Owner Effects: How Owner Personality and Attachment Relate to Dog Behavior

1. Why the Owner Question Is Difficult

1.1 A Popular Idea with a Hidden Accusation

Few ideas about dogs are repeated as often as the claim that a dog reflects its owner: nervous people have nervous dogs, chaotic households unruly ones. The claim is attractive because everyone who has watched dogs and owners together has seen pairs that seem to fit each other.

The claim also carries a hidden accusation: if the owner's personality causes the dog's problem, the owner is the problem. An owner who is already worried does not become a better trainer by being told that their character is the cause, and the research does not support that conclusion in this simple form.

What the research does support is more modest and more useful. Some owner characteristics are associated with some dog behaviors in some samples, owner behavior is more consistently associated with dog behavior than owner personality as such, and for almost every finding the direction of effect remains open.

1.2 What "Owner Effect" Can Mean

"Owner effect" is used for several different things, and it helps to separate them before looking at the studies. The first is owner personality, usually measured with questionnaires based on the five-factor model: neuroticism or its reverse, emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. The second is owner attachment style, a concept from adult attachment research that describes how a person tends to approach close relationships, typically along the two dimensions of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The third is owner psychological state, such as stress or depressive symptoms. The fourth is owner behavior: how the person trains, handles and interacts with the dog. The fifth is demographic or household context, such as experience with dogs or the time the owner spends with the dog.

These five layers are connected, but they are not interchangeable. A finding about training methods is not a finding about personality, and a finding about attachment style toward people is not the same as a finding about the dog's attachment to the owner. A review of dog–human attachment and bonding noted that the influence of human attitudes and personality on dog behavior had received surprisingly little attention compared with the dog's side of the relationship (Payne, Bennett & McGreevy, 2015).

1.3 How the Evidence Is Collected

Most of the evidence in this field comes from questionnaires. Owners describe their own personality on a standardized inventory, and they describe their dog's behavior on another instrument, often the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) or a shortened version of it. The researchers then look for correlations between the two sets of scores.

This design has a structural weakness that runs through the whole field. When the same person rates both themselves and the dog, any tendency in how that person answers questionnaires appears on both sides. An owner who scores high on neuroticism may also be more likely to notice, remember and report worrying behavior in the dog. The resulting correlation would then reflect how the owner perceives the dog, not only how the dog behaves. This is called shared-method bias, and it is one of the main reasons why owner-effect findings need careful interpretation (how dog behavior is defined and measured in research).

A smaller set of studies reduces this problem with behavioral tests, coded observation, independent raters or physiological measures such as cortisol. These are highlighted where they exist.

2. Owner Personality and Problem Behavior

2.1 An Early Study in One Breed

An early study linking owner personality to dog aggression worked with owners of English cocker spaniels. In a sample of 285 owners, those whose dogs were rated as highly aggressive were significantly more likely to describe themselves as tense, emotionally less stable, shy and undisciplined than owners of less aggressive dogs (Podberscek & Serpell, 1997).

The study put early numbers on the idea of an owner effect. Its limits are clear. It was restricted to one breed, the aggression measure came from the owners, and the design was cross-sectional. It cannot say whether tense owners make dogs more aggressive, whether living with an aggressive dog makes owners more tense, or whether both reflect something else. It also cannot rule out that tense owners rate the same behavior as more aggressive.

2.2 Owner Characteristics and Everyday Interactions

A retrospective survey of 737 dogs looked less at personality and more at owner characteristics and everyday interactions (Jagoe & Serpell, 1996). Dogs that had received obedience training were less likely to show competitive aggression, separation-related problems and escaping or roaming. Dogs that slept near their owners were more likely to show competitive aggression and separation-related problems. First-time ownership was associated with several problem categories, including separation problems, noise phobia, overexcitability and a category the study labeled dominance aggression, a term from the clinical vocabulary of the time that would now be described differently (why dominance is a weak explanation for dog behavior).

The authors themselves noted that, despite the popular assumption that owners are often responsible in some way for their dogs' problems, the scientific evidence on the quality of the owner–dog relationship and behavior problems was scarce and contradictory (Jagoe & Serpell, 1996). The sleeping finding is a good example of the direction problem. A dog with separation-related distress may be allowed to sleep near the owner because it is distressed when it is not, so the sleeping arrangement may be a response to the problem rather than its cause.

2.3 A Large Modern Survey

A large study on owner personality and dog behavior problems surveyed 1,564 owners recruited through the membership of a canine behavior research center (Dodman, Brown & Serpell, 2018). Owners completed the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, a depression inventory, an emotion regulation questionnaire and an eight-item scale measuring their attitude to forceful training. Dog behavior was assessed with a 42-item short form of the C-BARQ. Ninety-one percent of respondents were women.

