Dog temperament test per breed, links below
https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ https://www.aaastateofplay.com/what-dog-breed-has-the-best-temperament/
176
Comments90View original on sh.itjust.works
https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ https://www.aaastateofplay.com/what-dog-breed-has-the-best-temperament/
The most fascinating part of this to me is that roughly 88% of mixed breed dogs passed the test. So if you're just looking for a great dog, a mixed breed might actually have a better chance than a purebred!
Unless you're getting a lab. I've never met a lab that wasn't the bestest doggo ever lol
Less chance of genetic defects from inbreeding as well.
I love these mutts, so adorable and unique.
yeah this is the one i was most interested in, nobody else brought this up. Im genuinely curious why this is but i've no clue
They’re not inbred
You know that checks out, I always have to get purebreds because of allergies, and the ""Better"" the breeding was, the more high-strung they would be.
Because good easy breeds like labs, retrievers and GSDs are really likely to be a big part of a lot of mutts.
Without knowing what types of mixes were in the sample I wouldn't draw too many conclusions. Poodle and lab mixes are some of the most popular mixed-breed dogs.
Very interesting! I dug even further and found the description of the test: https://atts.org/tt-test-description/
o sick, thanks for this link, this was better than the description i had found
They're all good dogs, Brent.
That one downvote is from Bront.
heh! Brint withdrew their downvote.
Should have taken these dogs to the vet, I feel like this chart would look a lot different temperament wise. Working in the field, I'm very confused how some of these breeds scored so well and others so poorly.
Yeah, as someone who's been around dogs for decades, this chart doesn't make sense. I'd like to know the methodology used, and with how many dogs of each breed.
I mean, the methodology is pretty well outlined on the graphic lol.
Holy shit, I'm an idiot 😂
Seriously. Is it just me, or is it a little racist (breedist?) to lump dogs into individual categories based solely on breed? They're all unique individuals with their own personalities. Any dog can be a good boy if raised properly.
Bruh, do you understand what a breed is?
They are specifically breeded for certain traits, it's fair to lump them into breeds when looking at behaviour and temperament since those are traits that can obviously be bred.
It's just you.
Ok
Yeah, I almost wonder for a lot of these if they were getting dogs from the same genetic line. I've seen some breeders make dogs with poor temperaments just becuase of the breeding stock they've been using.
Like, I do agree bearded collies can have poor temperaments, but so bad that they're that far removed from all other dogs? Strong disagree.
searches Husky
no husky
goes back to eating snacks
Husky is there under golden retriever on the chart and malamute is somewhere in the middle.
I am, admittedly, blind 😎
What snacks?
So maybe you need a labrador instead of a huskie hehe
It's easier to locate huskies by sound.
It doesn't help that the "No. Breed" legend at the bottom is just about useless because it is not in order of percentage nor in alphabetical order. It seems to be... Random?
Axis label missing
Are they? Popularity and percentage passed, it's in the image.
Passed what? Just saying another word would help
Supposed to read percentage based I assume
The Malinois at the very front surprises me the most. In our shelter in Germany these dogs unfortunately quite often end up in hardly placeable, unpredictable condition. But there my impression is probably also distorted, because I otherwise see them very rarely.
The source seems sketchy
Okay go ahead and take the same data and visualize it yourself then..?
This just proves my feeling that chihuahuas are plain bad at being a dog. Every Chihuahua I've ever seen was aggressive at anything that moves. Just because they're small, people find that cute or something.
I'd be interested to see the Regression and P value, it looks like there's a weak correlation to me
Here's a text-version of the results
::: spoiler table
I had a sheltie named Sivonne that passed away a few years ago of old age. She was the sweetest, most docile girl, let toddlers pet her and didn't mind when cats came over. She was, however, deathly afraid of going outside, and we rescued her from a breeder who de-barked her after she refused to be either a show dog or a breeding dog. I'm not sure how much of her calmness was her personality or just resignation to life, but I hope she felt safe and comfortable for the time she was with us.
