Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Deborah L. Wells
, Peter G. Hepper
Animal Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queens University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5BN, Northern Ireland, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 March 2012
Received in revised form 29 May 2012
Accepted 31 May 2012
Available online 27 June 2012
Keywords:
Aggression
Dog ownership
Pet-keeping
Personality
Psychoticism
a b s t r a c t
The relationship between pet-keeping and owner personality has attracted considerable attention. Little
focus, however, has been directed towards the personality of pet owners in relation to the type of pet
owned. This study therefore explored the personality of pet owners in relation to the type of dog breed
owned, focusing specically on owners of breeds widely considered to be aggressive versus those more
generally perceived as non-aggressive. One hundred and forty seven owners of aggressive (German
shepherd dogs, Rottweilers) or non-aggressive (Labrador retrievers, Golden retrievers) dog breeds com-
pleted the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire short scale. Breed of dog owned was signicantly related to
owners psychoticism scores, with people who kept aggressive dogs having signicantly higher scores
on this trait than owners of non-aggressive dogs. Dog breed ownership was not signicantly related to
neuroticism, extraversion or lie scale scores, although male owners of aggressive dogs were found to be
signicantly less neurotic than women who kept aggressive or non-aggressive dogs. Overall, ndings
suggest that there is a signicant relationship between dog breed ownership and specic personality
traits, with owners of breeds widely considered to be aggressive harbouring more psychotic tendencies
than people who choose to keep dogs with a reputedly less aggressive temperament.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Pet-keeping is a widespread and well-accepted phenomenon in
todays society. As a nation of self-confessed animal lovers, the
British public now share their homes with over 8 million cats
and 8 million dogs (Pet Food Manufacturers Association, 2011).
These companion animals can play an enormous role in their own-
ers lives. As well as providing a source of companionship, support
and entertainment, there is now substantial evidence to suggest
that such animals may be able to promote their owners health
(for reviews see Wells, 2007, 2009, 2011).
Many variables can inuence an individuals propensity to own a
pet, e.g. age, type of accommodation, nancial status. Another
potentially important factor, however, is that of personality a
unique set of relatively stable characteristics, or traits, that inu-
ence numerous facets of functioning, ranging from cognitions
through to behaviours (e.g. Jones & Gosling, 2000). Over the years,
a plethora of assessment tools has been used to compare the traits
of pet owners and non-owners in a bid to establish whether people
who keep pets are somehow different to those that opt not to (for
reviews see Gosling, Carson, & Potter, 2010; Podberscek & Gosling,
2000). Several authors have reported signicant individual differ-
ences between the two cohorts, with pet owners being more
sociable (Joubert, 1987), self-sufcient (Kidd & Feldman, 1981),
socially sensitive (Hyde, Kurdek, & Larson, 1983), psychotic
(Parslow, Jorm, Christensen, Rodgers, & Jacomb, 2005), less neurotic
(Paden-Levy, 1985) and less independent (Guttmann, 1981) than
non-owners. Other studies, meanwhile, have shown no signicant
differences between pet owners and non-owners for traits includ-
ing extraversion (Cameron & Mattson, 1972; Johnson & Rule,
1991), dominance (Perrine & Osbourne, 1998) and self-acceptance
(Martinez & Kidd, 1980).
As an extension of the above, some efforts have been made to
compare the personalities of owners of different species of animal,
focusing in particular on dog versus cat ownership. Again, some,
although not all (e.g. Podberscek & Gosling, 2000; Johnson & Rule,
1991; Martinez & Kidd, 1980) of these studies point to a personal-
ity difference between people who prefer dogs and cats, at least on
certain traits, e.g. extraversion (Edelson & Lester, 1983), neuroti-
cism (Gosling & Bonnenburg, 1998), masculinity, independence
(Perrine & Osbourne, 1998).
As might be expected, personality differences are more likely to
emerge the more unusual the type of pet owned. Thus, Kidd, Kelley,
and Kidd (1984) found owners of horses to be low in warmth and
nurturance, owners of turtles to be hard-working and reliable,
while people who kept snakes to be unconventional and prone to
seeking novelty. More recently, Hergovich, Mauerer, and Riemer
(2011) found signicant differences in the personality traits of
owners of traditional, pets (dogs and cats) versus those of less
commonly owned cold-blooded exotic pets (sh, reptiles, spi-
ders/insects), although in line with other studies in this area
0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.038
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 28 9097 4386; fax: +44 (0) 28 9097 5486.