Several personality associations appeared. Low owner emotional stability was associated with owner-directed aggression and with fear of strangers in the dog. Low conscientiousness and low extraversion were associated with fear of strangers, and low agreeableness with urination when the dog was left alone (Dodman et al., 2018). The attitude-to-training scale showed its own associations: for each point on the scale, the odds of stranger-directed aggression were 1.5 times higher (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9) and the odds of separation problems 1.78 times higher (95% CI 1.33 to 2.38), and owner-directed aggression and persistent barking scores were also higher.

The authors had expected that owner personality might influence dog behavior through training methods: that certain personality profiles would lead to more forceful training, which would in turn lead to more problems. They found only weak evidence for this mediation (Dodman et al., 2018). They described the associations between aversive training and behavior problems as modest, and they were explicit about the limits. Because the study was cross-sectional, they wrote, it is impossible to determine causation, and it could be argued that the findings reflect consistent biases in how people of different personality types evaluate their dogs on the C-BARQ rather than real differences in the dogs' behavior. They also noted that the direction of the training association is unclear: problem behavior may lead owners toward confrontational training as easily as the reverse.

The sample was large but not representative, and no normative questionnaire data were available for dog owners in general (Dodman et al., 2018). The study shows that owner personality and dog behavior scores are linked in this kind of sample. It does not estimate how much owner personality shapes dog behavior in the population.

2.4 A Small Study with a Behavioral Test

One study combined owner questionnaires with a standardized behavioral test of the dog, which reduces the shared-method problem for at least one variable (Gobbo & Zupan, 2020). Forty Slovenian owners and their adult dogs took part. The dogs were grouped into non-aggressive dogs, dogs aggressive toward humans and dogs aggressive toward animals, based on the owners' C-BARQ answers. Owners completed a short Big Five inventory and a version of an adult attachment questionnaire adapted to attachment to pets. The dogs' sociability was assessed in a dog mentality assessment, an outdoor test with nine subtests scored by trained observers.

Owners of dogs that were aggressive toward humans had higher neuroticism scores, and those dogs were less sociable in the behavioral test than non-aggressive dogs (Gobbo & Zupan, 2020). The attachment results are discussed below. The authors acknowledged that the small sample may have limited their ability to detect associations, and with forty dyads split into three groups, any single result should be treated as preliminary. The value of the study lies in the method: dog sociability was measured independently of the owner, so at least that part of the association cannot be explained by how the owner perceives the dog.

3. Owner Attachment Style

3.1 The Dog's Bond and the Owner's Style

Dogs form attachment bonds with their owners. In adaptations of the Strange Situation procedure from developmental psychology, adult dogs showed attachment behavior toward their owners, including the use of the owner as a secure base (Topál et al., 1998). In a problem-solving task, dogs manipulated an apparatus longer when their owner was present than when the owner was absent, while the presence of an unfamiliar person did not have the same effect (Horn, Huber & Range, 2013). The bond is specific to the attachment figure, and it has measurable consequences for how the dog explores and copes (what is known about attachment styles in dogs).

This raises an obvious question. If the owner is the dog's attachment figure, does the owner's own way of relating to others matter? Adult attachment research describes people along two dimensions: attachment anxiety, a preoccupation with closeness and fear of rejection, and attachment avoidance, discomfort with closeness and dependence. Several studies have asked whether these owner dimensions are associated with dog behavior.

3.2 Owner Avoidance and Separation-Related Problems

A large study on this question surveyed 1,508 owners, 1,185 in Germany and 323 in Hungary (Konok et al., 2015). Owners completed an adult attachment scale, a 44-item Big Five inventory for themselves, a Big Five inventory adapted for dogs, and a separation behavior questionnaire in which they stated whether their dog had a separation-related disorder and rated the frequency of nine symptoms such as vocalizing, destruction and house soiling.

The results were specific. Higher owner attachment avoidance was associated with a higher occurrence of separation-related disorder in both national samples, with a similar slope. Owner attachment anxiety showed no effect. Owner personality on the Big Five did not significantly predict separation-related disorder in either sample. The strongest dog-side factor was the dog's own neuroticism score: dogs rated higher on neuroticism were more likely to have separation-related disorder (Konok et al., 2015). The proportion of owners reporting separation-related disorder differed between the samples, 33.1% in Hungary and 18.4% in Germany.

The authors proposed an explanation: avoidant owners might be less responsive to the dog's needs and less able to provide a secure base, so that the dog forms an insecure attachment and becomes more vulnerable to distress when left alone. This is a hypothesis, not a result. The authors also named the limits. The "diagnosis" of separation-related disorder reflected the owners' own view of their dog, and owner attachment style might influence the choice of a dog rather than the dog's later development. Breed, genetic predisposition to stress, other dogs in the household and training experience were not examined (Konok et al., 2015). The neurobiology of separation distress, which involves the dog's own stress systems, is covered elsewhere (the neurobiology of separation anxiety).

