- Location
- Andorra and Spain
Is there such a thing as a dominant dog?
Dictionary.com defines dominance in animal behaviour terms as “high status in a social group, usually acquired as the result of aggression, that involves the tendency to take priority in access to limited resources, as food, mates, or space.“ (1)
When applied to the domestic dog, we have come to understand the term “dominance” to refer to a constant intra- and inter-species battle to reign supreme over all other members of its social group. Early observations of captive wolves appeared to demonstrate just that; in Rudolph Schenkel’s 1947 paper “Expressions Studies on Wolves”, it was concluded that wolves used aggressive behaviours towards others in the pack in order to maintain high status, and, similarly, less important wolves would use aggression towards one another to vie for their own higher status. Although this study was later shown to have been seriously flawed (1) the concept had become popularised, and extrapolated to describe relationships between domestic dogs and also between dogs and humans.
There is currently no evidence to suggest that dogs are vying for sovereignty over their owners, and it is somewhat ludicrous to suggest that they could, for, until they are given access to a credit card and master the necessary skills to purchase their own daily kibble rations, there is very little benefit that would come from being the top of the pecking order in this inter-species group.
We are hard-pressed, however, to find a precise definition of what dominance in dogs means, and how it presents. Dr Sophia Yin wrote:
However, whilst it is true that many interpretations of the term reflect on it as linked with aggressive tendencies, that is not always the case. A dog who is quietly calm, confident and assertive is often labelled “dominant”, but so is the dog who displays mounting behaviours, and the dog who snaps at an unfamiliar dog who approaches in the park. It seems that the concept of dominance is a very human construct, and one that means different things to different people, even amongst the scientific community. Because of this, it could be argued that it is effectively meaningless, as one person describing dominance will likely have a very different interpretation to the next. If we look at it as a simple matter of social status within a group, it might appear to be clearer; it is the dog who gains access to resources first. Rather than clarifying the question, however, we are left with more. How do we define a resource? We could talk in terms of primary reinforcers, but even if we take the most basic of these, food, it’s still far from clear-cut. To a hungry dog, a bowl of kibble may be a very valuable resource, but to one who has recently had his fill, it will have far less value. It is impossible to say that the dog who gains preferential access to that bowl is dominant; it may simply be that he views that bowl as far more of an important resource than the other dog. Furthermore, the definition above doesn’t hold true in familiar groups of dogs; one dog doesn’t necessarily “consistently defer” to another in all situations; it depends very much on their own perception of the importance of what they are trying to gain access to at a particular time.
When we refer back to the definition of dominance given at the start, it refers only to a social group. Yet people call their dogs “dominant” as if it is an intrinsic part of their character, and refer to it in interactions with unfamiliar dogs they may meet in the park. A large proportion of the daily interactions our dogs have are with people and other dogs outside of their social group, so surely any concept of a linear hierarchy is nonsensical. In fact, feral dogs do not form close packs and are very promiscuous, with most dogs being able to mate, meaning they do not need a hierarchy in even the loose way that familial packs of wolves do. (2)
The labelling of dogs as “dominant” is regularly linked to dogs that demonstrate aggressive behaviours, with little attempt to understand what factors are causing the aggression. Dogs are a complex combination of their breeding, their current environment and all their past learning experiences. Throughout life, they are experiencing both operant and classical conditioning which leads them to evaluate every second of their day to find the most favourable outcome. As they respond to a stimulus, they are affecting their environment, so a constant “conversation” of inputs and outputs is occurring. Throughout these operations, they are striving to find the path of least resistance to where they want to be. If they find, through their life experiences, that being pushy wins them first spot at dinner time, or that snapping at another dog – or human - makes it keep its distance when they are wary of unfamiliar faces, then those are simply learned behaviours, rather than any expression of dominance. As Dr John Bradshaw put it:
The regularly-quoted definitions of dominance relate to it as a part of the animal’s character, rather than respecting that each dog is motivated by different factors at different times. That they are complex organisms with an infinite number of external and internal stimuli they are responding to at any given moment.
So, in short, no, there is no such thing as a dominant dog, partly because there is no satisfactory definition of what that is, and partly because anything that could be attributed to dominance is entirely situational, rather than an inherent trait of the dog. There are simply dogs who display behaviours which may or may not present as pushy or aggressive, to gain access to a resource they desire in that instant, be that food, sex or even personal space.
Works Cited
1. Dictionary.com. [Online] [Cited: 8 10 2017.] the definition of dominance.
2. Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Mech, L. David. 2000.
3. Yin, Dr Sophia. [Online] [Cited: 7 10 2017.] The Dominance Controversy – Dr. Sophia Yin.
4. Beck, Alan M. The Ecology of Stray Dogs: A Study of Free-ranging Urban Animals. s.l. : Purdue University Press, 2001.
5. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. John W.S. Bradshaw, Emily J. Blackwell, Rachel A. Casey. 3, s.l. : Elsevier BV, 2009, Vol. 4, pp. 135-144.
