Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Behavioural Processes
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc

Does perceived trainability of dog (Canis lupus familiaris) breeds reflect

differences in learning or differences in physical ability?
William S. Helton ∗
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Researchers have reported perceived differences in trainability between different dog breeds. These
Received 20 August 2009 reports could either be the result of underlying differences in learning or differences in physical capabil-
Received in revised form ities. Four studies were conducted to investigate this issue. In Study 1 the level of agility metal-winners
24 November 2009
amongst those breeds perceived to be high and low in trainability did not deviate significantly from their
Accepted 22 January 2010
respective levels of participation in the sport. In Study 2 the level of precision amongst those dogs per-
ceived to be high and low in trainability did not deviate significantly in a real agility competition (P > 0.05),
Keywords:
but these dogs did differ in speed (P < 0.05). In Study 3 the amount of training time necessary to achieve
Agility
Breed
agility precision mastery did not significantly differ amongst dogs from breeds perceived to be high and
Dog low in trainability (P > 0.05), but there was a significant difference in speed. Finally, in Study 4 breeds
Intelligence considered to be high in trainability were found to be relatively physically homogenous in respects to
Skill development height, in comparison to breeds considered to be low in trainability. Overall, the results of these studies
Trainability are more supportive of a physical capability interpretation of perceived breed differences in trainability,
than a more cognitive interpretation.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction approximately half of all of the obedience judges in North Amer-

An issue for the working dog community is the possibility of
there being differences in trainability amongst breeds or breed
groups (Helton, 2009a). Breeds are “intraspecies groups that have
relatively uniform physical characteristics developed under con-
trolled conditions by man [humans]” (Iron et al., 2003, p. 81). Dogs
are the most phenotypically diverse species currently existing (Iron
et al., 2003). Although many breeds have a relatively recent histor-
ical origin, breed advocates often suggest breeds were developed
as a result of artificial selection directed at improving occupational
performance over time. Greyhounds and other sight-hounds were
selected to be quick pursuit hunters in open fields, and terriers, for
example, were selected to excel at subterranean combat.
Breeds of dog are perceived to differ in working intelligence or
trainability (Coren, 1994; Ley et al., 2009; Rooney and Bradshaw,
2004; Serprell and Hsu, 2005). The ranking of breeds across stud-
ies for their relative perceived trainability is consistent. The same
breeds are consistently ranked relatively high and low even though
the exact order may deviate across studies. Coren (1994) is the
most comprehensive and complete breed ranking for trainabil-
ity by experts published. In Coren’s survey, 208 obedience judges,
∗ Tel.: +64 03 364 2902; fax: +64 03 364 2181.
E-mail addresses: Deak Helton@yahoo.com, wshelton@mtu.edu.
ica at the time of the survey, ranked breeds for their trainability
in the context of their experience in obedience judging and train-
ing. Obedience is a canine sport in which a dog must perform a
predefined set of tasks. These tasks are basic commands for con-
trolling the dog, such as “stay,” “down,” “sit,” “heel,” and “come.”
In higher levels of obedience competition the tasks also include
retrieving objects and discriminating objects by their scent. Obedi-
ence competition consists of tasks most dog owners would expect
from a well-trained dog and is open, unlike some canine sports,
to all breeds. In Coren’s survey, the judges rated each breed for
trainability on a 7 point scale from very good to very poor and the
final ranking that appears in Coren’s book are based on a simple
rank sum of these ratings. The inter-rater reliability of these ratings,
Cohen’s kappa,  = 0.71 (Coren, personal communication).  is very
sensitive to the total number of items rated. Smaller sets of items
having higher  and larger set having lower . Coren’s resulting  is
very high, considering the large number of breeds rated, which is
suggestive of substantial agreement among judges in their relative
breed rankings (Landis and Koch, 1977).
Breed rankings, like Coren’s, have been criticized by canine
researchers and behaviourists (see Miklosi, 2007). In particular
Coren has been criticized for referring to his ranking as a metric of
breed intelligence. This criticism is, however, only partially legit-
imate. Coren clearly presents a multi-faceted perspective of dog
intelligence in his book. Coren regards his breed ranking as only
reflecting one facet of dog intelligence: working/obedience intel-