Two points are worth keeping. The owner variable that mattered was a specific relational style, not a general personality trait, and the dog's own temperament was at least as prominent in the results as anything about the owner.

3.3 Attachment and the Dog's Support-Seeking

A study linked owners' adult attachment style to the support-seeking behavior of their dogs (Rehn, McGowan & Keeling, 2017). Support-seeking, the tendency to turn to the owner in a challenging situation, is one of the core components of attachment. That an owner's relational style is related to how the dog uses the owner in such situations fits the idea that attachment between dog and owner is shaped from both sides. As with the other studies in this section, the design does not establish which side drives the pattern.

3.4 Attachment and Aggression

In the Slovenian sample described above, owners' attachment style toward their pets was also measured (Gobbo & Zupan, 2020). Dogs aggressive toward their owners had owners with higher avoidant attachment scores, and dogs aggressive toward strangers had owners with lower anxious attachment scores. These results are interesting because they point in different directions for different targets of aggression, but they come from forty dyads, and the aggression categories were based on owner report.

The direction problem is particularly sharp here. An owner who has been bitten or threatened by their own dog may understandably become more distant from that dog, which would show up as higher avoidance in a questionnaire about attachment to the pet. The association is compatible with avoidance contributing to aggression, with aggression producing avoidance, or with both.

4. Personality in Observed Interaction

4.1 What Owners Do Differently

If owner personality matters for dog behavior, it should show up in what owners actually do. One study tested this by observing 78 owner–dog dyads in two brief situations (Kis et al., 2012). In the first, the owner asked the dog to sit. In the second, an unfamiliar person showed a ball to the restrained dog and then hid it. Owners' personality was assessed by questionnaire, and behavior was coded from the interactions.

Owners who scored higher on neuroticism and openness used more commands, both gestural and verbal, when asking the dog to sit. Dogs of owners higher on neuroticism obeyed with a longer latency and spent more time looking at the stranger. More extraverted owners praised their dogs more. Dogs of more agreeable owners spent more time looking at the ball (Kis et al., 2012). The authors concluded cautiously that some aspects of owner personality appear to be tied to the dog's attentional concerns.

This study moves from questionnaire to behavior. It suggests a concrete route by which personality could matter: observable differences in how commands are given and how the dog is praised. A sit command repeated several times with mixed gestures is a different learning situation from a single clear signal. The study is still correlational, and a dog's slower response may itself have prompted more commands.

4.2 Do Dogs Resemble Their Owners?

A study from Austria and Hungary asked owners to rate both their own personality and their dog's personality on the same five dimensions (Turcsán et al., 2012). Owner and dog scores were positively correlated in all five dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness. The obvious objection is that owners might simply project their own personality onto the dog. The authors addressed this by asking an independent person who knew the dog to rate it as well. With these peer ratings, the owner–dog similarity remained significant for four of the five dimensions. The correlations were stronger in the Hungarian sample.

The study shows that perceived similarity between owners and dogs is not only projection. It does not show how the similarity arises. Owners may choose dogs that match them, living together may shape both partners, or both processes may operate. The study did not test these explanations (Turcsán et al., 2012). For the owner-effect question, this matters a great deal: if owners select dogs that fit their own temperament, then correlations between owner and dog traits can appear without the owner having changed the dog at all (how temperament and personality are studied in dogs).

A larger study of 440 dog–owner dyads adds an important piece because dog behavior was not assessed only through owner questionnaires but also in three behavioral tests (Kujala et al., 2023). Owner temperament was associated with the perceived dog–owner relationship, while some links with dogs' social and cognitive behavior differed by breed group. In particular, higher owner negative affectivity was associated with lower object-choice performance in herding dogs but not in primitive-type dogs. That argues against a simple, universal personality effect of the owner across all dogs. The study is still correlational and cannot establish that owner temperament caused the dog's behavior.

A 2025 systematic review of 15 studies on dog–owner similarity likewise concluded that there is evidence for personality resemblance, while the origin of that resemblance remains unresolved (Bender et al., 2025). The literature discusses both selection effects (people choosing dogs that fit them) and possible convergence over time. The evidence therefore supports the modest statement that owner and dog can resemble one another, not the stronger claim that a dog simply becomes a mirror of the owner's character.

5. Owner Stress and the Dog's Physiology

5.1 Cortisol in Owner–Dog Dyads

Physiological measures offer a way around the owner's perception, because they are not filtered through a questionnaire about the dog. A study with 22 owners and their medium-sized to large male dogs measured salivary cortisol during routine activities and experimental tasks and related it to owner personality and the owner–dog relationship (Schöberl et al., 2012). Owners high in neuroticism or low in conscientiousness had higher morning cortisol levels, while their dogs showed low levels. Dogs whose owners regarded them as social partners and meaningful companions had low morning cortisol. The authors concluded that relationship factors had a larger influence on cortisol than the experimental tasks.