Dictionary.com defines dominance in animal behaviour terms as “high status in a social group, usually acquired as the result of aggression, that involves the tendency to take priority in access to limited resources, as food, mates, or space.“ (1)
When applied to the domestic dog, we have come to understand the term “dominance” to refer to a constant intra- and inter-species battle to reign supreme over all other members of its social group. Early observations of captive wolves appeared to demonstrate just that; in Rudolph Schenkel’s 1947 paper “Expressions Studies on Wolves”, it was concluded that wolves used aggressive behaviours towards others in the pack in order to maintain high status, and, similarly, less important wolves would use aggression towards one another to vie for their own higher status. Although this study was later shown to have been seriously flawed (1) the concept had become popularised, and extrapolated to describe relationships between domestic dogs and also between dogs and humans.
There is currently no evidence to suggest that dogs are vying for sovereignty over their owners, and it is somewhat ludicrous to suggest that they could, for, until they are given access to a credit card and master the necessary skills to purchase their own daily kibble rations, there is very little benefit that would come from being the top of the pecking order in this inter-species group.
We are hard-pressed, however, to find a precise definition of what dominance in dogs means, and how it presents. Dr Sophia Yin wrote:
In animal behavior, dominance is defined as a relationship between individuals that is established through force, aggression and submission in order to establish priority access to all desired resources (food, the opposite sex, preferred resting spots, etc). A relationship is not established until one animal consistently defers to another. (2)
However, whilst it is true that many interpretations of the term reflect on it as linked with aggressive tendencies, that is not always the case. A dog who is quietly calm, confident and assertive is often labelled “dominant”, but so is the dog who displays mounting behaviours, and the dog who snaps at an unfamiliar dog who approaches in the park. It seems that the concept of dominance is a very human construct, and one that means different things to different people, even amongst the scientific community. Because of this, it could be argued that it is effectively meaningless, as one person describing dominance will likely have a very different interpretation to the next. If we look at it as a simple matter of social status within a group, it might appear to be clearer; it is the dog who gains access to resources first. Rather than clarifying the question, however, we are left with more. How do we define a resource? We could talk in terms of primary reinforcers, but even if we take the most basic of these, food, it’s still far from clear-cut. To a hungry dog, a bowl of kibble may be a very valuable resource, but to one who has recently had his fill, it will have far less value. It is impossible to say that the dog who gains preferential access to that bowl is dominant; it may simply be that he views that bowl as far more of an important resource than the other dog. Furthermore, the definition above doesn’t hold true in familiar groups of dogs; one dog doesn’t necessarily “consistently defer” to another in all situations; it depends very much on their own perception of the importance of what they are trying to gain access to at a particular time.
When we refer back to the definition of dominance given at the start, it refers only to a social group. Yet people call their dogs “dominant” as if it is an intrinsic part of their character, and refer to it in interactions with unfamiliar dogs they may meet in the park. A large proportion of the daily interactions our dogs have are with people and other dogs outside of their social group, so surely any concept of a linear hierarchy is nonsensical. In fact, feral dogs do not form close packs and are very promiscuous, with most dogs being able to mate, meaning they do not need a hierarchy in even the loose way that familial packs of wolves do. (2)
The labelling of dogs as “dominant” is regularly linked to dogs that demonstrate aggressive behaviours, with little attempt to understand what factors are causing the aggression. Dogs are a complex combination of their breeding, their current environment and all their past learning experiences. Throughout life, they are experiencing both operant and classical conditioning which leads them to evaluate every second of their day to find the most favourable outcome. As they respond to a stimulus, they are affecting their environment, so a constant “conversation” of inputs and outputs is occurring. Throughout these operations, they are striving to find the path of least resistance to where they want to be. If they find, through their life experiences, that being pushy wins them first spot at dinner time, or that snapping at another dog – or human - makes it keep its distance when they are wary of unfamiliar faces, then those are simply learned behaviours, rather than any expression of dominance. As Dr John Bradshaw put it:
When used correctly to describe a relationship between 2 individuals, it tends to be misapplied as a motivation for social interactions, rather than simply a quality of that relationship. Hence, it is commonly suggested that a desire 'to be dominant' actually drives behavior, especially aggression, in the domestic dog. (5)
The regularly-quoted definitions of dominance relate to it as a part of the animal’s character, rather than respecting that each dog is motivated by different factors at different times. That they are complex organisms with an infinite number of external and internal stimuli they are responding to at any given moment.
So, in short, no, there is no such thing as a dominant dog, partly because there is no satisfactory definition of what that is, and partly because anything that could be attributed to dominance is entirely situational, rather than an inherent trait of the dog. There are simply dogs who display behaviours which may or may not present as pushy or aggressive, to gain access to a resource they desire in that instant, be that food, sex or even personal space.
Works Cited
1. Dictionary.com. [Online] [Cited: 8 10 2017.] the definition of dominance.
2. Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Mech, L. David. 2000.
3. Yin, Dr Sophia. [Online] [Cited: 7 10 2017.] The Dominance Controversy – Dr. Sophia Yin.
4. Beck, Alan M. The Ecology of Stray Dogs: A Study of Free-ranging Urban Animals. s.l. : Purdue University Press, 2001.
5. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. John W.S. Bradshaw, Emily J. Blackwell, Rachel A. Casey. 3, s.l. : Elsevier BV, 2009, Vol. 4, pp. 135-144.