0376-6357/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2010.01.016
316 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323
ligence. Furthermore, considering trainability and performance
in obedience tasks as a measure of dog intelligence has histori-
cal precedence in comparative psychology (Warden and Warner,
1928). This criticism of Coren is, however, legitimate if intelligence
turns out to be unrelated to trainability. Some comparative psychol-
ogists would make this argument. For example, Frank and Frank
(1985) demonstrated that trainability is different from problem-
solving capability by showing that while dogs are more obedient
and trainable than wolves, in unguided problem-solving tasks
wolves demonstrate superior ability. Hence, trainability is not the
same as unguided problem-solving ability. This distinction may
also reflect folk views that some dogs ranking relatively low on
Coren’s trainability scale, for example terriers and many hounds,
may be less trainable for contrived tasks because they are sim-
ply more independent. These dogs are often projected in popular
presentations as independent but clever dogs; examples would be
“Eddy,” the Jack Russell Terrier of the TV show Frasier, or “Snoopy,”
the comic character Charlie Brown’s Beagle.
Whether Coren’s ranking is really a measure of breed intelli-
gence, a facet of intelligence, or actual trainability, the ranking
does appear to be a reliable measure of perceived trainability
of breeds amongst experts. The primary issue is why breeds are
perceived to differ in their trainability. The perception of breed dif-
ferences in trainability is truly remarkable because there is little
behavioural evidence suggestive of breed differences in underlying
cognitive abilities (Gagnon and Dore, 1992; Pongracz et al., 2004;
Scott and Fuller, 1965). Breed differences in physical characteristics
are beyond dispute and these physical differences are undoubt-
edly related to physical skill performance, such as running speed,
jumping height, and physical strength (Coppinger and Coppinger,
2001). Dogs, for example, with longer legs and lighter distal limb
weight tend to run quicker than dogs with shorter legs and heav-
ier distal limb weight (Alpak et al., 2004; Helton, 2007a; Kemp et
al., 2005). These differences in structure are influenced by genetics
and selection. Whether this selection process also altered dispo-
sitions for trainability remains disputable and this may be critical
for debates about the suitability of certain breeds, breed groups, or
even mongrels for various working tasks.
While Coren did do an excellent job assessing experts’ judg-
ments of trainability, he did not actually assess breed differences
in actual performance or actual trainability (e.g. the ability to learn
tasks). The reason offered for not doing this was a realistic appraisal
of how immensely challenging this task would be. The best method
to determine breed differences in trainability would be to select a
large number of breeds. Then from within each breed select, at ran-
dom if possible, a large number of puppies from these breeds and
assign these puppies randomly to differing training conditions over
prolonged periods of time. Conducting such an experiment would
be outrageously expensive, time consuming, and raise a serious eth-
ical/animal welfare issue (e.g. what would happen to all the dogs
at the end of the experiment?). Nevertheless, to explore if experts’
rankings of perceived breed trainability match actual differences in
breed trainability does not require the perfect experimental study,
but perhaps the accumulation of evidence and logic. This paper is
a first step in this direction.
Trainability in the sport of agility was chosen for the present
investigation. Agility, like obedience and unlike some other canine
activities, is open to all breeds. Similar to obedience, agility requires
the dog to learn to execute actions the dog would not normally
perform and, moreover, to execute those actions under human
command. Agility involves a dog being directed by a human han-
dler through a series of obstacles consisting of inclined walls
(A-frames), hurdles, tunnels, chutes (collapsed cloth tunnels), ele-
vated dog walks, weave-poles, and see-saws. Agility provides an
excellent medium for examining canine performance and train-
ability because in agility both speed and precision are required
and more importantly, can be examined independently. In agility,
moreover, different fault types can be linked to different cognitive
features, such as self-control, motor-control, and signal process-
ing (Helton, 2007b). In agility, the precision metrics demonstrate a
dog’s ability to follow its handler’s commands. This matches what
Coren refers to as obedience or working intelligence, or trainability.
Because speed is subject to physical differences in height (Helton,
2007a) agility enables the dissociation of physical skill, perhaps,
due to breed morphology (shape), from an examination of preci-
sion, or faults, which more likely reflects differences in trainability.
Expert judges rating breeds of dogs for trainability, or even for
their talents for particular activities, most likely mix assessments
of physical attributes with cognitive attributes. While behavioural
scientists may be careful in separating the impact of physical
attributes on tests of cognition (see Scott and Fuller, 1965), in the
“real” world, people cannot separate physical qualities from cogni-
tive qualities when picking potential candidates. In the case of dog
trainability, the ability to learn to accurately follow commands, the
cognitive aspect of the skill, is likely to be confounded with the
speed of dog’s response or the ability of the dog to traverse space
quickly. Speed and movement depend on physical attributes of the
dog, such as leg length, bone density, relative distal and proximal
limb mass, and musculature. These physical qualities vary amongst
breeds. Furthermore, because physical qualities are perceptually
obvious, it is likely they weigh even higher in experts’ judgments
of the suitability of dog breeds for various tasks. In the sport of
agility metrics of speed, covering ground quickly, are separated
from accuracy (precision) in following handler commands. Agility
may, therefore, provide an excellent medium to test the hypothe-
sis that experts judge dog breeds for their trainability by assessing
physical qualities, which they can readily see (e.g. are perceptually
obvious), not necessarily cognitive qualities or behavioural dispo-
sitions, which are hidden from view.
This paper reports on four studies conducted on breed group
differences in agility performance. In the initial study, public breed
statistics from a national agility group are examined to determine
whether breeds perceived in Coren’s ranking to be highly trainable
are disproportionably represented as agility metal medal winners
(high performers) given their representation in the sport overall. In
the second study, actual precision metrics and speed are compared
across breed groups in a real agility competition. In the third study,
the relationship between amount of training, precision, speed, and
breed group is examined to determine whether there are any breed
group differences in the amount of training necessary to achieve
agility mastery, both precision and speed. In the fourth and final
study, Coren’s breed groups are examined for an obvious physio-
logical difference that may influence performance: height. If judges
rate dogs for their trainability primarily by noting physical differ-
ences between breeds then the difference between breed groups
should be primarily for speed, not precision. If, however, judges
are assessing cognitive capabilities, then the primary difference
between breeds should be for precision, not speed.
2. Study 1: National agility statistics
Certain agility organizations, such as the United States Dog
Agility Association (USDAA), make breed statistics publicly avail-
able. This enables researchers to investigate both whether dogs of
certain breeds are disproportionately likely to do extremely well
in the sport than would be expected given the rate of the breed’s
participation in the sport. In this study this was investigated using
Coren’s (1994) best and worst ranked breeds for trainability. If some
breeds, as Coren (1994) suggests are really more trainable than
other breeds then it would be expected that they would be dis-
proportionably represented among agility champions, due to their
ease of training by handlers.
 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323
2.1. Methods
Breed statistics and agility dog titles were gathered from the
web-site of the United States Dog Agility Association (USDAA;
www.usdaa.com) for dog breeds ranked by Coren as the best
and worst in trainability. The best breeds according to Coren in
terms of trainability are the Border Collie, Poodle, German Shep-
herd, Golden Retriever, Doberman Pinscher, Shetland Sheepdog,
Labrador Retriever, Papillon, Rottweiler, and Australian Cattle Dog.
The worst breeds according to Coren in regards to trainability are
the Basset Hound, Mastiff, Beagle, Pekingese, Bloodhound, Borzoi,
Chow Chow, Bulldog, Basenji, and Afghan Hound. From the USDAA
web-site the following statistics were gathered for each breed: (1)
the number of dogs registered (e.g. in the sport), having partici-
pated at a USDAA event and (2) the number of dogs awarded metal
medals: gold, silver, or bronze.
2.2. Results
According to the USDAA web-site there are 13,312 registered
dogs from Coren’s highly trainable breeds, whereas there are only
354 registered dogs from Coren’s low trainability breeds. Amongst
these two categories, there were 103 metal medal winners, and
all of these were from the highly trainable breeds. The number
of Coren’s low trainability dogs who reached medal-winner ranks
created cells counts less than 5 (e.g. 0), hence, a 2 tests was inap-
propriate. Instead, a Fisher exact test was conducted to determine
whether the number of Coren’s low and high trainability dogs
reaching medal-winner status were disproportionate given their
relative frequency in agility (i.e. the number of registered dogs)
(Agresti, 1992). In this case the low and high trainability dogs are
being compared as two groups. For champion status the Fisher
exact test (one-tailed) was not statistically significant, P = 0.068.
Given their low representation in agility competitions overall, it
is expected that very few, if any, of Coren’s low trainability breeds
would be represented amongst medal winners.
2.3. Discussion
Given that Coren’s highly trainable breeds are much more likely
to be registered for agility than Coren’s hard to train breeds in the
USDAA, the highly trainable breeds, unsurprisingly, make up all of
the agility metal-winners in comparison to Coren’s low trainability
breeds. Coren’s highly trainable breeds’ odds of being a medal-
winner are not very disproportionate with their relative base-line
frequency in comparison to the low trainability breed group. If lots
of Border Collies, Poodles, and Shetland Sheep dogs are competing,
odds are they will be the winners. These results, of course, do not
enable one to determine whether the breeds are chosen for agility
to begin with for their inherent trainability. Breeds may objectively
differ in agility competitions in their actual performance, which
may lead people to pre-screen potential agility dogs by breed. Peo-
ple may choose to compete with those breeds most successful at
agility and easiest to train. It also is not clear at this point if the
difference could be due to morphological induced differences in
physical performance or differences in the cognitive components
of trainability.
3. Study 2: Performance differences
Coren’s highly trainable breeds are much more represented in
agility competitions, but it remains to be determined whether this
is because these dogs are really more trainable or for some other
reason. In agility faults are given for a number of inappropriate
actions by the dog and for the dog failing to meet the maximum
time set for the course. If the dog exceeds the number of faults
317
allowed, then the dog fails to qualify. Only dogs who qualify are
rated for placement, which is then determined by quickest time.
Thus in agility competitions the emphasis is both on precision, not
faulting, and on speed; overall performance is a mixture of the
two. The top rated dogs need to be both precise and quick. Speed,
however, is partially determined by non-trainable qualities, such
as height and physical build (see Helton, 2007a). Therefore breeds
may differ in overall agility because of morphological differences
not differences in trainability per se. Precision (faults) is, however,
scored independently in agility from speed and precision has not
been found to be correlated with height (Helton, 2007a). Thus dogs
of Coren’s different trainability groups can be compared in actual
competitions separately for their precision, which is presumably a
much better indicator or metric of trainability, and for their speed,
which is more likely to reflect morphological differences.
In Study 2 the agility precision performance of different train-
ability breed groups was investigated using results collected from
an actual agility competition held at an American Kennel Club
event. If some breeds are really more trainable than other breeds
then it would be expected that they would differ in their actual
levels of achieved agility precision. On the other hand, if breeds are
not really more trainable than others then you would expect breed
groups to be approximately the same in their levels of precision. If
some breeds are perceived to be more trainable than other breeds
because their morphology enables them to be physically quick, then
it would be expected that they would differ in their agility speed,
not precision.
3.1. Methods
Participants were 143 dogs performing in an agility competition
at the Queen City Dog Training Club (QCDTC) in Cincinnati, OH,
USA, an American Kennel Club (AKC) affiliated center. The QCTDC is
recognized as a premiere American agility training facility and has
produced a number of agility champions. The numbers of dogs of
different breeds are presented in Table 1. The dogs competed at the
training club in an agility competition held over 3 days. The QCTDC
is a 9600 ft.2 climate controlled building with anti-slip matting built
especially for the sport of agility. The dogs competed in full agility
courses consisting of all obstacle types. All dogs completed at least
two runs on two separate days. An experienced AKC course-setter
arranged the obstacles for each session.
In this study, performance measures were assessed from the
dogs’ runs for precision (faults) and speed. In agility, faults are given
for a number of inappropriate actions by the dog. Four different
types of faults can be distinguished:
1. Refusals/runouts (R) – a refusal is when a dog starts towards an
obstacle and ceases forward movement. A runout is when the
dog passes the plane of the next correct obstacle.
2. Wrong course (W) – a wrong course is when a dog engages any
obstacle that is not the next one in the correct sequence, or enters
the correct obstacle the wrong way.
3. Table (T) – a table fault is when a dog leaves the table zone
prematurely.
4. Obstacle failure (O) – an obstacle failure is given when the dog
fails to perform on an obstacle, for example, not touching contact
zones or knocking bars on jumps.
These faults were determined by AKC-qualified agility judges
who were blind to the purpose of the study. As is typical in the
sport of agility, a primary ring judge determined the faults. Other
judges were present and could be queried about unclear cases;
none, however, occurred. The faults were summed for each dog
and divided by the total number of runs the dog ran. A constant
(1) was added to these values and they were inverted (1/(x + 1)) to
318 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323

