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 specic 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, Facolta` di Medicina Veterinaria, Via San Cos-
tanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy.
E-mail: silvana@unipg.it
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
2001). The Argentine Dogo is among the breeds identied
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 in
pet 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 specic 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 inu-
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 specic
breed-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 primarily
on 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 ndings
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 specic 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 specic problem behaviors may vary
according to sample characteristics and methodologic
aspects 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 to
establish 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
Questionnaire
Participating owners provided dogs demographic infor-
mation (age and sex) and lled in a 28-itemquestionnaire 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-paid
envelopes. 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 dogs
lived 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%) lled 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 gures 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. This
gures 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 specic behaviors in their dogs. Respondents
indicated 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 c
2
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) (Neilson
et 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-related
problems
The Figure shows aggressive and fear-related behaviors
with a prevalence greater than 10% (more than 18 dogs),
whereas behaviors occurring in less than 10% of the sample
are reported in Table 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-ve (19.1%) of the sampled Argentine Dogos
showed 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 for
the 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 trafc (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
1997), which occurred in 42.9% (78 dogs), 32.4% (59
dogs), and 13.6% (25 dogs) of the sample, respectively.
Association between dog behavior
and demographic variables
Due to the high number of intact dogs in the study
sample (94.5%; n 5 171), the inuence 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 signicantly
more likely than females to attack same-sex dogs (c
2
5
5.820, df 5 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 trafc)
-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 specic behaviors.
Diverio, Tami, and Barone Argentine Dogos and behavior 77
signicantly more mounting of people (c
2
5 6.763, df 5 1,
P 5 0.010) and owner protection (c
2
5 4.746, df 5 1, P 5
0.029) compared with females (Table 4). There was no sig-
nicant association between sex of the dog and prevalence
of fear-related behaviors.
Dogs greater than 7 years were signicantly more
aggressive toward unknown dogs (c
2
5 9.098, df 5 2,
P 5 0.011) than were younger dogs (Table 4). Destructive-
ness diminished as age increased (c
2
521.541, df 52, 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 inuenced the
results 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 tough
heritage (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
P
r
e
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

t
o
w
a
r
d
s

d
o
g
s
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
i
a
l

a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

t
o
w
a
r
d
s

v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
F
e
a
r

o
f

l
o
u
d

n
o
i
s
e
s
C
a
r

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
h
y

i
n

n
o
v
e
l

s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
e
a
r

o
f

s
t
a
r
t
l
i
n
g

s
t
i
m
u
l
i
O
w
n
e
r

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

w
h
e
n

h
a
n
d
l
e
d
A
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

t
o
w
a
r
d
s

s
t
r
a
n
g
e
r
s
C
h
a
s
i
n
g

c
a
r
s
/
r
u
n
n
i
n
g

p
e
o
p
l
e
E
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e

b
o
d
y

l
i
c
k
i
n
g
F
o
o
d

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
M
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

