Is A Dog That Isn't Listening Dominant?

[Lablover]

First thought, as I read this thread:

Q: Is A Dog That Isn't Listening Dominant?

So, a dog that listens is submissive?

[Just Midol]

First thought, as I read this thread:

Q: Is A Dog That Isn't Listening Dominant?

So, a dog that listens is submissive?

It's submitting, submission is giving control to someone else.

If the dog hands over control to you, then that's a form of submission.

[WoofnHoof]

The semantics is important from an ethical point of view. Is it ethical to punish a dog for not controlling it's instincts? How realistic is it to expect a dog to control it's instincts? And by instincts I don't only mean drives I mean natural aversions to things, even something as simple as running into the rain can go against the very basic instincts an animal has.

Ethics are personal though, and not relevant to a discussion on dominance.

Of course ethics is relevant, what someone considers to be abuse is different to what someone else considers to be abuse and that is related to their ethical standpoint. If someone believes their dog is being dominant they are likely to become defensive as opposed to objective, they think the animal is defying them, disobeying them, ignoring them - all of these terms are loaded with human emotions and highly unlikely to accurately represent the emotional state of the animal at the time. An animal does not ponder who is the boss, or why they should have to do what someone tells them to do, they simply exist in a world of powerful sights, sounds and smells and to assign a loaded term like dominance to a behaviour or series of behaviours is quite strange given that most people are opposed to anthropomorphism.

You've still not given me a single reason to demonstrate why we need to know how a dog would react without our influence.

If we don't know how a dog behaves without human influence how do we know which factors we are influencing and which factors we aren't? ie are we influencing the dog to behave in a dominant or submissive manner? If so what are we doing to influence it's behaviour? What are we doing which might be influencing a dog's ability to be dominant or indeed defiant of our instructions? Without knowing this how can you say whether a dog is behaving in a dominant manner or whether we have influenced the dog in some way to make it behave in a way which appears to us to be dominant? At the end of the day a perception of dominance is only perception and a human construct at that.

The village dog = protodog = intermediate between early wolves and domestic dogs.

[Kelpie-i]

Slightly Off Topic but in response to LM's post.....

Why is the village dog relevant? Why is it relevant studying how dogs interact without humans? If anything the one we should be comparing our dogs is to the captive grey wolf packs - to me that is the real logical comparison, same species and similar living conditions.

Absolutely incorrect here LM. Remember I spent 3 days with captive wolves in America and with those who study and care for them each day and I will tell you that there is absoutely no way on God's green earth that you could compare these animals to our domestic dog. To do so is absolutely ludicrous. Whilst the interactions amonst each pack member were somewhat similar to what we see amongst our dogs (dog to dog), interactions between wolf and man is very different.

There was much discussion about what would happen to you if you even raised your voice at them...all I can say is that it wouldn't be wise nor pretty. When they put the wolves on the lead to move them from the enclosures, they would hope and pray that the animal was in a cooperative mood that day. If that animal wanted to pull the handler to Kingdom come, it would and all the handler is able to do is let go of the lead and try to entice him back with a fresh piece of road kill. No e-collars here unless you wanted to end up dead.

Captive or not, these are wild animals and are an extremely different animal to our domesticated dog who have gone through thousands of years of domestication and selective breeding. The comparison, unfortunately, is null and void.

[The Spotted Devil]

Slightly Off Topic but in response to LM's post.....

Why is the village dog relevant? Why is it relevant studying how dogs interact without humans? If anything the one we should be comparing our dogs is to the captive grey wolf packs - to me that is the real logical comparison, same species and similar living conditions.

Absolutely incorrect here LM. Remember I spent 3 days with captive wolves in America and with those who study and care for them each day and I will tell you that there is absoutely no way on God's green earth that you could compare these animals to our domestic dog. To do so is absolutely ludicrous. Whilst the interactions amonst each pack member were somewhat similar to what we see amongst our dogs (dog to dog), interactions between wolf and man is very different.