Table 1
Breed numbers.

Breed N Breed N Breed N

Elite dogs
Australian Cattle Dog 2 German Shepherd 2 Shetland Sheepdog 18
Belgian Malinois 1 Min. Schnauzer 5 Spaniel (Cocker) 3
Border Collie 14 Papillon 6 Spaniel (English Springer) 1
Collie 2 Poodle 9 Standard Schnauzer 2
Doberman Pinscher 2 Retriever (Flat Coated) 2 Vizsla 1
English Cocker 1 Retriever (Golden) 8 Welsh Corgi 6
English Springer 1 Retriever (Labrador) 8

Other dogs
Australian Shepherd 8 Dalmatian 4 Retriever (Curly Coated) 1
Basset Hound 1 Fox Terrier 1 Rhodesian 2
Bearded Collie 1 Havanese 2 Scottish Terrier 2
Boxer 2 Maltese 1 Setter (Gordon) 2
Cairn Terrier 2 Min. Pinscher 1 Shih Tzu 4
Cavalier King 3 Norwegian Buhund 1 Spaniel (Welsh) 1
Chihuahua 1 Parson Russell 2 West Highland White 2
Dachshund 1 Retriever (Chesapeake) 1 Yorkshire Terrier 3

ensure normality (Kirk, 1995). A higher value reflects more preci-

sion. Speed was the average time for a run, regardless of number
of faults made during the course. The speed of each run was calcu-
lated by dividing the distance of the course measured in meters
by the time of the run measured in seconds (m/s). Course time
was measured using Signature Gear©electronic timers. These elec-
tronic timers are specifically designed for agility competitions and
are accurate to 1 ms. The data were analyzed using SPSS v 17.0 (SPSS
Inc., SPSS Inc., Headquarters, Chicago, IL).

