Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39101379›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025

Behavioural differences and similarities between dog breeds: proposing an ecologically valid approach for canine behavioural research.

Péter Pongrácz, Petra Dobos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Familiar Dog or Familiar Person: Who Do Pet Dogs Best Synchronize with?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Rank-Related Differences in Dogs' Behaviours in Frustrating Situations.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Péter PongráczDepartment of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, 1117 Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-5126-299X
Petra DobosDepartment of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, 1117 Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

Innovációs és Technológiai Minisztérium ÚNKP-23-2-II-ELTE-164Nemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal K143077
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The behaviour of dogs holds great relevance for not only scientists from fundamental and applied research areas, but also due to the widespread roles of dogs in our societies as companions and working animals; their behaviour is also an important factor in animal and human welfare. A large proportion of dogs currently under human supervision belong to one of roughly 400 recognised breeds. Dog breeds can be characterised by distinctive, predictable and reproducible features, including some of their behavioural traits. To the scientist, the comparative analysis of the behaviour of dog breeds provides an opportunity for investigating an array of intriguing phenomena within an easily accessible model organism created from natural and human-driven evolutionary processes. There are many ways to design and conduct breed-related behavioural investigations, but such endeavours should always be based around biologically relevant research questions and lead to ecologically valid conclusions. In this review, we surveyed recent research efforts that included dog behaviour-related comparisons and applied a critical evaluation according to their methods of breed choice and the subsequent research design. Our aim was to assess whether these two fundamentally important components of experimental design provide a solid basis to reach valid conclusions. Based on 97 publications that fulfilled our selection criteria, we identified three primary methods used by researchers to select breeds for their investigations: (i) convenience sampling; (ii) hypothesis-driven, ancestry-based sampling; and (iii) hypothesis-driven, functional sampling. By using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) evaluation system, we highlight each of these techniques' merits and shortcomings. We identify when particular methods may be inherently unable to produce biologically meaningful results due to a mismatch between breed choice and the initial research goals. We hope that our evaluation will help researchers adopt best practices in experimental design regarding future dog breed comparisons.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalAnimalsBreedingDogsSpecies Specificitybehaviourdog breedsecological validityfunctional breed selectionpopular breedssampling technique

Identifiers

PMID39101379
PMCPMC11718627

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.