The sample was very small and restricted to male dogs. The results show that owner characteristics and dog physiology can be linked, and that the link is not simply "stressed owner, stressed dog".

5.2 Attachment and Cortisol Reactivity

A later study combined the Strange Situation procedure with cortisol sampling (Schöberl et al., 2016). Securely attached dogs secreted less cortisol during attachment and play situations than insecurely attached dogs, and showed a trend toward stronger cortisol reactivity when the owner was absent, consistent with relying on the owner for regulation. On the owner side, the higher the owner's self-reported insecure-ambivalent attachment toward the dog, the higher the dog's cortisol reactivity, while owners higher in neuroticism and agreeableness had dogs with lower cortisol reactivity. These are correlations in a laboratory procedure, and they are another reminder that "neurotic owner" does not map simply onto "stressed dog".

5.3 Long-Term Stress in Herding Breeds

Hair cortisol reflects stress hormone levels over weeks to months, which makes it suitable for studying long-term patterns. In 58 dyads of Shetland sheepdogs or border collies and their female owners, the long-term cortisol levels of dogs and owners were correlated, and owner personality traits were related to the dogs' hair cortisol, while the dogs' personality did not relate to the owners' cortisol (Sundman et al., 2019). The authors read this as dogs mirroring their owners' stress. A later correction amended one breed value and a figure without changing the central finding (Sundman et al., 2020).

The study is often quoted as proof that owners' stress transfers to their dogs. It is correlational, in two herding breeds with female owners only, and a shared household could raise stress in both partners without one transmitting it to the other. The asymmetry in the personality analysis is suggestive, not causal (what is known about emotional contagion between owners and dogs).

5.4 A Different Result in Other Breeds

The same research group then studied ancient and solitary hunting breeds (Höglin et al., 2021). In these dogs, no synchronization of long-term cortisol with the owner was found. The dogs' hair cortisol was related mainly to aspects of the owner–dog relationship and to personality traits. Taken together, the two studies suggest that whether and how owner and dog stress are linked may depend on the type of dog, which is a strong argument against applying the herding-breed result to every dog (what chronic stress does and how cortisol is interpreted).

5.5 What Cortisol Can and Cannot Show

Cortisol measures activation of the stress axis. It rises with positive excitement as well as with distress, so a correlation between owner and dog cortisol shows that the two are linked in some way, not that the dog suffers or that the owner is the source (how stress is measured in dogs and what each measure means). The physiological studies avoid shared-method bias, but they are small, cover few breeds, and none has tested whether changes in owner stress precede changes in the dog.

6. Owner Behavior: Training, Engagement and Methods

6.1 Engagement in Training

If owner personality is the weaker and less direct predictor, owner behavior is the more practical one. A survey of 413 Australian dog owners measured training engagement with three items: reading about training, discussing training with others and attending formal classes (Bennett & Rohlf, 2007). Higher training engagement predicted lower scores for disobedience, unfriendliness or aggression, nervousness and excessive barking, and more involvement in shared activities with the dog. The survey was self-reported and cross-sectional, and owners who engage in training may differ from others in many ways, but the association fits the earlier finding that obedience-trained dogs had fewer of several problem behaviors (Jagoe & Serpell, 1996).

Unlike personality, training engagement is something an owner can change. That does not make the association causal, but it makes it a sensible place to begin.

6.2 Training Methods

The most consistent owner-behavior findings concern training methods. In an owner survey, the number of problem behaviors reported correlated with the number of tasks trained using punishment, but not with the number trained using rewards (Hiby, Rooney & Bradshaw, 2004). In another survey, 72 percent of owners used some form of positive punishment, and owners who combined positive reinforcement with positive punishment had dogs with the highest mean aggression score among the method groups (Blackwell et al., 2008). A study that filmed 53 owners with their dogs at home found that dogs whose owners reported using more rewards performed better on a novel training task, while dogs whose owners reported more punishment were less likely to interact with a stranger (Rooney & Cowan, 2011).

At a veterinary behavior referral service, 140 owners were asked about techniques they had tried. Confrontational techniques drew aggressive responses from at least a quarter of the dogs on which they were used (Herron, Shofer & Reisner, 2009). That study relies on owner recall in a population already selected for behavior problems. In companion dogs from training schools, dogs trained with aversive methods were slower to approach ambiguous locations in a judgment bias test, a pattern interpreted as a more negative affective state (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020).

Aversive methods can stop a behavior in the moment, and that is why they remain in use. The question these studies raise is what the dog learned along the way and at what cost: fear of the handler, avoidance of strangers, aggression as a response to confrontation, or a more pessimistic outlook (what aversive methods do to stress and learning). The training-method studies share the main limitation of the field: most rely on owner report, and the direction can run both ways, since owners of difficult dogs may move toward harsher methods out of frustration (what is known about the side effects of punishment).

