Does Bad Dog Mean Bad Owner?

People expressing a preference for aggressive dog breeds scored higher for conscientiousness on a personality test than did those who liked gentler dogs. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

You see a guy walking a pit bull with a studded collar. What's your first thought?: tough guy, right? Well, probably. But chances are he's a conscientious, rule-abiding tough guy. So says a study in the journal Anthrozoos. [Vincent Egan and Jason MacKenzie, "Does Personality, Delinquency, or Mating Effort Necessarily Dictate a Preference for an Aggressive Dog?"]

Researchers gave personality tests to 235 subjects—from teens to people in their 60s. Those subjects also rated how aggressive they considered different breeds of dogs to be, from cocker spaniels to pit bulls, and chose which type they'd most like to own.

As the authors expected, the most unfriendly study volunteers, and the youngest, preferred the meanest breeds. But the stereotyping ends there. Pit bull lovers weren't any more likely to have delinquent past behavior—like carrying weapons for fights—than people who preferred friendly Labs.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In fact, pit bull lovers actually scored higher for conscientiousness on the personality test. Which means they may be more rule-oriented, careful and organized—the perfect candidates for dog training classes, the authors say. So next time you see someone walking a fearsome dog, that person’s bark may be worse than his bite.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe