Abstract

Public attitudes toward animal-assisted therapy (AAT) are broadly favourable, yet dogs from legally listed/restricted breeds remain contentious. We surveyed 545 adults in urban and rural settings using a brief, interviewer-administered questionnaire. Participants met a calm, trained dog and were later told the dog was from a listed breed. Support for AAT was high overall, and most people initially said they would participate with a therapy dog. However, willingness dropped from 83.5% to 70.8% once the listed-breed label was introduced, despite the dog’s behaviour being unchanged. Women were more likely than men to endorse AAT; place of residence (city versus rural) made little difference. These findings point to a label-driven bias that sits at odds with evidence that breed is a weak predictor of individual behaviour. We recommend behaviour-based suitability assessments, targeted public education, and inclusive AAT policies that prioritise dogs’ individual traits and training over breed labels.

Introduction

Public attitudes toward dogs are often shaped less by individual behaviour and more by categorical labels—particularly for breeds perceived as dangerous. In Germany, such designations are formalised through breed-specific legislation (BSL), which classifies certain dogs as Kampfhunde (commonly translated as “fighting breeds”). In this study, we recognise three near-equivalent terms—“fighting breeds,” “restricted breeds,” and “listed breeds”—and use them interchangeably where needed to reflect legal or cultural context. However, for clarity and neutrality we primarily use “restricted breeds” (rather than “fighting breeds”) throughout. In this paper, “fighting breed” refers to dogs officially classified as potentially dangerous under regional regulations (Kampfhundeverordnungen), with lists that vary by federal state (Deutscher Tierschutzbund, n.d.) but commonly include the American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, and their crosses (LHundG NRW §3). These classifications are administrative and based on presumed risk rather than individual behavioural assessment (Morrill et al., 2022). We therefore employ the terminology descriptively to mirror the legal and cultural setting of the study, not to imply inherent traits.

Despite a growing body of evidence, public perceptions of restricted breeds remain disproportionately negative. Empirical work shows that aggressive behaviour (lunging, snapping, biting, etc.) is shaped primarily by individual factors such as upbringing, socialisation, training history, and environmental context, rather than by breed identity alone (Fratkin et al., 2013; Julius et al., 2014). Individual upbringing and species-appropriate living conditions are more reliable predictors of aggressive behaviour than breed affiliation, which has only a minor impact (Casey et al., 2014; Morrill et al., 2022). Consistent with this, DNA-based research indicates that breed characteristics account for less than 10% of a dog’s behaviour, with over 90% attributable to individual personality—underscoring the limitations of breed as a behavioural proxy (Morrill et al., 2022). Beyond labels, perceptions are also shaped by caregiver behaviour, social context, and broader environmental conditions (Clark, Mills, & Cooper, 2016; Degeling et al., 2021; Gunter et al., 2016; Kogan et al., 2022). Media portrayals and entrenched societal prejudices further amplify concern, contributing to an exaggerated sense of danger irrespective of an individual dog’s temperament or behaviour (Arluke et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2016; Mouton et al., 2019).

This recognition of individual differences likewise informs research on dogs’ suitability for animal-assisted therapy (AAT). Studies suggest that fitness for therapeutic work is determined less by breed and more by behavioural traits such as emotional stability, sociability, and responsiveness to training (Arata et al., 2010; Bray et al., 2019; Glenk, 2017; Serpell et al., 2020; McDowall, 2023). Under controlled conditions and with tailored preparation, even dogs traditionally regarded as problematic or aggressive can exhibit stable, predictable behaviour (Dinwoodie, Zoltán, & De Castro, 2021; Foltin, 2022). Therapeutic success depends heavily on the quality of interaction between dog, therapist, and client; dogs’ empathic responsiveness and capacity to influence emotional well-being are central to outcomes (Beetz et al., 2012; Fine, 2019; Glenk, 2021; Petersson et al., 2017; Serpell et al., 2020). When the fit between dog and patient is appropriate, even breeds commonly perceived as dangerous can demonstrate significant therapeutic value (Souter & Miller, 2007).

Legal frameworks regulating so-called “fighting dogs” vary widely across countries and regions, reflecting divergent approaches to risk assessment. In Germany, regulation is state-specific: some states explicitly list breeds such as the American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, and Bull Terrier as potentially dangerous and attach conditions or restrictions to ownership (edogs, 2025). The United Kingdom’s Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) prohibits ownership of the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasileiro, and France follows a similar national model combining prohibitions with stringent husbandry regulations (Tesler, 2025). By contrast, the United States has no federal regulation but a patchwork of state and municipal laws; for example, certain Californian municipalities restrict ownership of pit bull–type dogs through local ordinances (Kogan et al., 2022). Australia restricts breeds at the state level, with approaches ranging from strict containment policies to full prohibitions (PetCareShed, 2025). In Spain, autonomous regions determine breed classifications, and American Staffordshire Terriers frequently appear on regional lists (López, 2019). Brazil has minimal federal oversight, but cities such as São Paulo impose restrictions based on incident statistics and behavioural assessments (Cabañero Ponce, 2018).