E-mail address: d.wells@qub.ac.uk (D.L. Wells).
Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 770773
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ pai d
(e.g. Kidd et al., 1984) found an interactive effect of owner sex. For
example, female owners of dogs and cats scored signicantly lower
on the trait of openness to experience than female owners of cold-
blooded exotics or male owners of dogs or cats.
Despite the longstanding interest in the personality of pet own-
ers, surprisingly little empirical attention has been devoted to
exploring the personality of people in relation to the breed of pet
owned. There are almost 400 breeds of domestic dog from which
to choose (Federation Cynologique Internationale, FCI), each differ-
ing in morphology, perceived status within society, and, of course,
temperament (Svartberg & Forkman, 2002). Exploring the person-
ality of people who choose to own specic breeds of dog may yield
important information. Such research, for example, may shed use-
ful light on the compatibility of specic breeds to certain types of
owner, a factor that may inuence the success of the human
animal partnership (see Coren, 1998). Such work could also help
to elucidate the mechanism of cause and effect in relation to phe-
nomena such as canine behaviour problems, helping to establish
whether owners with certain personality traits are more likely to
induce behaviour problems in their pets, or whether pets with spe-
cic behaviour problems cause people to respond in certain ways,
e.g. become more nervous. For example, OFarrell (1987, 1995) dis-
covered that dog owners higher in the trait of neuroticism were
more likely than those with lower neuroticism scores to have pets
with the behaviour problems of sexual mounting and destruction
upon being left alone at home. In a similar vein, Podberscek and
Serpell (1997) reported that owners of highly aggressive English
cocker spaniels were more likely to be shy, undisciplined, tense
and emotionally less stable than owners of the same breed consid-
ered low in aggression. Finally, research into the personality of
specic dog breed owners may shed light on dispositions for other
personality traits that might also be related to breed ownership,
e.g. psychopathy. For instance, Barnes, Boats, Putnam, Dates, and
Mahlman (2006), and, more recently, Ragatz, Fremouw, Thomas,
and McCoy (2009), discovered that owners of vicious dogs are
signicantly more likely to have engaged in criminal behaviour
than owners of non-aggressive dogs or non-dog owners, and sug-
gested that aggressive dog ownership may be a useful marker of
deviant social behaviour.
The following study aims to examine the relationship between
the personality of dog owners and the breed of their pet to estab-
lish whether certain types of people are prone to choosing certain
types of dog. Given concerns over the ownership of potentially
dangerous dogs (i.e. animals that are reputed to be aggressive)
(Maher & Pierpoint, 2011), the study focuses its attention on own-
ers of breeds that are frequently reported as, or perceived to be,
aggressive, namely the German shepherd dog and Rottweiler
(Podberscek, 1994; Wells, 1996) versus breeds of dog commonly
perceived as non-aggressive, specically the Labrador retriever
and Golden retriever (Wells, 1996). The study seeks to establish
whether owners of aggressive dogs differ signicantly in their
personality to those of non-aggressive dogs, shedding light on
whether dog breed ownership is related to recognisable individual
traits.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
One hundred and forty seven adults (39 men, 108 women) par-
ticipated in the study. Participants were recruited from 3 dog obe-
dience training classes in Northern Ireland, UK. People were only
considered eligible for participation if they were the owner of:
(1) one of the breeds under scrutiny (German shepherd dog,
Rottweiler, Labrador retriever, Golden retriever), (2) owned just 1
type of dog breed, (3) reported themselves to be the primary care-
giver of the animal and (4) were the person responsible for choos-
ing this particular breed.
2.2. Personality survey
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised short scale
(EPQ-R, Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985) was used to assess the
participants personality. Comprising 48 items, the EPQ-R is a
shortened, yet equally reliable (e.g. Barrett & Eysenck, 1992), ver-
sion of the original 90-item EPQ. The EPQ-R comprises 4 scales
(Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychoticism and Lie), each with 12
items, responded to using a simple yes/no scoring system. The
EPQ-R has been used successfully in studies concerned with
assessing the personality of pet owners (e.g. Parslow et al., 2005).
