Dominance - does it exist? It's a bit more complicated than that....

Ever since the original description of the peck-order in chickens by Schjelderupp-Ebb in his dissertation of 1921, the idea that social animals live in a continual struggle for power over each other has been widespread. The word “Dominance” became fundamental to the description of social groups amongst scientists but defining “dominance” in a way that could be agreed upon was elusive.

(Drews, 1993) This disagreement of what defines dominance opened the door, in clinical, behavioural and training circles, to many misapplications of the term.

With the term “dominance” at the forefront of much behavioural work, in the 1930s and 1940s Swiss animal behaviourist Rudolph Schenkel began studying groups of captive wolves in zoos. From his studies, he determined that wolves living in packs regularly engage in agonistic behaviours in order to express their dominant position over other members of their pack. (“Debunking the ‘Alpha Dog’ Theory - Whole Dog Journal,” n.d.) This theory was brought to the general public’s attention by the 1968 publishing of "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species" by Dr. L David Mech. This led to the theory that because dogs were descended from wolves, dogs were therefore attempting to dominate humans. Dominance, following this theory, is described as a characteristic of an individual dog, with the idea that a ”dominant” dog, regardless of which social group he is a part of and which species that group contains, will continually attempt to dominate all other members of that group.

However, in the last 15 years, ethologists (and others) have become more interested in the study of dogs, having long disregarded them as “artificial animals” so having little relevance to ethological studies. (Miklosi, 2015) This has led to the definition and interpretation of dominance itself, its application to behaviour and many of the widely accepted ”truths” regarding dogs and their social structure to be re-examined.

Several articles have been published examining the role and definition of dominance and following the 1993 publication of Carlos Drews’ “THE CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF DOMINANCE IN ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR”, the standard ethological definition of dominance is now regarded as:

“... an attribute of the pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favour of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation. The status of the consistent winner is dominant and that of the loser subordinate.”

(Drews, 1993)

Dominance is now known not to be a personality trait but to apply only to a relationship between individuals. One dog being dominant over another may be a transient situation or longer lasting, with roles likely to reverse dependent upon the context, environment and resource. (Bradshaw et al., 2009)

“Since the traditional wolf pack competitive dominance structure has been replaced by a more cohesive framework for wolves themselves and very little support has been found for dogs adopting wolf like social structures between members of their own species, it now seems unlikely that interactions between domestic dogs are always, or indeed ever, driven by the aim to ‘‘achieve status’’ within a social group.”

(Bradshaw et al., 2009)

Unfortunately, despite the many published articles and studies from world renowned scientists, the idea that dogs need to be dominated in order to suppress some natural instinct to rule our households persists in much of the popular culture both on television and in social media. This idea became so pervasive that the author of the aforementioned book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species", Dr. L David Mech issued a statement essentially revising his findings in the book.

“The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book's info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then [sic] in all of previous history. One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. "Alpha" implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that's all we call them today, the "breeding male," "breeding female," or "male parent," "female parent," or the "adult male" or "adult female." In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the "dominant breeder" can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a "subordinate breeder."

(“Why NOT Dominance?,” n.d.)

Many of the situations in which dominance is cited as the reason for an individual dog’s behaviour is, in actuality, resource guarding. A dominance-submission relationship is established by force or aggression in order for the dominant individual to gain access to resources such as food, preferred resting spots, and mates. The application of a dominance-submission model across species Therefore, this model is irrelevant for most of the behaviours that people want from their dogs, such as recalling or walking on a loose lead. (Yin, 2007)

However, the idea of humans needing to show their dog that they are the “pack leader” or “alpha” remains. Utilising this theory and the training practises required to elicit “submission” can result in anything from a breakdown in the relationship between guardian and dog to the dog experiencing trauma so severe that it may either cause a serious bite and subsequent euthanasia or a lifetime of emotional anguish.

The result of dominance-based training is most frequently an anxious dog who is terrified of his guardian. The dog sees a human who is subject to aggressive and violent outbursts at any time and for no discernible reason. This dog simply lives in fear and may appear to be calm and well behaved but is often broken and emotionally shut down. Other dogs will resort to defensive aggression of their own, eliciting further attempts to dominate and resulting in behavioural problems which the dog would otherwise not have exhibited.