International comparisons reveal some overlap in listed breeds — particularly the Pit Bull Terrier — but also striking differences in legal reasoning and enforcement. These variations are often shaped by local perceptions of safety and public risk, themselves influenced by media portrayals of dog attacks. In countries with intensive coverage of bite incidents, public acceptance of restricted breeds tends to be lower, reinforcing support for BSL (Tesler, 2025). In the U.K. and France, for example, concerns about public safety — exacerbated by media-driven moral panic — have contributed to widespread support for prohibitive legislation (Kogan, 2022). By contrast, in parts of North America the image of restricted breeds is undergoing gradual rehabilitation: targeted educational campaigns and positive personal experiences have contributed to more balanced opinion and declining support for blanket bans (Hazel & Iankov, 2024; Kogan et al., 2022; Tesler & McThomas, 2025; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Similarly, in Australia and some regions of Asia, discourse is shifting toward individual responsibility and the role of training over breed identity, with less public backing for sweeping prohibitions (Jeffreys, 2020).

Theoretical Background

Cognitive Approach in the Context of Prejudice
The cognitive approach to prejudice emphasizes that mental processes such as perception, attention, memory, and thinking play a decisive role in the development and maintenance of stereotypes. According to Fiske (1998), stereotypes and prejudices arise from automatic information processing, which enables quick assessments of social situations but can also lead to systematic distortions. Selective perception further exacerbates this process, as information that confirms pre-existing stereotypes is processed more readily, while contradictory information is often dismissed, reinforcing prejudices over time (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2016). There is an important distinction between automatic and controlled cognitive processes. While automatic processes occur unconsciously and are deeply embedded in existing cognitive schemas, controlled processes allow for the reconsideration and revision of stereotypical thought patterns (Devine, 1989).

Cognitive Approach in Connection with Prejudices Against Dogs
Cognitive processes are also at play in the formation of prejudices against dogs, particularly with regard to negative stereotypes. These prejudices are not solely based on objective experiences but are influenced by automatic categorization and selective perception. Media reports of aggressive dogs or dog bites, for example, can skew public perception, with dramatic and highly publicized events receiving undue attention due to the availability heuristic, while positive and frequent interactions with dogs are downplayed (Beetz et al., 2012). Direct positive experiences with dogs can modify these cognitive schemas, reducing prejudice and promoting a more balanced view (Casey et al., 2014). Fine (2019) underscores the importance of how information about dogs is categorized and processed, as this ultimately determines whether stereotypical attributions—such as the belief that certain breeds are inherently dangerous — persist and solidify.

Research Gap

Despite extensive searches in scientific databases such as PubMed, PsycInfo, Psyndex, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar, no relevant studies were found regarding the acceptance of listed/restricted dogs as therapy animals within the context of a rehabilitation program.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

1. 1. Is there a correlation between the desire for animal-assisted therapy (AAT) and the acceptance of a dog as a therapy animal?
   2. Is there a difference in the acceptance of a non-restricted dog versus a listed dog in AAT?
   3. Is there a correlation between the acceptance of an AAT dog and the breed or list status of the dog?
   4. Is there a correlation between the rejection of an AAT dog and prior negative experiences with listed dogs?
   5. Are there psychological, sociological, or pedagogical patterns in decision-making that can be explained by theoretical concepts?

Based on these research questions, the following additional hypotheses were formulated:

1. 1. Women will be more open-minded toward AAT within a rehabilitation program than men.
   2. The acceptance of AAT will decrease if the therapy involves a listed dog.
   3. There will be a significant correlation between negative experiences with dogs and the acceptance of AAT.
   4. Residents of rural areas will be more likely to accept AAT within a rehabilitation program than urban dwellers.

Methods

Study Design

A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional survey design was employed to investigate public acceptance of animal-assisted therapy (AAT) using dogs classified as fighting dogs or “list dogs” in rehabilitation settings. Data collection was conducted between 2022 and 2023 using a structured questionnaire administered verbally to participants in public spaces across urban and rural areas.

Participants

Sample Size Determination

A priori power analysis was conducted in G*Power (version 3.1.9.7; Faul et al., 2007, 2009) to determine the minimum required sample size for chi-square tests of independence. Two effect sizes were considered a priori: a medium effect size (Cohen’s w = 0.3) requiring n = 128 participants, and a small effect size (Cohen’s w = 0.2) requiring n = 352 participants. Small effect sizes were prioritized as they are more conservative and typical in social science research, requiring larger sample sizes to detect meaningful differences. The final sample consisted of N = 545 participants, exceeding the minimum requirements and providing adequate power (>80%) for detecting small to medium effects with p = 0.05.