3.2. Results

The breeds were combined into two groups based on their

respective representation in the sample and Coren’s (1994) rec- Fig. 1. The mean precision levels for the two trainability groups for the four types
ommendations. As Coren points out the actual ranks may not of faults (error bars are standard errors).
be particularly useful for deciding which dogs are more train-
able than others, instead he groups breeds. Border Collies while
ranked higher than Poodles in trainability in his sample may not that in some cases dog breeds regarded as being lower in trainabil-
in fact differ much, but together they may differ markedly from ity are actually slightly more precise than dogs regarded as being
Afghan and Basset Hounds. Coren’s 31-top ranked breeds, which higher in trainability. Dogs from the Coren trainability groups do,
he refers to as the “brightest” and “excellent working dogs” were however, significantly differ in regards to speed. As is displayed
grouped into an Elite Dog or high trainability group (N = 94), and in Fig. 2, those dogs from breeds ranked as elite in trainability are
all other dogs were grouped into a Other Dog or lower trainability faster than those dogs from breeds ranking lower in trainability.
group (N = 49). This approach was used because the lower ranked There is a relationship between breed group and speed. While far
breeds in Coren’s ranking are not as well represented at agility from definitive, this provides some evidence that Coren’s rank-
competitions as the higher ranked breeds. A repeated-measures ing of perceived breed trainability is plausibly contaminated by
analysis of variance was conducted to compare the Coren train- the actual physical characteristics of the breeds (e.g. differences
ability ranks for the four precision metrics as they are all measured
on the same relative metric. The mean results are presented in
Fig. 1 (error bars are standard errors of the mean). There was a
statistically significant effect for precision type, F(3, 423) = 81.70,
P < 0.001, 2p = 0.37. Neither trainability ranks, F (1, 141) = 1.36,
P = 0.246, nor the trainability rank by precision type interaction, F
(3, 423) = 0.87, P = 0.459, however, were statistically significant. An
analysis of variance was conducted to compare the Coren trainabil-
ity ranks for speed (m/s). The mean results are presented in Fig. 2
(error bars are standard errors of the mean). There was a statisti-
cally significant effect for breed groups, F(1, 141) = 3.94, P = 0.049,
2p = 0.03.

3.3. Discussion

Dogs from Coren’s elite breeds did not significantly differ in

regards to agility precision from the other breeds. In all cases, the
two groups appear to be very close in observed performance, as Fig. 2. The mean speed levels (m/s) for the two trainability groups (error bars are
is displayed in Fig. 1. A visual inspection of Fig. 1 actually reveals standard errors).
 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323 319

in physical morphology). These data do not, however, address the
question of whether dogs in Coren’s rankings differ in their ease
of learning. Perhaps, with substantial effort, dogs from breeds con-
sidered to be lower in trainability can be made to perform as well
as high trainable dogs. In order to determine whether this is the
case, an estimate of the amount of training effort would need to be
collected.
4. Study 3: Time to mastery
The results of Study 2 were not decisive in determining whether
Coren’s (1994) highly trainable or elite breeds are easier to train
than Coren’s low trainability breeds. In an actual agility com-
petition, there does not seem to be any difference in Coren’s
differently ranked breeds in terms of precision or making faults;
these groups do differ in their speed. It remains to be determined,
however, whether handlers of low trainability breeds compensate
by expending more training effort towards their dogs in regards
to precision. As Coren (1994, p. 180) states, “Good trainers can do
a lot with any breed of dog; they just find the job much easier if
they start with one that has high working and obedience intelli-
gence.”
In Study 3 the agility precision performance of different train-
ability breed groups was investigated using results collected from a
sample of dogs competing at an agility event. In addition, the han-
dlers/trainers of these dogs were asked to fill out a questionnaire
on the amount of training their dogs have received (accumulated
hours of agility practice). If some breeds are really more trainable
than other breeds then it would be expected that there would be an
interaction between the trainability of the breed and the amount
of practice accumulated. Dogs of highly trainable breeds should
need less practice to achieve the precision of less trainable dogs.
On the other hand, if breeds are not really more trainable than
others then you would expect this interaction to be insignificant.
This analysis was also conducted for agility speed for comparative
purposes.
4.1. Methods
Participants were 37 dogs (23 females and 14 males) and their
handlers. The dogs and handlers were recruited at an event held at
the Queen City Dog Training Club in Cincinnati, OH, as in Study 2.
The dogs consisted of an Australian Cattle Dog, an Australian Shep-
herd, a Basset Hound, a Bearded Collie, a Belgian Tervuren, 2 Border
Collies, 2 Dalmatians, a Doberman Pinscher, a Flatcoated Retriever,
a Golden Retriever, a Gordon Setter, a Greyhound, a Havanese, 2
From this detailed 4-page questionnaire total accumulated hours
of agility specific practice could be calculated, which ranged from
7.3 to 1396.9 h (M = 375.9, SD = 306.5).
The dogs were assessed in an actual competitive event held at
the QCDTC over 3 days. The dogs competed in at least 2 runs. In this
study, both precision and speed was accessed. To calculate preci-
sion, all faults, aside from time faults, were summed for each dog
and divided by the total number of runs the dog ran. A constant
(1) was added to these values and they were inverted (1/(x + 1))
to ensure normality. A higher value reflects more precision. Speed
was the average time for a run, regardless of number of faults made
during the course. The speed of each run was calculated by dividing
the distance of the course measured in meters by the time of the
run measured in seconds (m/s). The data were analyzed using SPSS
v 17.0 (SPSS Inc., SPSS Inc. Headquarters, Chicago, IL).
4.2. Results
As was done in Study 2, the dogs were grouped by breed into two
trainability groups: Elite (N = 25), and Other (N = 12). A hierarchical
regression analysis was performed to test the relative role of each
of the individual differences on precision. Prior to the regression
analysis the dogs’ accumulated practice hours were square root
transformed as recommended to ensure normality (Kirk, 1995);
a square root transformation of accumulated practice hours was
also performed because of previous findings in the skill litera-
ture suggesting a learning power law (Anderson, 1982; Ericsson
et al., 1993; Helton, 2007a). In this case the sex variable was
dummy coded 1 = female and 0 = male. The dogs were separated
into two breed groups, using Coren’s rankings, the elite working
breeds (Coren, dummy coded = 0) and other working breeds (Coren,
dummy coded = 1). In the first step of the regression the dogs’ ages,
heights, sexes, and accumulated hours of practice were entered into
the equation to determine the effect of these characteristics on pre-
cision. In the second step of the regression the dogs’ Coren group
membership were entered into the equation to determine the
impact of this variable on precision. In a third step, the interaction
terms between Coren group membership and accumulated hours of
practice were entered into the equation. The results of these models
are displayed in Table 2. For precision, the inclusion of breed group
and a breed group by practice time interaction did not lead to statis-
tically significant changes in the amount of variance accounted for
by the model, R2 , for step 1 to step 2, Fchange (1, 31) = 0.34, P = 0.565,
Table 2
Hierarchical regression analyses (N = 37).

