Most people in the UK don’t fully understand dog laws in the country, and often believe stronger protections exist than actually do, according to a new University of Stirling study.

The research, led by Sarah Weir of the University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences and involving more than 1,700 people across the UK, explored how changing attitudes towards dogs are shaping public expectations and knowledge of dog law.

It showed that participants often overestimated the level of legal protection provided for dogs.

The study also found that dog owners were consistently more confident than non‑owners when answering questions about the law - but not more accurate - raising concerns about how legal understanding can be improved when people are unaware their knowledge is incorrect.

Psychologist Ms Weir explained: “These findings challenge common assumptions about legal awareness and responsible ownership, showing that while dog owners are often expected to understand and comply with the law, they are no more accurate in their knowledge than non‑owners.

“This raises concerns about how legal understanding can be improved when people are unaware their knowledge is inaccurate.”

Researchers carried out a nationally representative survey of 1,758 adults across the UK to assess knowledge of 22 current, nation‑specific and hypothetical dog laws, with responses analysed using multinomial statistical models - a method that compares different response categories (such as correct, incorrect or unsure) - to identify patterns across demographic groups.

It found that while most respondents were familiar with high-profile measures such as dog fouling rules and banned breeds, significant misconceptions remained. Notably, 85% believed that aversive training methods were already banned, while only 16% correctly understood that no legislation explicitly prohibits the euthanasia of healthy dogs.

More than half of respondents were also unaware that strict bans on shock collars only apply in Wales, not in other parts of the UK, while less than half of those taking part were aware of nationwide laws making it illegal for a dog to cause fear or apprehension in another person in a private home.

Ms Weir added: “The research also suggested that differences in legal knowledge may be linked to broader social change. Younger participants were more likely to assume that stronger legal protections for dogs and owners already existed, which may reflect the increasingly elevated status of dogs in society.

"Many people nowadays increasingly view their dogs as more like family members or children than was historically the case.

“In some cases, people who had never owned a dog were also more likely to assume that laws providing greater protection for dogs, particularly those that placed additional responsibilities on owners, already existed.

“This suggests that expectations about dog welfare and regulation are not limited to dog owners but may instead reflect wider societal views about how dogs should be treated. If future generations continue to view dogs differently, public expectations of dog law may continue to change.”

Exploring Public Knowledge of Dog Law in the UK: Evidence of Poor Legal Knowledge in a Nationally Representative Sample was published in Animals.