2.3. Procedure
Potential participants were approached by the experimenter at
the start of their weekly dog obedience class and asked if they
would be willing to take part in an investigation aimed at exploring
the personality of dog owners. Those who consented to participate
completed the EPQ-R at some point during the training class and
returned it to the experimenter.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Each of the 4 subscales on the EPQ-R (Extraversion, Neuroticism,
Psychoticism and Lie) was scored according to the authors guide-
lines, reversing items where appropriate. A two-way ANOVA (e.g.
Howell, 1992) for the between-subjects factors of type of dog
(aggressive [i.e. Rottweiler, German shepherd dog], non-aggres-
sive [Labrador retriever, Goldenretriever]) andowner sex(male, fe-
male) was carried out for each subscale score to explore whether
there was a relationship between the various dimensions of owner
personality assessed by the survey and the owners sex and/or breed
of dog kept as a pet.
2.4.1. Ethics
The study was granted full ethical approval by the Ethics Com-
mittee, School of Psychology, Queens University Belfast.
3. Results
3.1. Types of dog
Information on the types of dog kept by the participants is pro-
vided in Table 1. There was no signicant (Fishers Exact test = 0.04,
df = 1, P = 0.85) difference in the percentage of male and female par-
ticipants who owned aggressive and non-aggressive dogs.
3.2. Extraversion
Analysis revealed no signicant effect of dog type
(F[1, 131] = 0.10, P = 0.75) or owner sex (F[1, 131 = 0.005, P = 0.94)
on the participants extraversion scores. There was no signicant
(F[1, 131] = 0.86, P = 0.35) interaction between dog type and owner
sex for this score (Table 2).
3.3. Neuroticism
There was a signicant effect of owner sex on participants neu-
roticism scores (F[1, 138] = 9.25, P = 0.003), with women scoring
more highly on this subscale (mean score = 6.04 0.29) than men
(mean score = 4.33 0.48). This main effect was further explained
D.L. Wells, P.G. Hepper / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 770773 771
by a signicant interaction between owner sex and type of dog
(F[1, 138] = 6.66, P = 0.01). Tukey post-hoc comparisons of the 4
groups showed that male owners of aggressive dogs had signi-
cantly lower neuroticism scores than women who kept aggres-
sive (P = 0.002) or non-aggressive (P = 0.02) dogs (Table 2).
Comparisons between the other groups were not statistically sig-
nicant (P > 0.05). Analysis revealed no signicant main effect of
type of dog on participants neuroticism scores (F[1, 138] = 1.22,
P = 0.27).
3.4. Lie
The ANOVA showed no signicant effect of type of dog
(F[1, 133] = 0.08, P = 0.78), owner sex (F[1, 133] = 1.06, P = 0.30) or
interaction between the two variables (F[1, 333] = 1.10, P = 0.30)
on the participants lie scores (Table 2).
3.5. Psychoticism
The type of dog owned by the participants was signicantly re-
lated to their psychoticismscores (F[1, 133] = 21.98, P < 0.001), with
owners of aggressive breeds having higher scores on this subscale
(mean score = 8.97 0.17) than owners of non-aggressive breeds
(mean score = 7.73 0.20). Psychoticism scores were not signi-
cantly (F[1, 133] = 1.32, P = 0.25) related to the participants sex,
nor was there a signicant interaction (F[1, 133] = 0.80, P = 0.37) be-
tween type of dog or participant sex (Table 2).
4. Discussion
This study examined the personality of different dog breed
owners, focusing specically on breeds widely perceived as
aggressive (German shepherd dog, Rottweiler) versus those more
commonly considered to be non-aggressive(Labrador retriever,
Golden retriever).
The ndings from the study revealed a signicant difference in
the personality of aggressive versus nonaggressive dog breed
owners, although not for all of the traits under scrutiny. Indeed,
the only trait that was found to differ was that of psychoticism,
with aggressive dog breed owners having higher scores on this
trait than their non-aggressive dog-owning counterparts.