There was much discussion about what would happen to you if you even raised your voice at them...all I can say is that it wouldn't be wise nor pretty. When they put the wolves on the lead to move them from the enclosures, they would hope and pray that the animal was in a cooperative mood that day. If that animal wanted to pull the handler to Kingdom come, it would and all the handler is able to do is let go of the lead and try to entice him back with a fresh piece of road kill. No e-collars here unless you wanted to end up dead.

Captive or not, these are wild animals and are an extremely different animal to our domesticated dog who have gone through thousands of years of domestication and selective breeding. The comparison, unfortunately, is null and void.

Very interesting Kelpie-i....I know someone in the UK who is a volunteer with wolf conservation and works closely with the animals and he would say exactly the same thing, in terms of both behaviour and diet (to open another can of worms )

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Ethics are personal though, and not relevant to a discussion on dominance.

Not true. If you have power, you have responsibility - that's the ethical angle.

[corvus]

Some really great posts, here! Kelpie-i, Anita and tkay, you guys have raised a load of great points and I agree with the majority of it. In particular, the incosistency in the notion that when a cat ignores you when you try to control them they see you as irrelevant but when a dog ignores you when you try to control them they see you as subordinate to them. I actually think it's not such a lop-sided comparison. Cats are remarkably social animals. My sister has 9 of them living in a small, 3 bedroom house, and there are almost never any troubles. They have their favourite companions and the ones they don't get on with so well and manage to avoid conflict and live in perfect harmony. Except for Felix who was the first boy and still isn't big on sharing his house with other boys, but he doesn't pick fights.

Anyway, in my mind, animals seek to control other members of their species whenever someone else is threatening what they value. This is natural, because if you want something, and someone else is around and might also want that something, then there are only a few options open to you and seeking to control the behaviour of your potential rival is one of the safer options and also one that may be more likely to pay off with minimal risk to you. As tkay says, it is indeed all about cost and benefits. I would be quite happy to call this behaviour dominant if that's what people want to think of it as, but it is common to pretty much any vertebrate and some invertebrates as well. When I was hanging out with behavioural ecologists, this is pretty much how we used the concept of dominance. To describe an individual that controls another individual in order to secure resources exclusively for themselves as much as possible. I believe that dominance exists. It's just social hierarchies I'm not all together down with. I think that people are more hierarchical than they think they are and often project their need for order on other social animals.

Now when we come to dogs, I don't see a lot of the behaviour touted as dominant to be following what I think of as dominance. I don't think that LOOSING control automatically means the dog has GAINED control over you and is therefore dominant. That is nothing but a different point of view. A lot of the time I think the way people like Midol think is just a factor of their sex and/or personality. I haven't met many dog trainers, but those I have met have generally been dominant personalities, and they play their dominance games on me as well as the dogs.

I also don't think that a dog getting what they wants from you is necessarily dominant or controlling behaviour. A lot of the time I reckon they are just practising what has worked in the past. I deliberately taught Kivi that poking me with his nose was an acceptable way to get my attention (as opposed to biting me, for example), that leaning on me was a good way to get cuddles, sitting quietly by the kitchen bench is a good way to get food, and doing what I ask is a good way to get treats or praise. I have effectively given him a whole toolbox for controlling my behaviour. Kit my hare knows that if he approaches me he will get what he wants from me one way or another. Just because I deliberately created that toolbox doesn't mean that I am the only one in control. For all I know, every time Kivi recalls he thinks he is controlling me because he comes and I give him something tasty. Without proof, it is just the way you look at it.

Lilli and I have disagreed on social hierarchies in the past, but where we disagree is really just semantics. If I were confronted with a dog like what she has described, I might not call it an alpha but I would definitely call it behaving dominantly. I have met one such dog, and it was an entire male Akita. He only switched it on when no one from his family was there to tell him what he should do.