De-barking!? Do I want to look that up, or nah
Imagine what needs to be done to surgically make a dog unable to bark. Somehow, it's still legal in some places. There wasn't anything we could do to reverse it either, unfortunately.
and that's not legal? wtf?!
I'd like to know what their tests are, because there's no fucking way a pit bull passes nearly all other breeds.
They are statistically speaking, very well behaved animals. They are also extremely powerful so when they're raised poorly, it goes very very poorly.
It's Russian roulette no matter what, whether the revolver has 6 shots or 1000. A golden doodle decides to attack it'll do a lot of damage, but a pit decides to attack and you're talking about devastation.
That's not true. Pits don't have special bites, that's a myth. Their bite force and ability to hold on isn't more or less remarkable than other similarly sized dogs. There are several reasons that "pits" are misrepresented in dog bite rates. The first is over classification of "pit". A Dalmation mixed with a Pit gets called a "Pit" mix. Also, any dog that even remotely looks like a pit gets classified as a "pit" even if they're not, as I found out with two of my three dogs that got mislabeled as Pit mixes, only the third dog is a Pit and the other two are mixes of other breeds. It's not like they're DNA testing at shelters. We do this with Labs too, just Labs have a better reputation.
The second reason is their popularity among those who view them as "tough" dogs. Causing certain types to be the most likely to adopt them. Like with German Shepards/Daschaunds/Doberman dog breeds. It is worth noting though, that there are official "Pit" breeds, like the American Pit and the Staffordshire Terrier, but they can be very different from the type of "Pits" people have as it is immensely popular to mix these dogs with other dogs and there are so many non-professional breeders breeding them. So "Pits" can have a wide array of temperaments due to the large genetic diversity present.
Here is a description and a video.
Oof. Hurts to see your biases get punched in the face so hard
They're responsible for the lion's share of debilitating injuries caused by dogs. That's a hard fact. Some 'temperament test' doesn't change anything. It's not scientific. I've rescued 4 pitbulls in my life. I loved them dearly, but I accept the fact that they are all potential killers.
I don't know.... Pitbulls are usually owned by trashy people so the dog ends up being trashy.
A properly raised pitbull would likely behave better than a poorly raised Golden Retriever. Still if a pitbull decides to fight its much more dangerous.
Well that's why it's not number 1. Couldn't pass the don't attack and mutilate people test.
So French Bulldogs 96% aggressive
No I think it's saying 96% of french bulldogs tested have "passed" the temperament test. So 96% are not aggressive, I think that's what it's saying, anyways
Very cool! My schipperke (91% on the chart) is pretty anxious and growly, but i think that's probably from street/shelter life before she adopted us.
The American Pit bull terrier, Stafordshire Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier are all “pit bulls”. They are all near over 85% to 90% on the chart. Me and my pitts have known that for years 😌
Yup. Us pittie owners know that no matter what, our dogs are getting blamed. Few months ago on a walk we had a collie escape from a yard and started jumping all over my girl (thankfully not biting). My girl just sat there looking at me like "uhhh, dad? Make him stop?".
Of course their owner started screaming bloody murder when my girl hadn't even growled, let alone done anything else. It's almost as if dogs aggressiveness is largely based on the environment they were raised in, and pittie owners are extra careful because, again, no matter what its our dogs getting blamed. Of course the people who get a dog to be a toy tend to get breeds like Goldens and GSDs, and then never bother to train them.
Explain this
https://coloradoinjurylaw.com/blog/dog-bite-statistics/
https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/
oh yeah another comment said something similar
I havent done that much research, is it a case of really bad owners?
Yes, it is the case of bad owners.
Ok! 3 of those links are from injury lawyers (always dependable sources of data when analyzing risk. No profit motive there.) 1 is a 404. 1 is an abstract from NIH that summarizes: "bad people own bad dogs"
Dog identification is difficult, and even those scary looking pits may only have a small percentage of actual Staffordshire or Bulldog in their DNA. I don't want people to get hurt either, but dog racism isn't the answer. A bad owner can turn any dog violent.