Participant Recruitment

Participants were recruited through convenience sampling in public spaces including city centers, town squares, and village main areas across urban and rural locations. Research assistants approached adult pedestrians (≥18 years) in a systematic manner during daytime hours (9:00 AM-6:00 PM) on weekdays and weekends. No pre-selection criteria were applied beyond age requirements. Participants were not compensated for their participation, and participation was entirely voluntary.

Sample Characteristics

Figure 1. Participant by gender

Figure 2. Number of participants in city or rural areas.

The final sample consisted of 545 participants (319 women, 226 men). Of these, 211 participants (38.7%) resided in rural areas, while 334 participants (61.3%) resided in urban areas. Additional demographic information including age was not systematically collected, representing a limitation of the current study design.

Materials

Survey Instrument Development

No validated questionnaire existed for the specific research questions under investigation. Therefore, a novel four-item questionnaire was developed specifically for this study. Item development was based on the study’s theoretical framework concerning prejudice and acceptance of AAT, as well as consultation with experts in AAT and rehabilitation psychology.

Questionnaire Items

The questionnaire consisted of four primary items administered in a fixed sequence:

1. 1. General AAT Acceptance: “Would you want to use animal-assisted therapy as a supplement to rehabilitation?” (Response options: Yes/No)
   2. Acceptance of Present Dog: “Would you perform animal-assisted therapy with the dog you see here with me?” (Response options: Yes/No)
   3. Acceptance of List Dog: “Would you also perform animal-assisted therapy with this dog if this dog is considered a restricted dog?” (Response options: Yes/No). 
   4. Previous Negative Experiences: “Have you had a negative experience with a so-called fighting dog in the past?” (Response options: Yes/No with optional elaboration)

In this German sample, ‘rehabilitation programme’ (Rehabilitationsmaßnahme) was used as an umbrella term encompassing physical, psychological, and social recovery programmes. We placed no constraints on interpretation so respondents could apply their own understanding of rehabilitation settings.

Standardization

The questionnaire was standardized in that all participants received identical questions in the same order, administered by trained research assistants using a scripted protocol. The term “standardized” refers to the consistent administration procedure rather than the use of a previously validated instrument.

Procedure

Data Collection Protocol

Data collection was conducted by trained research assistants who were accompanied by a dog during all data collection sessions. The presence of the dog served a dual methodological purpose: (1) to provide participants with a concrete visual reference when responding to questions about AAT with dogs, and (2) to assess whether participants’ responses might differ when seeing an actual therapy-trained dog versus responding to hypothetical scenarios.

Research Assistant Training

Research assistants received standardized training on survey administration, ethical conduct, and safety protocols when working with therapy dogs in public spaces. The training emphasized maintaining neutral, non-leading interactions with participants and ensuring consistent questionnaire delivery across all data collection sessions.

Setting and Context

To maximize ecological validity while avoiding potential bias from existing patient-therapist relationships, data collection was deliberately conducted in public spaces rather than rehabilitation facilities. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in a rehabilitation setting when responding to questions about AAT acceptance. This approach was designed to obtain more objective responses free from influence of existing therapeutic relationships.

Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines for human subjects research. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to questionnaire administration. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, their right to withdraw at any time, and the voluntary nature of their participation. No identifying information was collected, ensuring participant anonymity.

Data Analysis

Statistical Software

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Data were entered and cleaned prior to analysis, with missing data handled through listwise deletion.

Assumption Testing

Prior to conducting primary analyses, assumptions for each statistical test were evaluated:

– Chi-square tests: Assumptions of independence, adequate expected cell frequencies (>5), and appropriate sample size were verified.

– Correlation analyses: Assumptions regarding the level of measurement and distribution characteristics were assessed for both parametric and non-parametric approaches.

Primary Analyses

The following statistical procedures were employed to address each research question and hypothesis:

1. 1. Descriptive Statistics: Frequencies and percentages were calculated for all categorical variables to describe sample characteristics and response patterns.
   2. Chi-square Tests of Independence: Pearson chi-square tests were conducted to examine associations between categorical variables (e.g., gender and AAT acceptance, urban/rural residence and acceptance). Effect sizes were calculated using Cramer’s V for interpretive purposes.
   3. Correlation Analyses: Spearman’s rank-order correlations were computed for ordinal-level data to examine relationships between acceptance measures. Spearman’s rho was selected as the non-parametric alternative due to the ordinal nature of the acceptance measures.
   4. Effect Size Interpretation: Following Cohen’s conventions, effect sizes were interpreted as small (Cramer’s V = 0.10, Φ = 0.10), medium (Cramer’s V = 0.30, Φ = 0.30), and large (Cramer’s V = 0.50, Φ = 0.50).