Also jdavis, animals certainly do have values. I suspect we are misunderstanding one another. I'm just talking about things an individual likes, things they love, and things they adore, as well as things they don't like, things they hate, and things they loathe. Whenever there is conflict, these things come into play, and I don't think that an animal has to be dominant to win. They just have to have pinned a higher value on that item than the other animal, and perhaps have a lower aversion to risk of violence than the other animal, or a clever, non-violent method like showering with appeasement gestures as an example. They certainly can be exhibiting dominant behaviour before, during and after the conflict if that's what floats their boat. Posturing and noises is all just communication if there's no conviciton behind it, though. Many dominant wannabes posture all the time because it's cheap and sometimes works.

If they win every time, we're getting into the realms of speculation for me. I think it can work without dominance, but whether it should work without dominance is something I'm not convinced of yet and I don't think my arguments for or against matter in the long run. The result would be the same.

[Erny]

But you've lost control of him which is the key.

What I wrote about a pack member leaving to take up vacant territory and find a mate of his own was in response to your perception which is again shown in the above quote (rather than for making comparison of wolf to dog.) Pointing out that loss of control doesn't necessarily equate to the one who loses that control automatically becoming subordinate.

It is not your perception that counts, it is the dog's. So if the dog doesn't perceive that him ignoring a command, but rather learning that he can follow something more entertaining, is controlling you, then it doesn't go to follow that the dog is or regards himself as dominant.

This is all assuming the dog has learnt that there are consequences for ignoring the directions of the pack leader or dominant figure in the hierarchy.

Maybe. Or maybe not. Depends on the dog and the exact circumstances. Still could come down to a training issue coupled with level of distraction that enticed the dog to disobey in the first place.

Point being that a dog who ignores your command might be doing so because it regards itself as the higher ranking animal to the person and therefore perceives no right by the handler to govern, but just because it ignores commands doesn't make it so. If the animal has a perception of its own dominance by comparison to the owner, there is usually much more going on in the day to day interactions that would comprise the whole picture. In addition, some dogs can perceive themselves as dominant/higher ranking, yet still obey commands. They can express their perceived position in the pack in other ways at other times.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Erny

[Are You Serious Jo]

Animals don't have values, they have drives, values are a human construct and concept.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Animals don't have values, they have drives, values are a human construct and concept.

Has someone suggested otherwise?

[Sarah L]

Meh.

Dog knows what I expect, dog chooses to ignore me. Dog is being dominant.

It's that simple for me. Dominance is control & power. If the dog feels he has control or power over me (by ignoring me) then it's a dominant action. I correct it & put the dog in his place.

[corvus]

Oh, trifling details. There are no alphas only dominant individuals. Alphas are a human construct and concept.

Kivi loves food, but he'll blow off a recall if he knows I'm offering Schmakos, yet he'll come running if he thinks I have old rissole. Penny wouldn't blow me off if all I had were breadcrumbs. It's all food drive, but while Penny might pick a fight over breadcrumbs, at least until she's figured out that's all it is, another dog might pick a fight over a piece of sausage but back off on the breadcrumbs. This is what I'm talking about. Variations in drive or value, it means the same thing: different dogs will consider different things worth the trouble of getting and keeping.

You're just nitpicking because you accidentally agreed with me. Can we talk about the topic perhaps, rather than arguing about the use of a term that doesn't actually make a difference to the discussion? Unless you can tell me why it makes a difference....?

ETA Sorry, I get impatient with distracting side-arguments. I use a lot of colloquial language because really, "value" is something that most people understand whereas "drive" just sounds wanky. People don't like it when I talk down to them with wanky science language, so I use words they are used to hearing. I don't think it makes a difference in this case, so unless you have a good reason to argue about it other than for the sake of disagreeing with me, then I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge of zoology and use "drive" instead of "value".

Edited March 2, 2009 by corvus

[Are You Serious Jo]

Those "trifling details" make a difference to the message. There are specific terms for things for a reason, it is more efficient to communicate when you can understand exactly what a person is referring to. That can be done without bringing in one's degree every second post. That is what annoys people. I didn't accidentally agree and you and I am merely pointing out where your argument isn't logical or clear. You were the one who started off asking what benefit there was to being dominant among other things you didn't seem to understand, then you backflipped and said oh, I already knew all that.