6.3 Personality and Method Are Not the Same Thing

It is tempting to connect the two lines of evidence: certain owners use certain methods, and the methods produce the behavior. A large test of this idea found only weak support for it (Dodman et al., 2018). A trainer therefore cannot infer an owner's methods from their personality, nor the cause of a dog's behavior from either. How the dog is trained is worth addressing regardless of the owner's personality profile.

7. Owner Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes

7.1 A Longitudinal Clinical Study

Most owner-effect studies take a single snapshot. One study followed 131 dog–owner dyads attending a veterinary behavior service (Powell et al., 2021). Owners completed the C-BARQ at baseline and at three and six months, and the Ten-Item Personality Inventory and an attachment-to-pets scale at baseline. Of the 131 dyads, 119 completed the personality and attachment measures and 98 provided six-month data.

Within six months of consultation, trainability scores increased and chasing, separation-related behavior and energy level decreased. The most consistent predictor of change was the dog's own baseline behavior: dogs with less desirable behavior at the start were more likely to improve on most subscales. Dog age and weight, owner conscientiousness, extraversion and openness, and owner–dog attachment were associated with outcomes for some behavioral categories (Powell et al., 2021). Owner conscientiousness was negatively associated with improvement in stranger-directed aggression, while owner extraversion was associated with improvement in nonsocial fear and touch sensitivity.

7.2 What This Study Adds

This is one of the few studies reviewed here in which owner characteristics were measured before the outcome, which gives it a temporal order that cross-sectional surveys lack. Its results are also mixed in a way that resists simple narratives: conscientiousness, often assumed to be helpful, was associated with less improvement in one category. The study did not record psychoactive medication, which may have influenced outcomes, and the sample came from a referral clinic. Behavior change was still owner-reported. The main message is that owner factors are part of the picture for some problems, while the dog's own starting point matters most.

8. Who Is Describing the Dog?

8.1 Owners as Observers

Because most of the evidence depends on owners' descriptions of their dogs, owners' ability to observe their dogs is itself part of the owner-effect question. When owners were asked about stress signals, they rarely named subtle signs such as head turning, yawning or nose licking (Mariti et al., 2012). If owners differ in what they notice, and if those differences are related to their personality or experience, then personality–behavior correlations may partly reflect differences in observation (what research shows about canine body language).

8.2 Large Samples, Same Limitation

Very large owner surveys do not escape this problem. In an online sample of 14,004 dogs, owner and household characteristics were associated with dog personality traits; for example, sociability toward other dogs was associated with, among other factors, the time owners spent with their dogs (Kubinyi, Turcsán & Miklósi, 2009). The authors stressed that the characteristics were reported by owners and that the associations do not necessarily represent a causal relationship. Large samples make associations more precise. They do not make them causal, and they do not remove a bias that is built into the method.

8.3 Expectations Shape Observation

What an owner expects can also influence what the dog does. Research on cueing effects shows that people can unintentionally influence a dog's responses (how human expectations influence dog behavior in tests). An owner who expects a reaction to another dog may tighten the leash before anything happens. That would be an effect of specific actions, not of personality as such, and open to change.

9. Direction, Selection and Genetics

9.1 Dogs Change Owners

Almost every study reviewed here is compatible with the reverse direction. Living with a dog that bites visitors or panics when alone is stressful. It can raise an owner's anxiety, change how they handle the dog, and change how they describe themselves on a questionnaire. Dodman and colleagues explicitly named the possibility that behavior problems lead owners to more confrontational training rather than the reverse (Dodman et al., 2018). The same logic applies to stress and attachment measures.

The honest summary is that owner and dog influence each other, and that cross-sectional data cannot separate the two directions. A finding that "owners of dogs with problem X score higher on trait Y" describes a pair, not a cause.

9.2 Owners Choose Dogs

People do not receive dogs at random. They choose breeds, individual puppies or adult dogs, often with specific expectations. Konok and colleagues raised the possibility that owners' attachment style influences their choice of dog (Konok et al., 2015), and the personality similarity between owners and dogs may partly reflect choice (Turcsán et al., 2012). If an owner with a certain temperament is more likely to choose a dog with a certain temperament, owner–dog correlations can arise without any influence after acquisition.

9.3 The Dog's Own Disposition

The dog's own disposition is at least as prominent in these studies as the owner's. Dog neuroticism was strongly associated with separation-related disorder (Konok et al., 2015), dog sociability measured independently of the owner differed between aggressive and non-aggressive dogs (Gobbo & Zupan, 2020), and the dog's baseline behavior was the most consistent predictor of treatment outcome (Powell et al., 2021). The fact that cortisol synchronization appeared in herding breeds but not in ancient and solitary hunting breeds (Sundman et al., 2019; Höglin et al., 2021) also suggests that the type of dog shapes how much it is affected by its owner. Heritable differences in temperament and breed-related tendencies are part of the background against which any owner effect operates (what behavioral genetics says about dog behavior) (how much breed explains about behavior).

