1995. Early experience and the development of be-

haviour. In: Serpell, J. (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behav-

iour and Interactions With People. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, MA, pp. 79-102.

Serpell, J.A., Hsu, Y., 2001. Development and validation of a novel method

for evaluating behavior and temperament in guide dogs. Appl. Anim.

Behav. Sci. 72, 347-364.

Sherman, C.K., Reisner, I.R., Taliaferro, L.A., Houpt, K.A., 1996. Charac-

teristics, treatment, and outcome of 99 cases of aggression between

dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 47, 91-108.

Studzinski, C.M., Christie, L.A., Araujo, J.A., Burnham, W.M., Head, E.,

Cotman, C.W., Milgram, N.W., 2006. Visuospatial function in the bea-

gle dog: an early marker of cognitive decline in a model of human

cognitive aging and dementia. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 86, 197-204.Stur, I., 1987. Genetic aspects of temperament and behaviour in dogs.

J. Small Anim. Pract. 28, 957-964.

Takeuchi, Y., Houpt, K.A., 2003. Behavior genetics. Vet. Clin. North Am.

Small Anim. Pract. 33, 345-363.

Tami, G., 2007. Cani potenzialmente pericolosi: valutazione del rischio e

della personalita. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universita degli Studi di

Perugia, Italy.

Tami, G., Gallagher, A., 2004. Interpretation of the behaviour of domestic

dog (Canis familiaris) by experienced and inexperienced people. Pro-

ceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Animal

Interactions, October 6-9, 2004, Glasgow, Scotland.Tami, G., Barone, A., Diverio, S., 2007. Management and behaviour in a

potentially dangerous dog breed: the Argentine Dogo. Proceeding of

the 6th International Veterinary Behaviour Meeting, Riccione, Italy,

June 1720, pp. 165166.

Tecott, L.H., Barondes, S.H., 1996. Behavioral genetics: genes and aggres-

siveness. Curr. Biol. 6, 238-240.

Van de Kuyt, N., 2001. Prevention of dog attacks in public places. A local

government strategy adopted by 11 Victorian Councils. UAM Confer-

ence Proceedings, April 15, 2007. Available at: http://www.iimage.

com.au/UAM/proc01/vandekuyt.htm.

Van der Valden, N.A., De Weerdt, C.J., Brooymans-Schallenberg, J.H.C.,

Tielen, A.M., 1976. An abnormal behavioural trait in Bernese Moun-

tain Dogs (Berner Sennenhund): a preliminary report. Tijdschrift Dier-

geneeskd. 101, 403-407.

Voith, V.L., Borchelt, P.L., 1982. Diagnosis and treatment of dominanceaggression in dogs. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small Anim. Pract. 12,

655-665.

Voith, V.L., Wright, J.C., Danneman, P.J., 1992. Is there a relationship

between canine behaviour problems and spoiling activities, anthropo-

morphism, and obedience training? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34,

263-272.

Wells, D.L., Hepper, P.G., 2000. Prevalence of behaviour problems re-

ported by owners of dogs purchased from an animal rescue shelter.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69, 55-65.

Wilsson, E., Sundgren, P.E., 1997. The use of a behaviour test for the

selection of dogs for service and breeding, II: heritability for tested

parameters and effect of selection based on service dog characteristics.


Wright, J.C., Nesselrote, M.S., 1987. Classification of behavior problemsin dogs: distributions of age, breed, sex and reproductive status.


http://www.iimage.com.au/UAM/proc01/vandekuyt.htmhttp://www.iimage.com.au/UAM/proc01/vandekuyt.htmhttp://www.iimage.com.au/UAM/proc01/vandekuyt.htmhttp://www.iimage.com.au/UAM/proc01/vandekuyt.htm

Documents

Diverio Et Al. 2008