Hypothesis Testing Framework

Each analysis was explicitly linked to the corresponding research question or hypothesis:

– Research Question 1 (correlation between desire for AAT and acceptance): Spearman correlation analysis

– Research Question 2 (difference between dog and list dog acceptance): Chi-square test of independence with follow-up effect size calculation  

– Hypothesis 1 (gender differences in AAT acceptance): Chi-square test of independence

– Hypothesis 4 (urban/rural differences): Chi-square test of independence

Statistical significance was set at p = 0.05 for all analyses, with emphasis placed on effect size interpretation rather than solely on p-values to provide meaningful interpretation of practical significance.

Results

General Acceptance of AAT

A majority of respondents (84.4%) endorsed AAT as a complement to rehabilitation, and almost as many (83.5%) could imagine this with a dog.

Figure 3. People who support the use of AAT

Figure 4. People’s impression of listed breeds for AAT

Gender Differences in Acceptance

The desire for AAT and the acceptance of a dog as a therapy animal correlated significantly (Spearman’s ρ=.51, p<.001), with acceptance being greater among women. A contingency analysis (Pearson χ²-test: gender x acceptance) to determine potential gender differences in this regard was also significant with χ²(1)=32.40 (p<.001), although the correlation was not very strong (φ=.24).

Table 1. Crosstabulation of gender by acceptance of AAT Note. Values are observed counts with row percentages in parentheses. χ²(1)=32.40, p<.001; φ=.24.

Table 2. χ² Tests (Sex) Note a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 35.25.
Note b. Computed only for a 2×2 table

Table 3. Symmetric Measures

Effect of Breed Classification

Overall acceptance decreased from 83.5% to 70.8% when the dog was described as a listed breed — a reduction of 12.7 percentage points (≈15.2% relative). Of the 455 initial supporters, 383 maintained their willingness; total acceptance after the label was 386 (70.8%). (interview item 3: “Would you also perform AAT with this dog if this dog is considered a so-called fighting dog?”). This difference was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 237.65, p < .001, indicating a large association (φ = .66). Consistent with this, Spearman’s ρ between initial acceptance and acceptance under the listed-breed description was .66, p < .001, indicating a strong positive monotonic relationship.

Figure 5: Willingness to use a listed breed for AAT

Table 4. Crosstabulation (initial acceptance × acceptance after listed-breed label). Note. Values are observed counts with row percentages in parentheses for the first two rows. N = 545.
Table 5. χ² a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 26,26.
b. Computed only for a 2×2 table
Table 6. Symmetric Measures

Effect of Prior Negative Experiences

Notably, among all 545 respondents, only six reported having had negative experiences with a “fighting breed.” A reliable statistical verification of hypothesis 3 (“There is a significant correlation between negative experiences with dogs and the acceptance of AAT”) was not possible due to the small number of cases. Descriptively, it can be noted that of the six persons (n=6) with negative experiences in our sample, four (n=4) still advocated for therapy.

Qualitatively-deductively interesting is the fact that none of the six described experiences involved a listed dog. Instead, this predicate was attributed to German Shepherds, Dobermans, and Rottweilers. The size of the dog also seems to play a role: Three (n=3) respondents would have preferred therapy with a smaller restricted-breed dog than with the “supposedly harmless” animal companion of the interviewer because they found them intimidating.

Urban Versus Rural Differences

Hypothesis 4 could not be confirmed: The place of residence (city or rural area) had no influence on the acceptance of AAT in this sample. The Pearson χ²-test was not significant with χ²(1)=0.21 (p=.64, φ=.02).

Table 7. Crosstabulation χ² (acceptance x living place). “Would you want to useAAT as a supplement to rehabilitation?  Note. Values are observed counts with row percentages in parentheses for the first two rows. N = 545.
Table 8. χ² Note: 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 32.91.

Table 9. Symmetric Measures

Discussion

This study contributes important empirical insight into public attitudes toward AAT, with a specific focus on the use of dogs identified as belonging to so-called “fighting breeds.” The overall results show a strong general acceptance of AAT, echoing existing literature that supports the physical, emotional, and psychological benefits of dog-assisted interventions in rehabilitation contexts (Mittly et al., 2024). However, the nuances that emerge when the therapy dog is identified as a “listed/restricted dog” expose persistent prejudices that are both socially constructed and scientifically unsubstantiated.

Gender and Willingness to Engage in AAT

The finding that women were more likely than men to express support for AAT introduces a dimension relevant to gendered patterns in receptivity to therapy. However, this association was small (φ = .24) and should be interpreted cautiously. While prior studies such as Binfet (2023) demonstrate equally positive effects of AAT across genders, our findings suggest that initial willingness to participate may in fact differ.