Psychoticism is a trait associated with a wide range of characteris-
tics, including propensity to have a psychotic episode (e.g. break
with reality) and a tendency towards greater anger, hostility and
aggression (e.g. Ruzic et al., 2008). This study is the rst of its kind
to show that owners of reputed aggressive dog breeds are more
likely to harbour personality traits associated with aggression than
owners of non-aggressive breeds, although, in a similar vein, Ra-
gatz and colleagues (2009) found that owners of dog breeds la-
belled as vicious (Chow chows, pit bulls, Rottweilers, wolf-
hybrids, Japanese Akitas, Doberman pinschers) scored higher on
traits associated with primary psychopathy (e.g. carelessness, self-
ishness, tendency to be manipulative) than owners of large dogs,
small dogs or non-dog owners.
The other personality traits under examination in this study
(extraversion, neuroticism, lie) did not differ signicantly between
owners of aggressive and non-aggressive dogs. This is interest-
ing as Ragatz and associates (2009) found that vicious dog own-
ers were signicantly higher than non-dog owners on impulsive
sensation-seeking, a trait associated with the extraversion compo-
nent of the Eysenck personality survey. Differences in either the
breeds of dog focused on, or in the personality surveys employed
(EPQ-R versus Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire)
may, at least in part, explain these discrepancies.
The present study unearthed a signicant sex effect for the trait
of neuroticism, with women scoring more highly on this dimension
than men, a nding that conrms earlier work in this area (e.g.
Nash et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2012). Interestingly, there was also
a signicant interaction between sex and type of dog breed owned
for this trait, with male owners of aggressive dogs showing lower
neuroticism scores than female owners of either aggressive or
non-aggressive dogs. Neuroticism is associated with a wide
range of characteristics including anxiety, depression, moodiness
and low self-esteem. One might expect people with high anxiety
to steer away from dog breeds with a reputed aggressive temper-
ament, veering more towards dogs which are easier to manage and
less likely to exasperate a low affect, although why the sex effect
on this trait is still unclear and warrants further investigation.
Recent years have witnessed an increasing concern over the
acquisition of so-called status dogs (e.g. Rottweilers, Akitas), fear-
ing that such breeds are being used by people to boost their repu-
tation and status, and/or for illegal activities, e.g. dog ghting (see
Maher & Pierpoint, 2011). The ndings from the present investiga-
tion suggest there may be due reason for such concern. Owners of
aggressive dog breeds do indeed harbour more aggressive per-
sonality traits than owners of non-aggressive dog breeds. Of
course this does not necessarily mean that all owners of aggres-
sive dog breeds will engage in illegal activities with their pet. That
said, Barnes et al. (2006) and, more recently, Ragatz et al. (2009)
found that owners of vicious dogs were more likely than owners
of other breeds (or non-dog owners) to admit having committed
violent criminal behaviour; whether this type of violent criminal
behaviour extends to activities involving dogs (e.g. dog ghting,
cruelty to animals), however, is still unknown and warrants
consideration.
Table 1
The number and percentage of male and female participants according to the type of
dog owned (aggressive versus non-aggressive).
Type of dog Male owners N (%) Female owners N (%) Total N
Aggressive
German shepherd dog
Rottweiler
17 (43.6)
9 (23.1)
8 (20.5)
45 (41.7)
23 (21.3)
22 (20.4)
62
32
30
Non-aggressive
Labrador retriever
Golden retriever
22 (56.4)
14 (35.9)
8 (20.5)
63 (58.3)
32 (29.6)
31 (28.7)
85
45
40
Total 39 108 147
Table 2
Mean (s.e.) extraversion, neuroticism, lie and psychoticism scores according to type of dog owned and participant sex.