Labrador Retrievers, 2 Miniature Poodles, a Norwegian Buhund, a Precision Speed

Papillon, 4 Shetland Sheepdogs, a Shih Tzu, a Springer Spaniel, a
R2
ˇ P R2 ˇ P
Standard Poodle, 3 Schnauzers, a Vizzla, 3 Welsh Corgis, and 2 York-
shire Terriers, raging in age from 1.5 years to 9 years (M = 4.7 years, Step1 0.49 0.45
Age 0.17 0.36 −0.06 0.76
SD = 2.1 years). The dogs varied in height measured at the shoul-
Sex 0.17 0.20 −0.06 0.65
der between 22.7 cm and 73.7 cm (M = 45.2 cm, SD = 13.2 cm). The Height −0.12 0.39 0.53 0.00
dogs ranged in competitive abilities and experience from novices Practice 0.47 0.01 0.44 0.02
to national-level competitors. The handlers were, however, regard- Step 2 0.49 0.46
less of their dog’s current level, all experienced handlers who had Age 0.18 0.34 −0.04 0.85
competed previously at the excellent level in agility. Sex 0.16 0.25 −0.08 0.57
The dog’s handlers were asked to complete a questionnaire Height −0.13 0.38 0.52 0.00
Practice 0.49 0.01 0.48 0.02
adapted from Hodges et al. (2004) and used previously in agility
Coren −0.08 0.57 −0.13 0.38
(Helton, 2007a). The questionnaire had three sections. The first sec-
tion obtained biographical information pertaining to the dog’s age Step 3 0.50 0.54
Age 0.16 0.40 0.03 0.88
and pervious successes in the sport. The second section obtained Sex 0.20 0.19 −0.22 0.14
training information, on the number of hours spent a week in var- Height −0.13 0.36 0.55 0.00
ious training activities. The third section obtained training-history Practice 0.43 0.04 0.68 0.00
information. The handlers were asked to give retrospective prac- Coren −0.34 0.41 −0.71 0.08
PracticexCoren 0.31 0.50 −1.00 0.03
tice estimates from the most resent to the oldest period of time.
320 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323

and step 2 to step 3, Fchange (1, 30) = 0.46, P = 0.504. Practice time was
statistically significant in the precision model in step 1. Fig. 3 dis-
plays the linear relationships between practice time (square root)
and precision for the three breed groups. For speed, the inclusion
of breed group did not result in a statistically significant change in
the amount of variance accounted for by the model, R2 , for step 1
to step 2, Fchange (1, 31) = 0.80, P = 0.377. The inclusion of the breed
group by practice time interaction did lead to statistically signifi-
cant change in the amount of variance accounted for by the model,
step 2 to step 3, Fchange (1, 30) = 5.05, P = 0.032. Practice time and
height were statistically significant in the speed model in step 1.
The interaction between practice time and breed group was signif-
icant in Model 3 (see Table 2). Fig. 4 displays the linear relationships
between practice time (square root) and speed for the two breed
groups.