This discrepancy can be situated within broader gender socialisation patterns, in which men are often discouraged from engaging in forms of care or vulnerability that fall outside traditional masculinity scripts. Animal-assisted therapy, particularly when linked with emotional well-being or softness, may be perceived by some as incongruent with these norms. In contrast, women have historically occupied caregiving roles in both formal and informal sectors, and this orientation toward nurturing may facilitate a more open attitude regarding therapeutic modalities involving animals (Fine, 2019; Serpell, 2017).

Women’s greater endorsement may align with findings that women score higher on companion-animal attachment scales and on empathic-concern subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, especially in caregiving settings (Herzog, 2007; Lucas-Molina et al., 2017). These gendered patterns of interaction with nonhuman animals may not only shape perception of therapy dogs but also influence comfort levels in emotionally reciprocal engagements, where the animal is viewed not just as a tool but as a sentient participant in the therapeutic process.

Future research should consider the intersection of gender, cultural norms, and perceptions of legitimacy in alternative or adjunct therapies. Additionally, qualitative inquiry could explore how individuals of diverse gender identities interpret the therapeutic value of AAT and whether resistance or acceptance is influenced by social scripts around caregiving, emotional regulation, and animality.

The Power of Labels: Breed Identity and Public Perception

Perhaps the most striking result of this study is the sharp decline in acceptance of AAT when the therapy dog is identified as a listed or “fighting” breed. This decline occurred despite the participant’s direct, neutral or positive, interaction with the dog in question—highlighting how labels alone can override lived experience. This supports the cognitive theory of prejudice, in which categorisation and schema activation lead to quick, emotionally loaded judgments that persist even in the face of contradictory evidence (Fiske, 1998; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2016; Devine, 1989). In this case, the mere invocation of breed identity appears to trigger fear-based cognitive shortcuts that disrupt rational evaluation. Such findings illustrate the potent role of what Devine (1989) calls “implicit bias activation,” where stereotypes operate even in individuals who may consciously reject them. The dissonance between participants’ direct experience and their shift after the breed label suggests that breed-based judgements may be driven by automatic, affect-laden moral intuitions that precede deliberation (Haidt, 2001).

These results are especially significant when juxtaposed against behavioural research. A growing consensus across genetic, behavioural, and neurobiological studies consistently demonstrates that breed is a poor predictor of individual dog behaviour (Casey et al., 2014; Güvenç Bayram & Semen, 2023; Morrill et al., 2022). In fact, individual experiences, training history, and living environments have proven to be far more reliable indicators of behavioural tendencies, including aggression (Casey et al., 2014; Blackwell et al., 2008; Herron et al., 2009; Mikkola et al., 2021; Patronek et al., 2013; Sakurama et al., 2023). Thus, the rejection of AAT solely based on breed affiliation stands in direct opposition to the empirical evidence. It also points to a broader ethical dilemma: When affective heuristics dominate decision-making, well-suited dogs may be excluded from contributing to therapeutic contexts solely due to societal prejudices.

This dissonance highlights not only a gap between science and public perception but also the ethical tension that arises when outdated stereotypes shape therapeutic access. Limiting the use of well-trained, temperamentally suitable dogs due to perceived breed identity may not only compromise the diversity of therapy animals but also reinforce discriminatory and anthropocentric modes of categorisation that fail to account for individual sentience. Such anthropocentric sorting reflects what posthumanist theorists critique as “species sorting” based on aesthetics, familiarity, or myth, rather than relational capacity or behavioural competency (Lorimer, 2007). Here, breed becomes a form of social branding—regulating access and participation in human institutions, not unlike race or class categorisations in other contexts of inclusion and exclusion.

The Role of Media and the Availability Heuristic

Notably, only a small number of respondents reported having had negative experiences with dogs perceived as “fighting breeds.” Interestingly, the dogs referenced were not legally defined as such, but were instead described using subjective, affective language—suggesting that the label “fighting dog” often operates as a floating signifier for size, power, or appearance, rather than legal or behavioural criteria (Arluke et al., 2018; Hoffman et al., 2014; Olson et al., 2015; Clarke, Mills, & Cooper, 2016; Mouton et al., 2019; Lodge & Hood, 2002). This aligns with previous findings on media influence and cognitive distortion: Dramatic portrayals of dog attacks and sensationalist reporting have been shown to fuel breed-related fear regardless of actual behavioural risk (Arluke et al., 2018; Barrios et al., 2021; Mouton et al., 2019; Lodge & Hood, 2002; Arluke et al., 2018)

The availability heuristic may explain this: people recall highly publicised incidents more readily than mundane or positive interactions, skewing their perception of risk. Moreover, the emotional salience of such events—often featuring children or vulnerable people—can override statistical reasoning. As Kuran & Sunstein (1999) noted, availability cascades can generate social amplification, where rare but emotionally powerful events drive public policy and personal decision-making.

