The dog dominance problem
An incorrect wolf pack theory first published in the 1940s is still used to train some dogs today. Perhaps it’s because, as Serpell writes, this model has “not yet been replaced by any new consensus.” Instead, a huge divide between positive reinforcement trainers and “balanced” or “aversive” trainers has erupted, leaving both professionals and owners confused about what the science really says about dominance in dogs.
A misunderstanding of the term has, in some people’s minds, justified the need to use aversive training methods that force and punish dogs into submission. But although many dog professionals now prefer to steer clear of the D word, dominance does exist in some form among all species.
Early dominance research
The concept of dominance can first be traced back to chicken studies. In 1921, Norwegian zoologist Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe devised the term “pecking order” to describe the social hierarchies of fowl. The theory stated that the chicken at the top of the hierarchy could peck all the other chickens, while the ones further down the rank could only peck an individual deemed to be below them. This eventually led to another new term: “alpha male.”
In 1947, Schenkel published a study of captive wolves, concluding that fighting for alpha position was common. In the 1970s, this way of thinking grew in popularity, with researchers stating that wolves led lives full of conflict and intimidation with the goal of moving up the pack hierarchy. People naturally believed that wolves’ distant relations, dogs, must view humans as their pack and want to dominate them.
Actual “dominance” in dogs and wolves
In reality, both the idea that dogs are pack-oriented like wolves and the traditional wolf pack theory that “pack training” is based on have been disproven.
Remember the research was carried out on captive wolves. In captive packs, unrelated wolves that wouldn’t usually live together are forced to live as one, resulting in conflict that wouldn’t be seen in natural packs. In a wild wolf pack, there is little conflict. In fact, the group lives in a similar way to a human family with the breeding pair looking out for the younger members. The leaders don’t dominate the others by, for example, eating first, but instead allow the young to first have their fill when food is scarce.
This more recent research led prominent “pack theory” researchers like Mech to go against their earlier findings – that’s right, the very people who’d come up with the theory decided it wasn’t correct. In 2008, Mech wrote that we should “once and for all end the outmoded view of the wolf pack as an aggressive assortment of wolves consistently competing with each other to take over the pack.”
So where do dogs fit in? Well, it’s almost impossible to compare wolves to dogs. Wolves live in the wild away from humans, while dogs have evolved to understand and live alongside people. Their natural behaviour is, therefore, significantly different. In fact, dogs have proven that they recognise the difference between humans and dogs by adapting their behaviour – for example, by using eye contact with people that would be viewed as confrontational by another dog.
How so-called “dominance” in dogs has led to risky training methods
Despite the many differences between dogs and wolves, there’s an assumption that dogs behave in a “wolf-like” manner that wild wolves don’t even behave in. This misunderstanding has contributed to the rise of coercive and aversive training methods. And unfortunately, some members of the training industry have used the debunked wolf dominance theory to convince owners that their dogs are innately dominant and that any undesirable behaviour is an attempt to exert dominance over humans.
The way to maintain order, they say, is by keeping them in a subordinate position in the fictional family “pack” through force and intimidation. The specific techniques used to “assert authority” over dogs include rank reduction programmes where owners are told to do many things before their dogs, including eating and going through doorways, and aversive methods like the infamous “alpha roll,” in which a dog is forcibly pinned down to the ground in a “submissive” position.
By referring to “dominant dogs,” these trainers mistake the word “dominance” for a personality trait when the word can only be applied to relationships. Canines can display dominance at times with other dogs, particularly with resources. But it isn’t through force – remember that conflict isn’t advantageous for any social species. Instead, one dog will defer to the other one to avoid conflict. And the “status” of two dogs can change. For example, one dog may have preferential access to a particular sleeping spot but defer to the other when it comes to a particular toy.
Overt aggression in such scenarios is usually a sign of a deeper issue such as fear. In fact, dominance training methods can actually lead to aggressive behaviour in dogs. Instead of creating a positive bond between human and dog, it results in fear and confusion. As the dog doesn’t have a pack mindset, they struggle to understand what the human is attempting to teach. And when they experience punishment or coercion, they become fearful of the human’s presence. The fight or flight response that follows can result in aggressive behaviours, particularly if the dog has no escape.
Reward-based training, on the other hand, is based on how dogs actually learn: experience and reinforcement. Rather than punishing and suppressing behaviours, it can change the underlying emotion that leads to a particular undesirable behaviour and, through repetition, encourage dogs to perform more desirable behaviours without any unnecessary stress or risk of aggression. I don’t know about you but that sounds like a much better result to me.