4.3. Discussion

As in Study 2, dogs from the Coren trainability groups (elite and

other) did not significantly differ in regards to agility precision.
Furthermore, the interaction between breed group and amount of
training time was insignificant, P > 0.05. The findings are sugges-
tive of there not being a strong relationship between breed group
and trainability. While the study could be criticized for low power,
as the sample size may have been low, the analysis was sensitive
enough to detect a sizeable relationship between training time and
precision in model 1 (see Table 2). Indeed, the same analysis con-
ducted for agility speed, demonstrated that the interaction step,
step 3, was statistically significant, P = 0.03, and within that model,
the interaction terms between group and training were signifi-
cant, even when dog height (which was significant) was statistically
controlled. This suggests that a limiting factor for performance for
the non-elite breeds is speed. The significant correlation between
height and speed already detected in this analysis suggests the
plausibility of physical, morphological, explanations of these speed
breed differences.
Fig. 3. The linear relationships between precision and accumulated practice hours
(square root) for the two trainability groups.
Fig. 4. The linear relationships between speed (m/s) and accumulated practice hours
(square root) for the two trainability groups.
5. Study 4: Breed physical differences
Although the preceding results of Studies 2 and 3 are far from
definitive, the evidence from these reported studies is unsupportive
overall of there being substantial trainability differences amongst
Coren’s (1994) breed groups, at least in regards to the sport of
agility. When actual agility precision is compared between elite
and other breeds there are no significant differences, as in Study
2. When trainers are asked to report exactly how much time they
train their dogs for agility, as in Study 3, these two breed groups do
not significantly differ in the amount of training time necessary to
achieve mastery in regards to precision. The results of Studies 2 and
3 are more suggestive of differences in breed agility performance
being due to differences in speed than differences in precision.
Speed is important not only in agility, but in any assessment of
canine performance. When training dogs undoubtedly those who
can quickly execute commands will be noticed as “good” learners,
even if the quickness of their actions has little to do with their actual
learning abilities.
Breed differences in physical characteristics are indisputable
and these relate to differences in speed (Helton, 2007a). Coren’s
breed groups do, moreover, differ in regards to performance rel-
evant morphological characteristics. In a recent study, Helton
(2009b) found a relationship between dog skull shape and Coren’s
breed ranking. Dogs can be roughly classified by their cephalic
index (the ratio of skull length to width). Those dog breeds ranked
high in trainability have moderate cephalic indices relative to other
dogs; they tend to be at neither extreme of a very wide, short skull,
like a bulldog, or a very long, narrow skull, like a greyhound. The
unspecialized physical shapes of these dog breeds perceived to be
highly trainable may give them a physical advantage for many tasks.
Skull geometry correlates with other skeletal features (Alpak et al.,
2004). In order to further probe the relationship between perceived
trainability and morphology, an obvious characteristic, height, was
compared for the 2 groups of breeds used in Studies 2 and 3. While
height is partially controlled for in agility by differentially setting
the heights of the obstacles for different height classes (as in human
 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323
Fig. 5. The relative distributions of elite and other dog breeds’ standard heights
(cm).
sports like boxing and wrestling with different weight classes),
the dogs still need to cover ground and need to be maneuverable.
Other researchers have found functional trade-offs in maneuver-
ability and top attainable speeds for terrestrial and aerial animals
(Biewener, 2003). Relatively smaller animals are more maneuver-
able, but also sacrifice the top-speeds of larger animals. As in the
case of Helton (2009b) for skull shape, Coren’s more highly rated
dogs are predicted to be generic dogs with average characteristics,
not morphological specialists.
5.1. Materials and methods
Breed standards for height were gathered from the web-site of
the United States American Kennel Club (AKC; www.akc.com) for
dog breeds ranked by Coren. The elite trainability group consisted
of 31 breeds. The other, non-elite, trainability group consisted of
101 breeds. These heights are breed standards, not empirically
generated averages. The heights represent the ideal height of a
representative of the breed as determined by the AKCs breeders.
5.2. Results
The hypothesis that breeds perceived to be more highly train-
able are more homogenous around the average of breed heights,
whereas breeds perceived to be less trainable dogs are a het-
erogeneous mixture of heights, was tested with Levene’s Median
test for equality of variance for the ideal breed heights and was
confirmed, F(1, 130) = 3.98, P = 0.048. The mean of breed standard
heights was 47.07 cm. Breeds perceived to be highly trainable, or
elite, deviated less from the overall mean (Mean Absolute Differ-
ence = 11.89 cm, SD = 6.47) than dogs of breeds perceived to be less
trainable (MAD = 14.93 cm, SD = 8.37). See Fig. 5 for the relative dis-
tribution of height for the two groups.
5.3. Discussion
Breeds perceived as highly trainable, or elite, conform to a more
uniform height ideal, closer to the mean of all breed standards
sampled, than other, non-elite breeds. Elite breeds are, however,
typically slightly taller than average amongst breeds. Non-elite
breeds, those lower in perceived trainability, are much more het-
erogeneous, consisting of very tall and very short dog breeds (see
Fig. 5). These findings confirm a general inspection of Coren’s rank-
321
ings. The very elite breeds in terms of trainability in Coren’s ranking
are the Border Collie, Poodle, German Shepherd, Golden Retriever,
Doberman Pinscher, Shetland Sheepdog, Labrador Retriever, Papil-
lon, Rottweiler, and Australian Cattle Dog. Other than the Papillon
and, perhaps, the Shetland Sheepdog, these are all moderately large
dogs, although none of them are giants. Even the Papillon and Shet-
land Sheepdog are taller for small sized dogs. In terms of all the
possible shapes of breeds of dogs, they look similar. The very worst
breeds according to Coren in regards to trainability are the Bas-
set Hound, Mastiff, Beagle, Pekingese, Bloodhound, Borzoi, Chow
Chow, Bulldog, Basenji, and Afghan Hound. These dogs are a com-
pletely heterogeneous mixture of shapes and heights, with the
Pekingese on one end and the Mastiff or Afghan Hound on the other.
Height may matter for perceived trainability. First, training dogs
requires a degree of handler–dog interaction and dog height may
facilitate or impair this interaction. Smaller dogs are further from
the human handler’s reach and reaching them requires more effort.
Extremely large dogs, the giants, however, are harder for a human
handler to physically manipulate. Second, height reflects a biome-
chanical compromise between highest speed attainable (stride
length) and maneuverability (Biewener, 2003). Dogs that can carry
out commands quickly, while still being maneuverable, could be
noted as trainable dogs.
6. Overall discussion
Although this initial series of studies is far from definitive, the
evidence from these reported studies is unsupportive overall of