These patterns reinforce the importance of public education, not merely about individual breeds, but about the principles of behaviour, learning, and the ethical implications of stereotyping nonhuman animals. Such education must not be abstract or generic but should be embedded in the settings where therapy decisions are made—rehabilitation centres, hospitals, and policy-making bodies. It is also essential that education acknowledges its own socio-emotional components. Challenging prejudice against dogs must move beyond data presentation and toward affective counterconditioning—inviting new, emotionally positive narratives that displace fear-driven imagery.

Individual Suitability: Beyond Breed Reductionism

The idea that any dog — regardless of breed — can be suitable for AAT if properly trained is both supported by our data and consistent with broader recommendations from the ADA National Network (n.d.). Recent work underscores the neurobiological–environmental interplay in aggression (Güvenç Bayram & Semen, 2023). Trait-based selection frameworks for AAT emphasize trainability, excitability, and emotional stability (Sakurama et al., 2023; McDowall et al., 2023).These criteria offer a far more ethically and scientifically grounded alternative to blanket breed bans or stereotypes.

From a welfare and professional practice perspective, it is critical to move toward frameworks of individualised behavioural profiling, which assess each dog’s unique competencies and stress thresholds, rather than relying on visual or taxonomic cues. This approach aligns with both the “one welfare” model and animal-centred care ethics, which call for nuanced evaluations that take into account the dog’s subjective well-being, capacities, and preferences. Moreover, it avoids the ethical pitfalls of instrumentalising dogs by framing them solely as tools within human therapy settings. Such a shift aligns with both scientific integrity and animal-centric ethics.

Urban-Rural Dynamics: A Non-Finding Worth Noting

Interestingly, the study found no significant difference between urban and rural populations in the acceptance of AAT, including with listed dogs. This is noteworthy given the assumption that urban residents, exposed to more diversity and regulated settings, may be more progressive in their attitudes. While no comparable studies exist to directly support or refute this, the absence of difference challenges simplistic geographic binaries and suggests that fear-based perceptions of dogs may be culturally entrenched across population types.

It may also indicate that media narratives and social anxieties related to safety and control are distributed evenly across urban-rural lines, reflecting shared exposure to dominant cultural tropes about risk and danger rather than experience-based familiarity with different dog breeds. This finding could be foundational for future investigations exploring how region, education, and cultural exposure interact in shaping therapeutic acceptance.

Limitations

Several methodological limitations should be acknowledged:

1. 1. Demographic Data: Limited demographic information was collected, restricting the ability to control for potential confounding variables such as age, education, or prior experience with rehabilitation services.
   2. Sampling Method: Convenience sampling limits generalizability to broader populations and may have introduced selection bias.
   3. Instrument Validation: The newly developed questionnaire lacks established psychometric properties, including reliability and validity evidence.
   4. Cross-sectional Design: The design precludes causal inferences about relationships between variables.
   5. Hypothetical Scenarios: Participants responded to hypothetical rehabilitation scenarios rather than actual therapeutic contexts, potentially affecting response validity.

Conclusion and Outlook

This study provides meaningful insight into public acceptance of AAT in rehabilitative settings, with particular attention to the use of dogs from breeds commonly categorized as “fighting dogs.” Overall, respondents expressed strong support for the inclusion of dogs in therapy sessions. However, this acceptance declined significantly when the dog was identified as a fighting breed—despite the absence of problematic behaviour or negative interactions during the study.

Notably, very few participants reported negative past experiences with dogs perceived to be from fighting breeds. Moreover, the dogs referenced in these instances did not belong to legally designated fighting breeds, suggesting that public perceptions may be shaped more by stereotype than by direct experience. No significant differences were observed between urban and rural respondents, indicating that breed-related bias in the context of AAT may be broadly distributed across demographic settings.

From a practical standpoint, these findings underscore the need for targeted education and evidence-based approaches when implementing AAT with dogs from stigmatised breeds. The following recommendations may be particularly valuable for practitioners, rehabilitation centres, and policymakers:

1. 1. Develop standardised, behaviour-based suitability assessments for therapy dogs that prioritise individual temperament and training over breed labels.
   2. Integrate educational programming in rehabilitation settings to dispel myths and promote accurate understanding of dog behaviour, with specific attention to listed or marginalised breeds.
   3. Document and disseminate case studies and best practices involving successful therapeutic use of fighting breeds, to normalise and legitimise their role in AAT.
   4. Account for individual patient preferences, concerns, and prior experiences when selecting therapy dogs—ensuring that inclusion does not override emotional safety, but is informed by education rather than assumption.

Future research should continue to investigate the therapeutic potential of dogs from historically stigmatised breeds. In particular, longitudinal studies could examine how perceptions shift over time through repeated, positive interactions. Further exploration of breed-neutral, trait-based matching in various therapeutic domains would also help establish more inclusive and scientifically grounded standards for AAT implementation.