p
e
o
p
l
e
F
e
a
r

o
f

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
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.
78 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 3, No 2, March/April 2008
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 difcult 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 specic behavioral diagnoses or deni-
tions. Therefore, comparisons should be made only when
the terminology and data are sufciently similar. In partic-
ular, it may be difcult 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 not
considered serious enough to warrant professional advice.
In the owner survey conducted by Beaver (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-protective
aggression 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 articial 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) 177
Chasing 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.
Diverio, Tami, and Barone Argentine Dogos and behavior 79
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 the
sample, destructiveness in 24.5%, aggression toward dogs
in 8.9%, and aggression toward humans in 5.5% (Wells
and Hepper, 2000).
Our ndings 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 (P 5 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 (P 5 0.011) 69.9 (58) 68.4 (67) 56.2 (102) 75.0 (136) 81.1 (147)
Same-sex dog aggression (P 5 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 behavior
Predation 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 trafc 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 (P 5 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 in Table 2, are not included. Signicant P values refer to c
2
test. Number of dogs in each category
is parenthetical.
80 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 3, No 2, March/April 2008
analysed dogs of different breeds (Campbell, 1986; Voith
et al., 1992; Borchelt and Voith, 1996; Lindell, 2002).
These ndings may reect 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, some
forms 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 comparison
between 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. Classi-
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 specic 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 inuenced 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 aws, 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 identication 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. Schalamon
et 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 specic 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 nding 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 bites
is 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-
specic 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 specic reinforcement
(Polsky, 1983). Fighting dogs usually reach their full ag-
gressive potential following specic training that starts
when they are puppies (Butcher, 1998), but even average
owners may inadvertently reinforce inappropriate aggres-
sive behavior shown by their dogs (Polsky, 1983; Roll
and Unshelm, 1997; McBride and Jones, 2001). Owners
of specic 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 ghts is probably asso-
ciated with the fact that a disproportionately high number
of these dogs belong to a specic kind of owner, i.e., those
Diverio, Tami, and Barone Argentine Dogos and behavior 81
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; Fatjo et 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 rst 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 ghting 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 to Scott and Fuller (1965),
herding dogs tend to be more aggressive toward other dogs
because of the selective improvement of guarding attitude
against predators, whereas hunting breeds tend to display
this behavior less because of selection of bite inhibition
and a tendency to live peacefully with conspecics. 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-ghts
(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 conspecics was a highly prevalent behavior. This
nding 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 reect dominance conicts and
conrms what already is reported by other studies; that this
is the most common type of conict 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 by
Campbell (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, aggression
toward children and chasing cars/running people. However,
fearful behavior may also lead to conicts 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 nding, 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
82 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 3, No 2, March/April 2008
(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 prole 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
gures 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 in
their 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 inuence 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 and
Sundgren, 1997). Agenetic programselecting against this be-
havioral characteristic would be one way 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 lowprevalence of all
social fears could depend on breed-typical temperamental
characteristics, on good socialization levels, and on the
owners reluctance toadmit a fearful, andthus weak, attitude
in Argentine Dogos, usually known as strong dogs. Non-
social fears showed a high prevalence. It is difcult to com-
pare these ndings with those of previous studies (Campbell,
1986; Voith et al., 1992; Borchelt and Voith, 1996; Wells and
Hepper, 2000) because of different data collection methods,
e.g., a behavior simply dened 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 conrmed
by the results of Tami et al. (2007).
High prevalence of non-social fears may reect a lack of
proper habituation to environmental stimuli leading to high
reactivity 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 difculty 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 reect 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 ghting 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 conspecics
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 signicantly 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).
Diverio, Tami, and Barone Argentine Dogos and behavior 83
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 mainly
in male dogs (Hart and Heckstein, 1997).
Lack of gender difference for fear-related problems is
consistent with the ndings 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 rst conicts with conspecics 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 (.10
years) 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-specic aggres-
sion because such behavior is not highly dangerous for peo-
ple. The high prevalence of inter-dog aggression in elderly
Argentine Dogos may reect a lack of appropriate treat-
ment of this behavior when it appeared for the rst 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, although
some 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 ndings that predation, territoriality, and intra-specic
conicts are the most common aggressive behaviors are
consistent with selective pressures exerted on this breed, a
derivative of ghting 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 reducing
hunting behavior in this breed.
Because this study relies on owners perceptions, results
should be conrmed 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 represents
the rst 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
84 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 3, No 2, March/April 2008
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: classication and inuence 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 inuence of breed
and gender. Prev. Vet. Med. 28, 33-48.
McBride, A.E., Jones, R.E., 2001. The inuence 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 Scientiche, 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 inuenced by press reports on dog attacks (1988
to 1992). Anthrozoos. 7, 232-241.
Podberscek, A.L., Serpell, J.A., 1997. Environmental inuences on the
expression of aggressive behaviour in English cocker spaniels. Appl.
An. Behav. Sci. 52, 215-227.
Polsky, R.H., 1983. Factors inuencing 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.
Diverio, Tami, and Barone Argentine Dogos and behavior 85
Roll, A., Unshelm, J., 1997. Aggressive conicts 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 dominance
aggression 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.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54, 233-239.
Wright, J.C., Nesselrote, M.S., 1987. Classication of behavior problems
in dogs: distributions of age, breed, sex and reproductive status.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 19, 169-178.
86 Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Vol 3, No 2, March/April 2008