Despite advancements in our understanding of canine behaviour and the continuous efforts of dog trainers and behaviourists worldwide, the dominance myth continues to permeate the dog training industry. Thanks to social media and tv personalities, dominance is regularly asserted to be the driving force behind many unwanted behaviours in dogs. This has led unqualified dog trainers to promote the idea that dogs are obsessed with world domination and that their undesirable behaviour is evidence of that. Where did the dominance myth come from and does dominance really exist in dog behaviour?
Origin of the myth
The dominance theory was originally devised by animal behaviourist Rudolph Schenkel, who
conducted studies on captive wolves in a Switzerland zoo in the 1930-1940s. Based on his
observations, he hypothesized that wolves were in continual competition for dominance and
that only the aggressive behaviour of the alpha male maintained order in the pack. This
theory was then extrapolated and applied to canine behaviour, asserting that dogs compete to be the alpha or ‘top dog’. American Biologist David Mech (2000), who studied wild, related
wolves on Ellesmere Island Canada over a period of 13 summers, demonstrated that these
studies conflicted with the usual characteristics and behaviour of wolves. When further
studies by David Mech and many after him, were conducted, their research established that
wild wolves in a pack are a family that consists of one mating pair and their offspring of the
past one to three years.
As the offspring matures, they leave the pack to form their own families, whilst the long term
breeding pair remain, with two or three families of wild wolves occasionally grouping
together. In comparison, captive wolves are forced to live in a small and artificial
environment with unrelated wolves, which creates tension and often violence between the
mature members, which is what Rudolph Schenkel had witnessed in the 1930s. Despite the
dominance theory being scientifically debunked many times over, tv personalities
popularized the theory and sadly it is still applied to canine behaviour today.
True Meaning of Dominance
That being said, dominance does exist in canine behaviour, but it is not a personality trait or a
means to create conflict. According to Drews (1993), “Dominance is an attribute of a social
relationship between two individuals in which one of the two (the dominant one) emerges as
the consistent winner of repeated agonistic interactions, whereas the other (the subordinate)
usually defers without escalation.” We often observe this in multi-dog households, whereby
dogs value certain resources and allow the other dog to have the resource with minimal
conflict. This is a fluid dynamic, whereby each dog can display dominance over a preferred
resource, meaning there is no “alpha” or “top dog” and every dog in the group can be
dominant in certain situations. John Bradshaw (2011) refers to this as the ‘Resource Holding
Potential (RHP) model’, which asserts that whenever there is a potential for conflict over a
resource, the dog is met with two decisions; how much they want that resource and how
likely the dog is going to win the resource if they fight for it.
Interestingly, John Bradshaw (2011) relates that some of his studies on groups of dogs
revealed that dogs do consider how much the other dog wants the resource. One such study
on French bull dogs, showed that one of the four females was consistently given priority
access to food, despite not being the oldest or mother to the most recent litter. The single
male in the group regularly deferred to her when it came to food but he had priority access to
toys.
If dominance was a rigid personality trait, the dogs in this group and in many other similar
studies, would fight for priority access to every resource. In dog to dog interactions,
submission is offered voluntarily and is rarely ever forced, to ensure conflict is avoided.
Resource guarding can become a common issue in a multidog household, creating potential
conflict, however, this is usually due to the dog’s insecurities, rather than an effort to establish
rank. Dominance continues to be blamed as the driving force for aggressive behaviour,
however, studies show that when dominance hierarchies are established amongst dogs, there are already established orders of access to resources, meaning there is no need for conflict or aggression. (Victoria Stillwell 2024)
Does it matter what we believe?
Does it matter what we believe? This is the ongoing argument I see occurring on social media, but we need to remember that canine behaviour is a science and as such, we owe it to dogs to align our understanding and training methods with the most up to date scientific research. What are the consequences if we don’t?
Well the theory that dogs misbehave because they are trying to assert dominance and be the ‘alpha’, significantly influences the type of training approaches guardians choose, leading many to use aversive equipment. Jean Donalson describes this as the ‘dominance panacea’, whereby guardians assume every behaviour is due to dominance and that all issues will be resolved if you can just exert ‘adequate dominance’. (Jean Donaldson 2013)
A survey study in 2009, revealed the significant impact of using dominance based methods to address behaviour issues. It recorded that 43% of dogs responded aggressively when they
were kicked or hit, 38% of dogs responded aggressively when resources were forcibly
removed, 26% responded aggressively to being shaken or grabbed by the scruff and 29% of
dogs responded aggressively to the alpha roll method. (Meghan E. Herron *, Frances S.
Shofer, Ilana R. Reisner 2009) Other studies prove that dominance based methods
significantly impact canine welfare, trigger abnormal behaviours and hinder their ability to
learn and communicate with their guardian. This emphasises how critical it is to understand
the true reasons behind canine behaviours and address them using reward based methods.
Sadly, when trainers and guardians continue to blame behaviour issues on dominance, the
root cause of the behaviour will never be identified or effectively resolved.
In conclusion, dominance does exist within canine behaviour, but it is not a personality trait
or a means to create social conflict, as is commonly believed. Rather, it is actually a means to
peacefully resolve it between conspecifics.
Bibliography
Bradshaw. J. 2011 In Defence of dogs, Penguin Books, London, England
Donaldson. J. 2013 The Culture clash, 2 nd edn, Dogwise Publishing, Washington
Drews. 1993. The Concept and Definition of Dominance in Animal Behaviour, January 1993
Behaviour 125(3):283-313 DOI:10.1163/156853993X00290
Herron. M, Shofer. S, Reisner. I. 2009. Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and
non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behavior.
Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania,
3900 Delancey Street, Philadelphia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117 (2009) 47–57
Mech, L. David. 1999. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1196-1203. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/alstat/alstat.htm
(Version 16MAY2000)
Sandøe.P, Palmer.C, Corr,S. 2015 Companion Animal Ethics, Wiley Blackwell, place
published unknown.
Stillwell 2024. Aggression. Positively. Accessed 11/05/2024. Aggression | Positively.com
תגובות