Acknowledgements

We thank Erin Jones, Journal Director of the IAABC Foundation Journal and fellow Human-Animal studies colleague, for substantive assistance with statistical reporting (APA formatting, effect-size reporting) and restructuring of the Introduction and Discussion.

Competing interests

Erin Jones serves as Journal Director of the IAABC Foundation Journal. Editorial handling for this manuscript was fully independent. The authors declare no other competing interests.

References

ADA National Network. (n.d.). Service Animal Resource Hub: Misconceptions. “Any breed of dog can be a service animal…” Retrieved from ADA National Network. https://adata.org/service-animal-resource-hub-misconceptions?utm_source=chatgpt.com 

Arata, S., Momozawa, Y., Takeuchi, Y., & Mori, Y. (2010). Important behavioral traits for predicting guide dog qualification. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 72(5), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.09-0512 

Arluke, A., Cleary, D., Patronek, G., & Bradley, J. (2018). Defaming Rover: Error-Based Latent Rhetoric in the Medical Literature on Dog Bites. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 21(3), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2017.1387550 

Barrios, C. L., Aguirre, V., Parra, A., Pavletic, C., Bustos-López, C., Perez, S., Urrutia, C., Ramirez, J., & Fatjó, J. (2021). Systematic Review: Comparison of the Main Variables of Interest in Publications of Canine Bite Accidents in the Written Press, Gray and Scientific Literature in Chile and Spain (2013–2017). Animals, 11(3), 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030893 

Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human–animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00234

Binfet, J.-T., Green, F. L. L., Godard, R. J. P., Szypula, M. M., Rousseau, C. X., & Decker, J. (2023). A mixed-methods examination of an on-campus canine-assisted intervention by gender: Women, men, and gender-diverse individuals’ self-reports of stress-reduction and well-being. Human–Animal Interactions. https://doi.org/10.1079/hai.2023.0037 

Blackwell, E. J., Twells, C., Seawright, A., & Casey, R. A. (2008). The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3(5), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.008 

Bray, E. E., Otto, C. M., Udell, M. A. R., Hall, N. J., Johnston, A. M., & MacLean, E. L. (2019). Predictive models of assistance dog training outcomes. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00049 

Casey, R. A., Loftus, B. A., Bolster, C., Richards, G. J., & Blackwell, E. J. (2014). Human directed aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 152, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.003 

Clarke, T., Mills, D., & Cooper, J. (2016). “Type” as Central to Perceptions of Breed Differences in Behavior of Domestic Dog. Society & Animals, 24(5), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341422 

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, c. 65 (UK). (1991). legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/contents 

Degeling, C., Hall, J., van Eeden, L. M., Finlay, S. M., Gurung, S. M., & Brookes, V. J. (2021). Representations of free-living and unrestrained dogs as an emerging public health issue in Australian newspapers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5807. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115807 

Deutscher Tierschutzbund. (n.d.). List dogs and prejudices. “The so-called dangerous dog regulations of the federal states differ greatly…” [Web page]. https://www.tierschutzbund.de/en/animals-topics/pets/dogs/listed-dogs/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 301–326). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dinwoodie, I. R., Zoltán, V., & De Castro, A. C. V. (2021). An Investigation into the Impact of Pre-Adolescent Training on Canine Behaviour Problems. Animals, 11(5), 1298. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051298

edogs (2025, August 17). Listenhunde in Deutschland – Diese Vorschriften gelten. https://www.edogs.de/magazin/listenhunde-in-deutschland/

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Fine, A. H. (2019). Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Foundations and guidelines for animal-assisted interventions (4th ed.). Academic Press. 

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357–411). McGraw-Hill.

Foltin, S. (2022). Hundgestützte Intervention: Wissenschaft trifft Praxis – Ausgewählte Studien erklärt [Dog-assisted intervention: Science meets practice — Selected studies explained]. Kynos Verlag. 

Fratkin, J. L., Sinn, D. L., Patall, E. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality consistency in dogs: A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 8(1), e54907. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054907

Glenk, L. M. (2017). Current perspectives on therapy dog welfare in animal-assisted interventions. Animals, 7(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020007 

Gunter, L. M., Barber, R. T., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2016). What’s in a name? Effect of breed perceptions & labeling on attractiveness, adoptions, and length of stay for pit-bull-type dogs. PLOS ONE, 11(3), e0146857. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146857 

Güvenç Bayram, G., & Semen, Z. (2023). Understanding canine aggression: Neurobiological insights for a complex behavior. Journal of Istanbul Veterinary Sciences, 7(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.30704/http-www-jivs-net.1272983 

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 

Hazel, S. J., & Iankov, I. (2024). A public health campaign to increase awareness of the risk of dog bites in South Australia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 231, 106298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2024.106298 

Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117(1–2), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011 

Herzog, H. A. (2007). Gender differences in human–animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös, 20(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687 

Hoffman, C. L., Harrison, N., Wolff, L., & Westgarth, C. (2014). Is That Dog a Pit Bull? A Cross-Country Comparison of Perceptions of Shelter Workers Regarding Breed Identification. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17(4), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2014.895904 

Jeffreys, E. (2020). Beijing dog politics: Governing human–canine relationships in China. Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals, 33(4), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2020.1771057

Julius, H., Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D. C., & Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2014). Bindung zu Tieren: Psychologische und neurobiologische Grundlagen tiergestützter Interventionen. [Attachment to animals: Psychological and neurobiological foundations of animal-assisted interventions]. Hogrefe. 