9.4 How Large Are the Effects?

Where effect sizes are reported, they are mostly modest. Dodman and colleagues called the associations between aversive training and behavior problems modest (Dodman et al., 2018), and in a large attachment study, owner personality traits did not significantly predict separation-related disorder at all (Konok et al., 2015). None of the studies reviewed here shows that owner personality explains most of the differences between dogs. Owner effects are better described as one influence among several, alongside genetics, early experience, health, training history and the environment.

10. Talking to Owners Without Blame

10.1 Associations Are Not Guilt

The evidence reviewed here supports one clear statement for practice: an association between an owner characteristic and a dog behavior is not evidence that this owner caused this dog's problem. The studies describe groups, the effects are mostly modest, and the direction is usually unknown. Telling an owner "your dog is anxious because you are anxious" goes beyond what any of these studies can show, and it puts the owner in a defensive position at the very moment when cooperation is needed (how aggression problems are understood and approached).

In practice: In our experience, owners respond better when the human side of a problem is framed as a resource rather than a cause. "Your dog uses you as a reference point, so what you do in this situation can help" invites cooperation. "Your nervousness is the problem" usually ends it. This is an observation from training practice, not a finding from controlled studies.

10.2 What Owners Can Change at the Measured Level

The variables that show the most consistent associations with dog behavior are behaviors, not personality traits, and behaviors can be changed. Training engagement was associated with fewer problem behaviors (Bennett & Rohlf, 2007). Reward use was associated with better performance on a new task, and punishment-based methods with more reported problems, less interaction with strangers and a more pessimistic judgment bias (Hiby et al., 2004; Rooney & Cowan, 2011; Vieira de Castro et al., 2020). How commands are given and how often a dog is praised differed between owners and was linked to the dog's responses (Kis et al., 2012).

The owner's presence can also be used deliberately. In 30 dogs approached by a threatening stranger, the owner's presence dampened the heart-rate response (Gácsi et al., 2013). That is a reason to involve owners actively in difficult situations rather than treating them as a source of disturbance (how dogs use their owners in uncertain situations).

In practice: We find it more productive to work on concrete, observable owner behaviors than on general traits: one clear signal instead of repeated commands, consistent rules among family members, rewards delivered at the right moment, and a calm, predictable response in triggering situations. These targets come from training practice and learning theory, not from intervention studies on owner personality.

10.3 The Owner's Own Stress

The cortisol studies suggest that owner and dog stress can be linked, at least in some breeds (Sundman et al., 2019). They do not show that reducing owner stress reduces dog stress, because no study reviewed here tested that. Owner stress can still be raised in training, framed as something that helps the owner and may help the dog, not as an admission of fault.

In practice: Owners of dogs with long-standing problems are often exhausted. Reducing the number of difficult situations through management, planning walks at quieter times and building in recovery days can lower the load on both owner and dog. In our experience, this often makes training more effective, but this is an observation from practice and has not been tested as an intervention in the studies reviewed here.

10.4 Asking Without Judging

In practice: A useful habit is to describe what was observed rather than interpret it: "When the other dog appeared, you shortened the leash and your dog looked at you and then started to bark" is information both sides can work with. "You always" is not. This comes from consultation practice, not from research.

11. Summary at a Glance

Surveys found associations between owner personality and dog behavior problems (Podberscek & Serpell, 1997; Dodman et al., 2018), but they are cross-sectional and rely on owners describing both themselves and their dogs.

Owner attachment style shows more specific associations. Owner attachment avoidance, but not attachment anxiety and not general personality, was associated with separation-related disorder in a large survey, where the dog's own neuroticism was also strongly associated (Konok et al., 2015). Other studies linked owner attachment style to the dog's support-seeking and to aggression toward the owner (Rehn et al., 2017; Gobbo & Zupan, 2020).

Studies with independent measures add weight but remain small. Observed interactions showed differences in how owners of different personalities gave commands and praise (Kis et al., 2012), peer ratings confirmed owner–dog personality similarity for most dimensions (Turcsán et al., 2012), and cortisol was linked between owners and dogs in herding breeds but not in ancient and solitary hunting breeds (Sundman et al., 2019; Höglin et al., 2021).

Owner behavior, particularly training engagement and training methods, is more consistently associated with dog behavior than owner personality (Bennett & Rohlf, 2007; Hiby et al., 2004; Rooney & Cowan, 2011). In the longitudinal clinical study reviewed here, the dog's own baseline behavior was the most consistent predictor of improvement, with owner traits playing a role for some problems (Powell et al., 2021).