To be honest, I don't actually understand much of what you are trying to say in your posts, was hoping if you adopted conventional terms for the subject it might be clearer.

[WoofnHoof]

Meh.

Dog knows what I expect, dog chooses to ignore me. Dog is being dominant.

It's that simple for me. Dominance is control & power. If the dog feels he has control or power over me (by ignoring me) then it's a dominant action. I correct it & put the dog in his place.

;)

Wow how did I miss that pearl from JM?! The dog knows! And chooses to ignore! Anthropomorphising much?

[Kelpie-i]

Wow how did I miss that pearl from JM?! The dog knows! And chooses to ignore! Anthropomorphising much?

That's what I said earlier tkay.....totally agree!

[WoofnHoof]

Wow how did I miss that pearl from JM?! The dog knows! And chooses to ignore! Anthropomorphising much?

That's what I said earlier tkay.....totally agree!

Lol Kelpie-i! I'm starting to see what the behaviourists are always going on about ;)

[BJean]

Lilli and I have disagreed on social hierarchies in the past, but where we disagree is really just semantics. If I were confronted with a dog like what she has described, I might not call it an alpha but I would definitely call it behaving dominantly. I have met one such dog, and it was an entire male Akita. He only switched it on when no one from his family was there to tell him what he should do.

The two dogs of mine that would do that to you

are dominant in nature but they are not alphas.

imo dominant natured dogs have a strong psychologiacl ascendancy but this does not necessarily equate with being alpha.

a DOMINANT dog is one that is prepared to exert its will onto others, people, dogs other animals.

ALPHA reflects a dogs pack drive

the two are not the same.

i think many posts in this thread are referring to alpha and pack leader roles/theory/training perspectives

not dominant dogs.

Perhaps why there seems to be so much confusion / debate around what is a dominant dog

is because some use the word 'dominant', lump it together with social hierachy and call it 'dominance theory'.

You should be able to discuss a 'dominant dog' without going into pack theory

ETA

fwiw i think a dominant dog will always be more obedient and bonded to its owner than one that is not.

so all this discussion on wolves and villages and who ignored who and what it meant

i really don't see what it has to do with a dominant dog

for the most part I read all these anecodtes as a discussion about pack dynamics / training theory.

;)

Edited March 2, 2009 by lilli

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i find this discussion interesting. i have become concerned about how many times a dogs behaviour has been classified as dominant when in my opinion it's a dog trying it on. They are clever and they are good at getting what they want, that's one of the reasons i like them.

i believe a lot of behaviour seen as dominance isn't. it is a dog that hasn't been taught the rules and doesn't know the boundaries.

my dogs listen to me...however, sometimes they don't ;) . when this happens, i may raise my voice a little, give them a "oi!" or give them the look and then they miraculously hear me clearly. this is not dominance because they end up doing what i want.

to classify a dog as dominant, i think the dog needs to exhibit several dominant behaviours consistently over a period of time. not listening to me once would not mean the dog was dominant.

[Lablover]

Summary

Over recent years there has been an increasing interest in the application of what we know about wolf behaviour to our understanding of the behaviour of our domestic dogs. While this may have helped to increase our appreciation of some of their natural behaviours, we have to acknowledge that there are limitations to the application of information across species boundaries. One of the aspects of wolf behaviour that has been repeatedly applied to our own relationships with our pets has been that of hierarchy and relative status. There has been a lot written about dominance and the behavioural problems that are believed to be associated with it but recently a better understanding of the emotional basis of canine behaviour has resulted in a questioning of the dominance story and a belief that there is an alternative explanation for the "challenging" behaviours which have traditionally been interpreted as "dominant" gestures.

The Importance of Hierarchy

Dogs are social animals who have an inherent need to be with members of their own species and who co-operate with one another in all of the basic survival behaviours, including hunting and rearing of young. It is essential that the dogs that belong to the same pack get along well and that disruption and conflict is kept to a minimum. By living according to a hierarchical structure dogs are able to minimize tension and competition and thereby reduce the risk of physical confrontation, which could result in injury for pack members. Far from leading to aggression the presence of a high ranking individual within a pack should reduce aggression and make the pack more stable.