There is a risk of an aggressive response with the use of confrontational methods (Herron et al., 2009). 43% of people who hit or kicked the dog, 39% who forced the dog to let go of something from their mouth and 31% of people who subjected their dog to an alpha roll reported an aggressive response.

Aversive training techniques such as those that are often part of dominance-based training, can increase the likelihood of dogs to exhibit aggressive responses to a family member by 2.9 times and to a stranger outside the home by 2.2 times as opposed to if the dog had been trained using reward-based methods (Casey et al., 2014). 65 % of dogs trained to sit and walk on leash using positive punishment and negative reinforcement showed signs of stress (mouth-licking, yawning, shaking, scratching, sniffing and/or whining) than those taught with reward-based techniques. They also gazed less at their owner, suggesting a reduction in the quality of the human-canine relationship in comparison to those trained with rewards. (Deldalle and Gaunet, 2014)

In the world of dog training and behaviour, the concept of dominance has a habit of being oversimplified and is now being misrepresented by some positive trainers as a complete myth, just as it was misrepresented as a simple truth by the dominance trainers 30 years ago. This may be in part due to the subtleties of social dominance and situational dominance being such a broad concept that it is simply easier to say “dominance is a myth” than to take the time to explain the true nature of social and situational dominance. A simplified definition cannot be found that covers all species, dyads, or across different contexts. Many discussions have taken place in which the general concept of social dominance is criticised are very informative, but the claim that dominance is a myth is in direct contrast to what is known about the subtleties governing the complex social relationships and on-going social dynamics of social species. (Bekoff, 2012)

The outright denial of the existence of social dominance, however, only serves to open the gateway to aversive trainer’s arguments that reward based training is based on unscientific “fluff”. One UK trainer writes “this idea is actively promoted by positive training advocates, as it in turn promotes their idea suggesting that it is never necessary to correct a dog” and “dogs choose to follow their humans in most situations – truly dominant dogs are extremely rare. They will, however, frequently test boundaries and, when given half a chance, attempt to ‘take charge’ if that position of authority has not been claimed.” (“Dominance Theory | Why Denying Your Dogs Dominance Hurts Both of You,” n.d.)

Social dominance between conspecifics and between different species (watering holes in deserts being an example of this) does exist, but its existence can be classed as somewhat irrelevant to our lives with dogs. Recognising when a dog has a resource they are likely to want to keep hold of, understanding their communications and signs that they are uncomfortable, worried or afraid and ensuring their physical, social and emotional needs are met have more bearing than social dominance on our relationships with our dogs. Training and behaviour modification has little reliance on an understanding of what dominance truly is, but misunderstanding it can be incredibly damaging.

References

Bekoff, M., 2012. Social Dominance Is Not a Myth: Wolves, Dogs, and... [WWW Document]. Psychology Today. URL https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/animal-emotions/201202/social-dominance-is-not-myth-wolves-dogs-and (accessed 8.8.21).

Bradshaw, J.W.S., Blackwell, E.J., Casey, R.A., 2009. Dominance in domestic dogs—useful construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behavior 4, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVEB.2008.08.004

Casey, R.A., Loftus, B., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.003

Debunking the “Alpha Dog” Theory - Whole Dog Journal [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/behavior/debunking-the-alpha-dog-theory/ (accessed 8.1.21).

Deldalle, S., Gaunet, F., 2014. Effects of 2 training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog (Canis familiaris) and on the dog–owner relationship. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2013.11.004

Dominance Theory | Why Denying Your Dogs Dominance Hurts Both of You [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://www.dogharmony.co.uk/why-denying-your-dogs-dominance-hurts-both-of-you/ (accessed 8.8.21).

Drews, C., 1993. The Concept and Definition of Dominance in Animal Behaviour. Behaviour 125, 283–313. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853993X00290

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, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2008.12.011

Miklosi, A., 2015. Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

Why NOT Dominance? [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://www.diamondsintheruff.com/why-not-dominance (accessed 8.2.21).

Yin, S., 2007. Dominance versus leadership in dog training. Compendium.