Factor Extraversion Neuroticism Lie Psychoticism
Male owners
Aggressive 7.12 (0.95) 3.29 (0.65) 5.18 (0.68) 8.06 (0.47)
Non-aggressive dog 7.58 (0.78) 5.36 (0.79) 4.45 (0.68) 7.47 (0.36)
Female owners
Aggressive dog 7.76 (0.67) 6.45 (0.44) 5.18 (0.42) 8.47 (0.26)
Non-aggressive dog 6.82 (0.47) 5.62 (0.36) 5.60 (0.37) 8.75 (0.14)
772 D.L. Wells, P.G. Hepper / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 770773
Overall, this study points to a signicant relationship between
dog breed ownership and personality, with owners of breeds com-
monly perceived as aggressive harbouring more psychotic ten-
dencies than people who choose to keep breeds with a reputedly
less aggressive temperament. One of the strengths of this study
is the fact that it targeted people who actually owned certain
breeds of dog, rather than asking people to indicate what type of
pet they would ideally like to own (see, for example, Edelson &
Lester, 1983; Gosling et al., 2010; Perrine & Osbourne, 1998). Hav-
ing said that, it is possible that other factors (e.g. type of breed
owned by other family members, childhood pets, physical resem-
blance [see Roy & Christenfeld, 2005], etc.) besides unadulterated
personal choice came into play at the pet acquisition stage, and this
must be borne in mind. It is also possible that a form of spontane-
ous trait transference explained some of the results, with owners
taking on some of the characteristics associated with the breed
of pet owned (see, for example, Mae, McMorris, & Hendry, 2004).
One of the limitations of the study is the large number of female
participants in relation to males, reducing the generalizability of
the results; that said, there was nothing to suggest a sex difference
in the type of dog owned.
Further work needs to examine the complex relationship be-
tween owner personality and dog breed ownership. Such work
may shed useful light on the mechanisms underlying phenomena
such as canine behaviour problems. For example, it would be inter-
esting to ascertain whether dogs with clinically diagnosed aggres-
sive behaviour (as opposed to breeds that are just perceived as
aggressive) are more likely to have aggressive owners. Such
work may also be a useful tool in helping to determine what type
of people are suited to what types of dog. According to Coren
(1998), the best dog-owner match occurs when the personality
of the person ts the behavioural characteristics of the dog. The
ndings from the present study suggest that people may choose
dogs that match their personality (at least on the trait of psychot-
icism), but as to whether these partnerships are really more suc-
cessful than others is still unknown. Are people more prone to
aggression, for instance, better suited to a dog with a potentially
aggressive disposition, or would they be wiser to keep a dog with
less aggressive tendencies? The answers to such questions are
important given the high incidence of dog-related problems (e.g.
pet abandonment, dog ghting, dog attacks) in todays society.
While the personality of the dogs owner may not explain the root
of all such problems, it may go some way to shedding light on the
aetiology of some of these important societal issues.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all of those dog owners who
took part in the study. Thanks also to Drs. Sarah Millsopp and Laura
Baird for their help with data collection and input.
References
Barnes, J. E., Boats, B. W., Putnam, F. W., Dates, H. F., & Mahlman, H. R. (2006).
Ownership of high-risk (vicious) dogs as a marker for deviant behaviors:
Implications for risk assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21,
16161634.
Barrett, P. T., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1992). Predicting EPQR full scale scores from the
short form version. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 851853.
Cameron, P., & Mattson, M. (1972). Psychological correlates of pet ownership.
Psychological Reports, 30, 286.
Coren, S. (1998). Why we love the dogs we do: How to nd the dog that matches your
personality. New York: Free Press.
Edelson, J., & Lester, D. (1983). Personality and pet ownership A preliminary study.
Psychological Reports, 53, 990.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the
psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 2129.
Gosling, S. D., & Bonnenburg, A. V. (1998). An integrative approach to personality
research in anthrozoology: Ratings of six species of pets and their owners.
Anthrozoos, 11, 148156.
Gosling, S. D., Carson, J. S., & Potter, J. (2010). Personalities of self-identied dog
people and cat people. Anthrozoos, 23, 213222.
Guttmann, G. (1981). The psychological determinants of keeping pets. In B. Fogle
(Ed.), Interrelations between people and pets (pp. 8998). Springeld, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.
Hergovich, A., Mauerer, I., & Riemer, V. (2011). Exotic animal companions and the
personality of their owners. Anthrozoos, 24, 317327.
Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology. California: Duxbury Press.
Hyde, K. R., Kurdek, L., & Larson, P. (1983). Relationships between pet-ownership
and self-esteem, social sensitivity and interpersonal trust. Psychological Reports,
52, 110.
Johnson, S. B., & Rule, W. R. (1991). Personality characteristics and self-esteem in
pet owners and non-owners. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 241252.