Dominance--A Trait or a Position?

In order for a hierarchy to be established, individuals within a social group need to be familiar with one another and some need to be prepared to show subordinate behavioural responses. Establishing relative rank is achieved by a series of confrontations over resources and these confrontations take place between individual members of the social group. At the end of these encounters the individual that retains the resource has established itself as the dominant partner in that relationship and it is important to remember that a dominance and submission relationship is one that exists between two individuals. Within a social group confrontations take place regularly and over time a hierarchy can become established whereby those dogs that have won more competitive encounters are given a higher rank than those that have failed to win. Of course it is important to avoid injury during these competitions and therefore the subordinate individual in any encounter will give clear signals to the other animal that confrontation is unnecessary. In this way the subordinate individual is effectively giving dominance away and the dominant individual has no need to prove his point with physical violence. In some of the literature regarding dog behaviour the issue of dominance is discussed in a way that suggests that dogs are born dominant and that their behaviour is governed by a congenital trait. Such a belief leads to dogs being labeled as dominant individuals from an early age and the unsubstantiated link between this state of dominance and the presence of aggression leads to many of these dogs being further labeled as dangerous. Certainly some individuals may be less inhibited in their behaviour than others and these dogs may be less likely to diffuse a situation with submissive signaling but the question of their dominance can only be settled by an encounter with another individual. If that animal is inhibited in terms of its behaviour then the less inhibited individual is more likely to assume a dominant position in that relationship, but this does not guarantee that he will be dominant in all relationships or that he will necessarily give clear signals of that superiority in all encounters with that partner.

A Flexible and Dynamic Situation

Once a hierarchy has been established through repeated competition the highest ranking individual is secure in its position of leadership, but this does not mean that this animal will always "win" in every encounter with other pack members and there is a lot of room for flexibility within the system. For many dog owners this flexibility leads to confusion and it is common for people to comment that their dog appears to be "dominant" but that there are certain circumstances in which he shows no signs of challenging other pack members and seems happy to tow the party line. In order to understand this it is important to consider the issue of resource holding potential since this holds the key to relative rank and to predicting the outcome of confrontations between pack members. Resource holding potential or RHP is the ability of an individual to retain possession of a resource and it is governed by a number of different factors. The past experience of the individual has a significant effect on RHP and if an individual has won more encounters than it has lost in the past this will lead to a relative increase in potential to gain access to the resource in the future. Physical attributes of the individual such as size, age, sex and physical strength are important factors and a strong, large, young adult male will have a relatively high RHP when compared to a small, weak elderly female. However, the outcome of an encounter does not rely on RHP alone and it is important to consider other factors relating to the resource under dispute before jumping to conclusion as to who is going to win. In fact the outcome is governed by the following equation in which RHP is resource holding potential, V is the value of the resource to each individual and C is the potential cost to the individual if the confrontation continues.

In any particular encounter the outcome will be determined by the relative value of the above equation to each individual and when the equation on the left is greater than the one on the right it is the individual on the left that wins.

Example

If a dog is very excited by the chance of a game with a ball (dog A) and the other dog in the household is very food orientated (dog B) it is likely that the outcome of confrontation between the dogs will differ depending on the resource that is under dispute.

In a confrontation over a tasty tidbit dog A may give way to dog B simply because the value of the tidbit is very low to him and the potential cost in challenging dog B, who regards the food treat as a highly desirable resource that is worth fighting over, is too high. This does not necessarily mean that the RHP of dog A is lower than that of dog B and indeed dog A may be the dominant individual in the majority of encounters between the two dogs and therefore the higher ranking dog within the pack but on this occasion it will dog B that gains access to the resource.

