Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42193754›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

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

Sarah A Weir, Sharon E Kessler, Clare P Andrews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah A WeirDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1885-3330
Sharon E KesslerDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
Clare P AndrewsDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7484-4447

Funding

University of Stirling No Grant Number - Internal funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs' societal roles have shifted globally. In private spheres, dogs are increasingly regarded as family and granted legal protections, but in public, they are framed as dangerous and subjected to increased legal restrictions. Changing perceptions of dogs and differences in the law's beneficiaries may influence how people develop legal knowledge. Where enforcement is limited or challenging, legal knowledge becomes an important component of the law's capacity to shape behaviour. Using the United Kingdom (UK) as a case study, we examined people's knowledge of 22 laws, divided between UK-wide current laws, nation-specific laws, and plausible hypothetical laws representing high-priority issues. We conducted a nationally representative survey with 1758 participants, split equally across the four UK nations. We first conducted exploratory model-building to identify variables associated with knowledge and then analysed these variables using multinomial models. Accurate legal knowledge among the UK public was limited, with participants frequently overestimating the existence of laws that prioritise dogs and their owners. Dog owners responded with greater certainty but not greater accuracy than non-dog owners. Older participants were more accurate overall, while responses to hypothetical laws suggested generational differences in views on animal welfare. These findings suggest gaps between the law in reality and what people assume the law to be.

Indexed as

awarenesscompanion animalscompliancedangerous dogsdogsdog welfareeducationlegal knowledgelegislation

Identifiers

PMID42193754
PMCPMC13203885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.