there being substantial trainability differences amongst Coren’s
(1994) breed groups, at least in regards to the sport of agility. First,
breeds perceived to be highly trainable are not disproportionably
represented as agility champions when the raw numbers of par-
ticipants from those breeds in the activity are actually considered.
The breeds considered lowest in trainability are undoubtedly rare in
agility competitions, but this may be due to physical limitations, not
learning ability limitations. Second, when actual agility precision is
compared between perceived elite and other breed groups there
are no significant differences. Third, when trainers are asked to
report exactly how much time they train their dogs for agility, elite
breeds do not significantly differ in the amount of training time nec-
essary to achieve mastery in regards to precision as other breeds.
There were very similar relationships between practice time and
precision for the two breed groups (see Fig. 3).
These results are generally in agreement with the conclusions
of Scott and Fuller (1965, p. 258) who after a long series cognitive
tests conducted on Basenjis, Beagles, Cocker Spaniels, Fox Terriers,
and Shetland Sheepdogs stated, “. . .we can conclude that all breeds
show about the same average level of performance in problem solv-
ing, provided they can be adequately motivated, provided physical
differences and handicaps do not affect the tests, and provided inter-
fering emotional reactions such as fear can be eliminated.” These
results also support the findings of Pongracz et al. (2004) who failed
to find breed differences in the ability to learn a detour task from
human demonstrators. This does not mean breeds do not differ in
occupational skill aptitudes, as physical qualities, like height and
body build are well accepted genetically influenced parameters in
skills (Coppinger and Coppinger, 2001). Dogs with longer, lighter
legs, for example, tend to run faster than dogs with shorter legs and
leg length is under significant genetic influence (Helton, 2007a).
This is presumably why in canine racing sports long-legged breeds,
such as Greyhounds, dominate. Even within a breed genetics influ-
ences physical characteristics, for example, Mosher et al. (2007)
have demonstrated that faster whippets are more likely to carry one
copy of a mutation in the myostatin gene which results in greater
muscularity than slower racing whippets or whippets that do not
322 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323
race. Coppinger and Coppinger (2001) also demonstrated how in
the sport of sled racing there is a limited range of dog body sizes
that are efficient given the thermal constraints of the task, too large
a body retains too much heat and too small a body retains too little
heat.
In a recent study, Helton (2009b) found a relationship between
dog skull shape and Coren’s breed ranking. Dog breeds ranked high
in trainability have moderate cephalic indices relative to other dogs.
In Study 4 of the present paper, dog breeds ranked high in train-
ability also appear to be of moderate height. These elite dogs are
typically tall, but not overly tall; they are definitely not giant breeds,
which tend to rank low in perceived trainability. In conjunction
with Helton’s (2009b) finding regarding head shape and perceived
trainability, the present findings suggest that dogs perceived to be
high in trainability are the Goldilocks’ dogs: standing tall, but not
too tall, neither too wide nor too narrow, but just right. The unspe-
cialized physical shapes of these dog breeds perceived to be highly
trainable may give them physical advantages for many tasks, as
they reflect biomechanical compromises. While moderately shaped
dogs may not be the best runners or the best fighters, they are
reliable all-around dogs: fast and agile, while still being robust.
The present findings in regards to agility speed differences
amongst Coren’s breed groups suggests that differences in phys-
ical characteristics may be a more plausible explanation for the
perceived differences in trainability than differences in breed’s
respective cognitive capabilities. If speed matters, then a reason-
able question may be why some dog breeds rank low on Coren’s
relative scale, even though they are extremely fast, in particular the
sight-hounds, one of which, the Afghan hound, is ranked the low-
est breed overall in trainability. The problem is the sight-hounds
are extreme specialists, built for flat-out running in relatively open
terrain. They are likely to have compromised maneuverability for
speed and they are not ruggedly built (see Kemp et al., 2005).
Because they have relatively low distal limb bone mass com-
pared to other dogs, they would be more likely to sustain injuries,
for example, when being kicked, stepping into a depression, or
falling off an obstacle. Extreme dog height (relative leg length) may
become disadvantageous when negotiating obstacles, as it may
limit maneuverability.
The studies presented here do suffer, however, from limitations.
First, because dogs from breeds of relatively low perceived train-
ability are rarer in agility than dogs from breeds considered high
in trainability, those low trainability dogs in agility may be atyp-
ical for their breeds. This issue needs to be addressed in future
studies. Nevertheless, even if this is the case, it would not elimi-
nate the clear speed and physical differences between the breed
groups presented here. Second, the results of this study cannot,
of course, rule out differences in cognitive trainability or working
intelligence amongst dog breeds, as breed was not experimentally
tested in these studies. The results of this study do, however, sug-
gest that when experts or other people rate dogs for a quality like
trainability, they are likely to include differences in physical quali-
ties in these judgments. There clearly are differences in dog breeds’
perceived trainability. These perceptions are, furthermore, highly
reliable. The present results at least present a plausible perspec-
tive that when people rate dogs for their perceived trainability they
use physical qualities, which are perceptually obvious. Dogs may
serve as a less controversial, but still useful, means to study bias,
discrimination, and social cognition in humans (Kwan et al., 2008).
Understanding how dogs are perceived by people and classified
may have practical implications for the working dog community.
The preponderance of dogs used in humanitarian land mine detec-
tion, for example, come from traditional military-law enforcement
working breeds, such as German Shepherds, Belgian Shepherds,
and Labrador Retrievers, despite the advantages smaller dogs, such
as Jack Russell Terriers or Beagles, would have for that assignment:
namely their lesser likelihood of detonating a land mine due to
their decreased weight. No studies have confirmed that the tradi-
tional military-law enforcement breeds are actually better at the
task or quicker to train for the task. Both Beagles and Jack Russell
Terriers are used in other search tasks, namely the search for inva-
sive species and agricultural products (see Helton, 2009a), which
should lead one to question the current preference for larger “work-
ing” breeds for mine detection. The preference of dogs for landmine
detection and, perhaps, many other working tasks may be based on
physical search features employed in the handler community and
passed on by tradition. “When looking for X-type of dog, look for
these physical qualities.” Perhaps handlers in these fields do not see
certain dog breeds as fit for these duties because they traditionally
searched for particular physical qualities, for example, the ability to
protect the handler (which in a humanitarian context is no longer