Jones, O. P., & Gosling, S. D. (2000). Personality traits. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 140144). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Joubert, C. E. (1987). Pet ownership, social interest, and sociability. Psychological
Reports, 61, 401402.
Kidd, A. H., & Feldman, B. (1981). Pet ownership and self-perception of older people.
Psychological Reports, 48, 867875.
Kidd, A. H., Kelley, H. T., & Kidd, R. M. (1984). Personality characteristics of horse,
turtle, snake, and bird owners. In R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart, & L. A. Hart (Eds.),
The pet connection: Its inuence on our health and quality of life (pp. 200206).
Minneapolis: CENSHARE, University of Minnesota.
Mae, L., McMorris, L. E., & Hendry, J. L. (2004). Spontaneous trait transference from
dogs to owners. Anthrozoos, 17, 225243.
Maher, J., & Pierpoint, H. (2011). Friends, status symbols and weapons: The use of
dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime Law and Social Change, 55,
405420.
Martinez, R. L., & Kidd, A. H. (1980). Two personality characteristics in adult pet
owners and non-owners. Psychological Reports, 47, 318.
Nash, L., Daly, M., Johnson, M., Coulston, C., Tennant, C., van Ekert, E., et al. (2009).
Personality, gender and medico-legal matters in medical practice. Australasian
Psychiatry, 17, 1924.
OFarrell, V. (1987). Owner attitudes and dog behaviour problems. Journal of Small
Animal Practice, 28, 10371045.
OFarrell, V. (1995). Effects of owner personality and attitudes on dog behaviour. In
J. A. Serpell (Ed.), The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour and interactions with
people (pp. 153158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paden-Levy, D. (1985). Relationship of extraversion, neuroticism, alienation, and
divorce incidence with pet-ownership. Psychological Reports, 57, 868870.
Parslow, R. A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Jacomb, P. (2005). Pet
ownership and health in older adults: Findings from a survey of 2551
community-based Australians aged 6064. Gerontology, 51, 4047.
Perrine, R. M., & Osbourne, H. L. (1998). Personality characteristics of dog and cat
persons. Anthrozoos, 11, 3340.
Podberscek, A. L. (1994). Dog on a tightrope: The position of the dog in British
society as inuenced by press reports on dog attacks (19881992). Anthrozoos,
7, 232241.
Podberscek, A. L., & Gosling, S. D. (2000). Personality research on pets and their
owners: Conceptual issues and review. In A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul, & J. A.
Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between
people & pets (pp. 143167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Podberscek, A. L., & Serpell, J. A. (1997). Aggressive behaviour in English cocker
spaniels and the personality of their owners. The Veterinary Record, 141, 7376.
Ragatz, L., Fremouw, W., Thomas, T., & McCoy, K. (2009). Vicious dogs: The
antisocial behaviors and psychological characteristics of owners. Journal of
Forensic Science, 54, 699703.
Roy, M. M., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2005). Dogs still do resemble their owners.
Psychological Science, 16, 743744.
Ruzic, K., Franciskovic, T., Sukovic, Z., Zarkovic-Palijan, T., Buzina, N., Roncevic-
Grzeta, I., et al. (2008). Predictors of aggressiveness in schizophrenic patients
treated in inpatient forensic institutions. Collegium Antropologicum, 32,
331337.
Svartberg, K., & Forkman, B. (2002). Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis
familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79, 133155.
Wells, D. L. (1996). The welfare of dogs in an animal rescue shelter. Unpublished PhD
Thesis. Queens University Belfast, UK.
Wells, D. L. (2007). Domestic dogs and human health: An overview. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 12, 145156.
Wells, D. L. (2009). The effect of animals on human health and well-being. Journal of
Social Issues, 65, 523543.
Wells, D. L. (2011). The value of pets for human health. The Psychologist, 24,
172176.
Zhang, L., Liu, X., Zheng, G. J., Zhou, L., Lin, D. Y., Wang, X. D., et al. (2012). Eysenck
personality and psychosocial status of adult patients with malocclusion. Asian
Pacic Journal of Tropical Medicine, 5, 151156.
Web References
<http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population-2011/>.
<http://www.fci.be/stats.aspx>.
D.L. Wells, P.G. Hepper / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 770773 773