12. Research Gaps and Critical Appraisal

12.1 Shared-Method Bias

The central weakness is that in most studies the same person rates themselves and the dog. This applies to the largest samples reviewed here (Dodman et al., 2018; Konok et al., 2015; Kubinyi et al., 2009). Correlations between owner traits and owner-reported dog behavior may reflect how owners perceive and describe their dogs as well as how the dogs behave. Only a minority of studies use behavioral tests, coded observation, peer ratings or physiological measures, and these are almost all small: 22 dyads (Schöberl et al., 2012), 40 dyads (Gobbo & Zupan, 2020), 58 dyads (Sundman et al., 2019) and 78 dyads (Kis et al., 2012).

12.2 Cross-Sectional Designs

Almost all studies measure owner and dog at one point in time. Without longitudinal data, the direction of effect cannot be established. The one longitudinal study reviewed here followed dogs for six months in a referral population, measured owner traits only at baseline and relied on owner-reported outcomes (Powell et al., 2021). No study has followed owners and dogs from acquisition to test whether owner characteristics predict later dog behavior.

12.3 No Intervention Studies on Owner Factors

No study reviewed here manipulated an owner factor, for example by training owners in a specific interaction style or by reducing owner stress, and measured the effect on the dog. The training-method studies come closest, but they too are mostly observational. Without experiments, recommendations about changing owner behavior rest on associations and on learning theory rather than on tested interventions.

12.4 Samples

Samples are skewed. Most respondents are women, 91 percent in one survey (Dodman et al., 2018) and 85 percent in another (Bennett & Rohlf, 2007). One large sample consisted of members of a research organization, one study was restricted to a single breed (Podberscek & Serpell, 1997), and the cortisol studies covered specific breed groups with female owners or male dogs only. Results from referral clinics describe dogs already selected for problems (Herron et al., 2009; Powell et al., 2021). Generalization to the wider population of companion dogs and their owners is uncertain.

12.5 Selection and Genetics

None of the studies separates owner influence after acquisition from owner choice of dog, and none controls for the genetic background of the dogs in a way that would allow owner effects to be isolated. The breed difference in cortisol synchronization (Sundman et al., 2019; Höglin et al., 2021) and the strong role of dog neuroticism (Konok et al., 2015) show that this is not a minor issue.

12.6 Measures and Concepts

Owner personality was measured with instruments of very different length, from ten-item inventories (Dodman et al., 2018; Powell et al., 2021) to longer questionnaires (Konok et al., 2015; Schöberl et al., 2012). Attachment was measured as general adult attachment in some studies and as attachment to the pet in others. Dog behavior outcomes range from owner-reported problem categories to standardized test scores and cortisol. These differences make direct comparison difficult.

13. Conclusion

The research on owner effects supports a cautious and constructive view. Owner personality, attachment style and stress are associated with dog behavior and physiology in several studies, but the associations are mostly modest, most are measured through the owner's own eyes, and their direction is unknown. Dogs influence their owners, owners choose their dogs, and the dog's own disposition is often the strongest factor in the data. The popular idea that a dog's problem reveals its owner's character goes well beyond this evidence.

What the research does offer is a set of owner behaviors associated with better outcomes: engagement in training, reward-based methods, clear communication and a relationship in which the dog can use the owner as a secure base. These can be changed without anyone having to change who they are. For trainers, that is the most useful lesson: talk about the human side of a problem in terms of what can be done, and leave guilt out of it.

Key Insights (Takeaways)

• Most evidence on owner effects is cross-sectional and owner-reported, so the same person describes both themselves and the dog, and the direction of effect is usually unknown.

• In a large survey, low owner emotional stability, conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness were associated with specific dog behavior problems; the authors found only weak evidence that training methods explained these links (Dodman et al., 2018).

• Owner attachment avoidance, not general personality, was associated with owner-reported separation-related disorder, and the dog's own neuroticism was strongly associated too (Konok et al., 2015).

• Studies with independent measures are small but informative: owner personality was linked to observed commands and praise (Kis et al., 2012), and owner–dog personality similarity held for most dimensions with peer ratings (Turcsán et al., 2012).

• Long-term cortisol was synchronized between owners and dogs in herding breeds but not in ancient and solitary hunting breeds (Sundman et al., 2019; Höglin et al., 2021).

• Training engagement and reward-based methods are more consistently associated with fewer problems than any owner personality trait (Bennett & Rohlf, 2007; Rooney & Cowan, 2011).

• In a clinical follow-up, the dog's baseline behavior was the most consistent predictor of improvement, with owner traits mattering for some problems (Powell et al., 2021).

• Associations are not guilt: owner factors are best addressed as concrete, changeable behaviors and as a resource for the dog, not as a verdict on the owner.