necessary). This is at least worth investigating, as it may be that
these traditional search features are no longer appropriate in some
settings.
On the other hand, we should also realize that when assess-
ing dogs for duties in the real world, separating cognition from
physical abilities is not easy. Experts may not be misguided when
stating that some breeds are more trainable than others for a task or
even more trainable overall (as in more morphologically generic),
regardless of whether breeds differ or not on more physically neu-
tral tests of cognitive abilities. Handlers may simply be using a
quick, intuitive heuristic for picking the dogs best suited for par-
ticular tasks due to their breed dependent physical qualities. The
handlers may simply label this as trainability (as in suitability).
Physical qualities and dog morphology do matter for real world
performance (Coppinger and Coppinger, 2001).
Greater sensitivity to obvious physical differences may also
improve behavioural research on animals, and particularly,
research on dogs. A case in point is a recent paper by Wobber et al.
(2009) investigating breed differences in the ability of dogs to use
human communicative visual signals to locate hidden food. In their
study, they compared four breeds: Siberian Huskies, Shepherds
(Belgian and German), Basenjis, and Toy Poodles. Their first objec-
tive was to test whether being genetically closer to wolves, which
recent genetic research indicates Siberian Huskies and Basenjis are
in comparison to Shepherds and Poodles, influences dog perfor-
mance in their communication paradigm. Their second objective
was to test whether being bred to work with people, which
they argued based on breed organizations’ classifications Siberi-
ans Huskies and Shepherds are in comparison to Toy Poodles and
Basenjis, influences dog performance in their paradigm. They did
find that Siberian Huskies and Shepherds had better performance
than Toy Poodles or Basenjis and argued that being bred to work
with people may have selected for improved communication abil-
ities in some dog breeds. Of course, an obvious issue in this study
and its interpretation is the complete confound of physical size
with their being bred-to-work-with-people factor. Shepherds and
huskies are obviously physically larger than Basenjis or Toy Poo-
dles. Larger dogs are likely to have greater inter-ocular distances
and may have altered degrees of ocular overlap as their skulls are
larger and, perhaps, differently shaped. Greater inter-ocular dis-
tances should increase depth perception and may thereby, improve
the dog’s ability to detect visual cues. The difference Wobber et
al. found may be entirely due to differences in skull morphology
and size, not to breed differences in supposed cognitive abilities.
This is not a particular criticism of Wobber et al., but a trap many
cognitive-oriented researchers may fall into. Presumably in the real
world, there are no tasks where physical differences and handicaps
do not affect the task, and we should be very sensitive to this pos-
sibility. Whenever differences within animal species or between
species are found, our first goal should be to look for an obvious
(or even non-obvious) physical explanation. Only after all these
 W.S. Helton / Behavioural Processes 83 (2010) 315–323
physical possibilities have been eliminated should we speculate on
cognitive differences.
References
Agresti, A., 1992. A survey of exact inference for contegency tables. Stat. Sci. 7,
131–153.
Alpak, H., Mutus, R., Onar, V., 2004. Correlation analysis of the skull and long bone
measurements of the dog. Ann. Anat. 186, 323–330.
Anderson, J.R., 1982. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psych. Rev. 89, 369–406.
Biewener, A.A., 2003. Animal Locomotion. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Coppinger, R., Coppinger, L., 2001. Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine
Origins, Behavior and Evolution. Scribner, New York.
Coren, S., 1994. The Intelligence of Dogs. Bantam, New York.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R., Tesch-Romer, C., 1993. The role of deliberate practice in
the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev. 100, 363–406.
Frank, H., Frank, M.G., 1985. Comparative manipulation-test performance in ten-
week-old wolves (Canis lupus) and Alaskan Malamutes (Canis familiaris): a
Piagetian interpretation. J. Comp. Psychol. 99, 266–274.
Gagnon, S., Dore, F.Y., 1992. Search behavior in various breeds of adult dog (Canis
familiaris): object permanence and olfactory cues. J. Comp. Psychol. 106, 58–68.
Helton, W.S., 2007a. Deliberate practice in dogs: a canine model of expertise. J. Gen.
Psychol. 134, 247–257.
Helton, W.S., 2007b. Skill in expert dogs. J. Exp. Psychol.-Appl. 13, 171–178.
Helton, W.S. (Ed.), 2009a. Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs. Taylor
and Francis, New York.
Helton, W.S., 2009b. Cephalic index and percieved dog trainability. Behav. Process
82, 355–358.
Hodges, N.J., Starkes, J.L., Kerr, T., Weir, P.L., Nananidou, A., 2004. Predicting perfor-
mance times from delibrate practice hours for triathletes and swimmers: what,
when, and where is practice important. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 10, 219–237.
Iron, D.N., Schaffer, A.L., Famula, R., Eggleston, M.L., Hughes, S.S., Pedersen, N.C., 2003.
Analysis of genetic variation in 28 dog breed populations with 100 microsatellite
markers. J. Heredity 94, 81–87.
323
Kemp, T.J., Bachus, K.N., Nairn, J.A., Carrier, D.R., 2005. Functional trade-offs in
the limb bones of dogs selected for running versus fighting. J. Exp. Biol. 208,
3475–3482.
Kirk, R.E., 1995. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd
ed. Wadsworth, Pacific Grove, CA.
Kwan, V.S.Y., Gosling, S.D., John, O.P., 2008. Anthropomorphism as a special case of
social perception: a cross-species social relations model analysis of humans and
dogs. Soc. Cognit. 26, 129–142.
Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics 33, 159–174.
Ley, J.M., Bennett, P.C., Coleman, G.J., 2009. A refinement and validation of the
Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire (MCPQ). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116,
220–227.
Miklosi, A., 2007. Dog: Behaviour, evolution, and cognition. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Mosher, D.S., Quignon, P., Bustamante, C.D., Sutter, N.B., Mellersh, C.S., Parker, H.G.,
Ostrander, E.A., 2007. A mutation in the myostatin gene increases muscle mass
and enhances racing performance in heterozygote dogs. Public Libr. Sci.: Genet.
5, 779–786.
Pongracz, P., Miklosi, A., Vida, V., Csanyi, V., 2004. The pet dogs ability for learning
from a human demonstrator in a detour task is independent from breed and age.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 50, 309–323.
Rooney, N.J., Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2004. Breed and sex differences in the behavioural
attributes of specialist search dogs—a questionnaire survey of trainers and han-
dlers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 86, 123–135.
Scott, J.P., Fuller, J.L., 1965. Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. Chicago
University Press, Chicago, IL.
Serprell, J.A., Hsu, Y., 2005. Effects of breed, sex, and neuter status on trainability in
dogs. Anthrozoos 18, 196–207.
Warden, C.J., Warner, L.H., 1928. The sensory capacities and intelligence of dogs, with
a report on the ability of the noted dog “Fellow” to respond to verbal stimuli. Q.
Rev. Biology 3, 1–28.
Wobber, V., Hare, B., Koler-Matznick, J., Wrangham, R., Tomasello, M., 2009. Breed
differences in domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) comprehension of human com-
municative signals. Interact. Stud. 10, 206–224.