Looks like you explained it yourself? Or are you implying owning a pit bull causes owners to become criminals in other ways simply by pit bulls sharing their bad vibes?
Fucking thank you so goddamn much.
Was just about to comment I know where the pit Bull would fall on number of children injured on chart
Would you look at that, pitties pass at a higher rate than GSDs, Goldens, and most other highly popular dogs besides labs.
Yet somehow they're inherently evil or something asinine like that
I think a lot of the problem is two things:
A certain aggressive portion of people DO think that pitbulls are violent dogs, so they take them on and train them to be aggressive dogs
Pitbulls are strong as hell, so when they do act aggressively they cause a lot of damage
The real answer is to do something about the bad owners, because they give the whole breed a bad reputation. Continually saying that pitbulls are not a problem ignores this point.
Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If the bad owners are giving the breed a bad reputation, then the problem isn't the breed. It's the owners. What point does that miss?
I'm clearly saying that the owners are the problem. I'm not sure if you read it clearly.
Pointer: bred to point, naturally will point birds with 0 training
Heeler: bred to corral, naturally tries to corral things with 0 training
Retriever: bred to retrieve, naturally compelled to retrieve with 0 training
Terriers: bred to kill small animals, will go sicko mode on rats with 0 training
Pitbulls: bred to fight dogs, oh it's just how they are raised little hippo would never ever oh no why is there blood everywhere who could have foreseen this
Pittbulls were bred to fight bulls and other large animals for sport or hunting. This required quite a lot of special training. The infamous locking jaw is an adaptation to allow them to hold onto a bucking bull. The dog fighting happened after baiting large animals was outlawed long after the breed was established.
So after they weren't bred to fight bulls and bears, what were they bred to do?
Depends on what type of pitbull you are talking about (there are multiple pitbull breeds). Ratting is a big one, which is where their terrier parts come from. In frontier America they were used as all purpose dogs for hunting boar, ratting, guarding and herding. In the early 20th century they were primarily bred for companionship as they were seen as a breed that encompassed American values and were largely seen as a mascot for America up until around ww2. You'll see pitties as the primary dogs on most 19th and early 20th century american media, from ww2 properganda to little rascals to the personal pets of Helen Keller, Roosevelt, Mark twain and Edison.
In the 70's and 80's was when their reputation for fighting dogs emerged following its illegalization in America and how common the dog was as a stray (because they were the popular "all american dog"). But since it was already illegal it wasn't exactly the best breeders doing the breeding, so they weren't really very good at selecting for specific traits, nor did it really last long enough to really take off. Breeding a dog to be a dog fighter is a little like breeding a horse for the glue factory, its not really something a serious dog breeder would waste their time on.
I think the results are a bit skewered because based on what I could find out these tests are done voluntarily by the owner. And obviously, if you own a "dangerous" breed and they are misbehaving you aren't going to take the test.
I highly doubt 95% of randomly selected Belgian Malinois would pass the test. They require a ton of training and without that they wouldn't pass.
With Golden Retrievers you will have more people undertake the test without undergoing proper training of their dog. Because they seem fine in daily life.
Pitbulls are the most abandoned dog breed. Without proper training they are a danger to others. German shepherds are similar and many people underestimate them but Golden Retrievers are most often fine even with suboptimal training.
The reason many of us want to ban pitbulls is because there are too many bad owners. It's the same reason many of us want to ban guns. There are too many people who shouldn't own guns or dogs. And ofcourse compromises are welcome, such as requiring certificates to own certain dog breeds. I think it would even be ideal to require it for every breed.
I honestly had assumed most of the ban pit peeps were conservatives. Interesting to see so many on the left supporting this.
Avoiding maulings is a bipartisan issue.
Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It's not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says "in the face of a threat." Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn't step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren't able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
You didn't even quote a full sentence, so yes it's out of context. That's how quoting things out of context works.
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog's handler in various ways without the dog reacting> Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
You should probably actually go read what the rest is bud
See my comment https://lemmy.world/comment/1885470