Kogan, L. R., Packman, W., Erdman, P., Currin-McCulloch, J., & Bussolari, C. (2022). US adults’ perceptions of dog breed bans, dog aggression and breed-specific laws. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10138. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610138 

Kuran, T., & Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51(4), 683–768. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229439 

Landeshundegesetz Nordrhein-Westfalen (LHundG NRW), § 3: Gefährliche Hunde (n.d.). Official NRW justice portal text specifying Pitbull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bullterrier, Bullterrier and their crosses. https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_text_anzeigen?v_id=2820041209115743048 

Lodge, M., & Hood, C. (2002). Pavlovian Policy Responses to Media Feeding Frenzies? Dangerous Dogs Regulation in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.00176 

Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(5), 911–932. https://doi.org/10.1068/d71j 

Lucas-Molina, B., Pérez-Albéniz, A., Ortuño-Sierra, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2017). Dimensional structure and measurement invariance of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) across gender. Psicothema, 29(4), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.19 

McDowall, S., Hazel, S. J., Cobb, M., & Hamilton-Bruce, A. (2023). Understanding the Role of Therapy Dogs in Human Health Promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10), 5801. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105801 

Mikkola, S., Salonen, M., Puurunen, J., Hakanen, E., Sulkama, S., Araujo, C., & Lohi, H. (2021). Aggressive behaviour is affected by demographic, environmental and behavioural factors in purebred dogs. Scientific Reports, 11, 9433. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88793-5

Mittly, V., Fáy, V., Dankovics, N., Pál, V., & Purebl, G. (2024). The role of dog therapy in clinical recovery and improving quality of life: A randomized, controlled trial. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 24(1), 229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-024-04538-7 

Morrill, K., Hekman, J., Li, X., McClure, J., Logan, B., … Karlsson, E. K. (2022). Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes. Science, 376(6592), eabk0639. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0639 

Mouton, M., Boulton, A., Solomon, O., & Rock, M. J. (2019). “When the dog bites”: What can we learn about health geography from newspaper coverage in a “model city” for dog-bite prevention? Health & Place, 57, 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.001 

Olson, K. R., Levy, J. K., Norby, B., Crandall, M. M., Broadhurst, J. E., Jacks, S., Barton, R. C., & Zimmerman, M. S. (2015). Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff. The Veterinary Journal, 206(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.019 

Patronek, G. J., Sacks, J. J., Delise, K. M., Cleary, D. V., & Marder, A. R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 243(12), 1726–1736. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726 

Fine, A. H. (Ed.). (2019). Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Foundations and guidelines for animal-assisted interventions (5th ed.). Academic Press. 

PetCareShed. (2025, July 3). Dangerous dog breeds in Australia: Laws, bans, and your rights. https://petcareshed.com.au/blogs/pet-supplies/dangerous-dog-breeds-australia-laws-rights

Petersson, M., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Nilsson, A., Gustafson, L.-L., Hydbring-Sandberg, E., & Handlin, L. (2017). Oxytocin and cortisol levels in dog owners and their dogs are associated with behavioral patterns: An exploratory study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1796. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01796 

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 

Sakurama, M., Ito, M., Nakanowataru, Y., & Kooriyama, T. (2023). Selection of appropriate dogs to be therapy dogs using the C-BARQ. Animals, 13(5), 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13050834 

Serpell, J. A., Kruger, K. A., Freeman, L. M., Griffin, J. A., & Ng, Z. Y. (2020). Current standards and practices within the therapy dog industry: Results of a representative survey of United States therapy dog organizations. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 35. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00035 

Souter, M. A., & Miller, M. D. (2007). Do animal-assisted activities effectively treat depression? A meta-analysis. Anthrozoös, 20(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303707X207954 

Tesler, M. (2025). How changing portraits and opinions of “pit bulls” in popular culture and social media influence attitudes and public policy. Animals, 15(14), 2083. https://doi.org/10.3390/animals15142083 

Tesler, M., & McThomas, M. (2025). How changing portraits and opinions of “pit bulls” undermined breed-specific legislation in the United States. Animals, 15(14), 2083. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15142083