References

Bennett, P. C., & Rohlf, V. I. (2007). Owner-companion dog interactions: Relationships between demographic variables, potentially problematic behaviours, training engagement and shared activities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.009

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

Dodman, N. H., Brown, D. C., & Serpell, J. A. (2018). Associations between owner personality and psychological status and the prevalence of canine behavior problems. PLOS ONE, 13(2), e0192846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192846

Gácsi, M., Maros, K., Sernkvist, S., Faragó, T., & Miklósi, Á. (2013). Human analogue safe haven effect of the owner: Behavioural and heart rate response to stressful social stimuli in dogs. PLOS ONE, 8(3), e58475. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058475

Gobbo, E., & Zupan, M. (2020). Dogs' sociability, owners' neuroticism and attachment style to pets as predictors of dog aggression. Animals, 10(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020315

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

Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004). Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600026683

Höglin, A., Van Poucke, E., Katajamaa, R., Jensen, P., Theodorsson, E., & Roth, L. S. V. (2021). Long-term stress in dogs is related to the human–dog relationship and personality traits. Scientific Reports, 11, 8612. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88201-y

Horn, L., Huber, L., & Range, F. (2013). The importance of the secure base effect for domestic dogs: Evidence from a manipulative problem-solving task. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e65296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065296

Jagoe, A., & Serpell, J. (1996). Owner characteristics and interactions and the prevalence of canine behaviour problems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47(1–2), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01008-4

Kis, A., Turcsán, B., Miklósi, Á., & Gácsi, M. (2012). The effect of the owner's personality on the behaviour of owner-dog dyads. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.3.03kis

Konok, V., Kosztolányi, A., Wohlfarth, R., Mutschler, B., Halsband, U., & Miklósi, Á. (2015). Influence of owners' attachment style and personality on their dogs' (Canis familiaris) separation-related disorder. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118375. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118375

Kubinyi, E., Turcsán, B., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Dog and owner demographic characteristics and dog personality trait associations. Behavioural Processes, 81(3), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.04.004

Mariti, C., Gazzano, A., Moore, J. L., Baragli, P., Chelli, L., & Sighieri, C. (2012). Perception of dogs' stress by their owners. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 7(4), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.09.004

Payne, E., Bennett, P. C., & McGreevy, P. D. (2015). Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–human dyad. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 8, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S74972

Podberscek, A. L., & Serpell, J. A. (1997). Aggressive behaviour in English cocker spaniels and the personality of their owners. Veterinary Record, 141(3), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.141.3.73

Powell, L., Stefanovski, D., Siracusa, C., & Serpell, J. (2021). Owner personality, owner-dog attachment, and canine demographics influence treatment outcomes in canine behavioral medicine cases. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 630931. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.630931

Rehn, T., McGowan, R. T. S., & Keeling, L. J. (2017). Links between an owner's adult attachment style and the support-seeking behavior of their dog. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2059. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02059

Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(3–4), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.007

Schöberl, I., Beetz, A., Solomon, J., Wedl, M., Gee, N., & Kotrschal, K. (2016). Social factors influencing cortisol modulation in dogs during a Strange Situation Procedure. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 11, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2015.09.007

Schöberl, I., Wedl, M., Bauer, B., Day, J. E. L., Möstl, E., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Effects of owner–dog relationship and owner personality on cortisol modulation in human–dog dyads. Anthrozoös, 25, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13316289505422

Sundman, A.-S., Van Poucke, E., Svensson Holm, A.-C., Faresjö, Å., Theodorsson, E., Jensen, P., & Roth, L. S. V. (2019). Long-term stress levels are synchronized in dogs and their owners. Scientific Reports, 9, 7391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43851-x

Sundman, A.-S., Van Poucke, E., Svensson Holm, A.-C., Faresjö, Å., Theodorsson, E., Jensen, P., & Roth, L. S. V. (2020). Author correction: Long-term stress levels are synchronized in dogs and their owners. Scientific Reports, 10, 17112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74204-8

Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., & Dóka, A. (1998). Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth's (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219

Bender, Y., Roth, F., Schweinberger, S. R., Witte, S., & Bräuer, J. (2025). Like owner, like dog – A systematic review about similarities in dog-human dyads. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, 112884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112884

Kujala, M. V., Imponen, N., Pirkkala, A., Silfverberg, T., Parviainen, T., Tiira, K., & Kiuru, N. (2023). Modulation of dog–owner relationship and dog social and cognitive behavior by owner temperament and dog breed group. Scientific Reports, 13, 14739. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41849-0

Turcsán, B., Range, F., Virányi, Z., Miklósi, Á., & Kubinyi, E. (2012). Birds of a feather flock together? Perceived personality matching in owner–dog dyads. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140(3–4), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.06.004

Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023