The Importance of Consistency

When considering the relationship between an owner and their dog clinical evidence suggests that it is the consistency of the relationship that is the most important factor in establishing relationships between dogs and humans. For most dogs a low ranking position within a human pack is just what they want and when owners give clear, unambiguous signals of leadership the dog feels reassured. Unfortunately for many dogs this clear leadership is missing and the signals that they receive from the humans in their social group are confusing. In most cases the dog is not a naturally high ranking individual and when owners fail to give consistent signals of leadership this creates anxiety in the dog and a range of behavioural problems can arise as a result. Far from challenging these dogs with clear signals of rank, owners need to make them feel secure by establishing clear unambiguous signals to the dog as to how and when it can gain access to valuable resources, such as attention, food and play.

The Human Dimension

Humans are remarkably inconsistent and their behaviour fosters anxiety and a lack of self confidence in the domestic dog. As the dog searches for information its behaviour is commonly misinterpreted as demanding and dominant and the human response is to "show him who's boss". The result of this miscommunication is a canine expectation of social interaction mixed with an expectation of confrontation and this situation of "I love you but you scare me" contributes to displays of defensive behaviour. Indeed when the owner exhibits their unpredictable and confrontational behaviour the dog responds with signals such as lip curling and growling that are intended to deflect the threat and encourage the owner to back off. If they succeed the dog will learn that defensive signals are necessary in order to avoid confrontation and will be more likely to display these behaviours in situations where it anticipates confrontation in the future. On the other hand if the owner refuses to "give in" to these inappropriate behaviours and decides to "stand his ground" the dog confirms his suspicions that his owner is a threat and learns that he needs to defend himself more effectively the next time.

Bringing Resources Under Human Control

The basic flaw in the dominance myth is that canine society is not regulated through the use of physical conflict but rather through the consistent control of access to important resources. In order to establish a stable and secure relationship between dog and owner, it is important to avoid unnecessary physical confrontation and therefore owners need to establish consistent social rules and give clear signals of resource control. This will create a safe and secure environment in which the dog can relax. When the access to resources is consistently controlled by the owner, dogs can learn to look for cues and signals which indicate that the resource is about to be released to them. This enables them to predict when resources are available and reduces the need to engage in attention seeking and demanding behaviours, which are designed to gain access to resources at other times. Dogs can get very confused when owners sometimes respond to their behaviour by giving them the resource they desire and at other times punish them for exactly the same behaviour. This unpredictable behaviour from owners can lead to problems of anxiety, insecurity and frustration for the dog and these emotions can in turn cause situations of confrontation and aggression.

Leadership

Lack of firm but fair leadership is a major factor in cases where the dog is insecure and anxious and establishing house rules which clearly indicate that the home is a safe and secure place is often necessary in such cases. However there is no place for confrontation in this process and aggressive techniques will be counterproductive and open to serious misinterpretation.

"Dominance Aggression"--A Common Misdiagnosis

One of the most common misdiagnoses in the field of behavioural medicine is that of "dominance" aggression. In dog to human relationships it is the factors of consistency, predictability and control that are the most important and the behaviours that are so often interpreted as "signs of dominance" can be better explained in terms of emotional conflict. Dogs react to the apparently threatening interactions from their owners with defensive signals which are all too readily misinterpreted as signs of challenge and confrontation and in a large number of behavioural cases, the use of inappropriate and unjustified attempts to assert the owner's dominance leads to escalating conflict and a misperception that the dog is attempting to be "dominant" in return. Far from being "dominant" these dogs are anxious individuals who find the world around them to be inconsistent and unpredictable. When they are provided with clear and consistent signals their anxiety subsides and they can begin to learn how to behave appropriately in a social context.

Sarah Heath, BVSc, DECVBM-CA, MRCVS

Behavioural Referrals Veterinary Practice

England

[BJean]

a dominant dog is not

social hierachy.

believing it is

is what engenders the (hilarious) idea that dominance aggression = anxiety.

the problem is not in the dominance aggression concept

but in its over application.

Sarah has provided us with lovely equations and a mighty lot of waffle

There was lots I was going to bold and put a laughing emoticon next to, but really not worth the time.

The problem is that the sarahs of the world are doing case studies on dogs who have had dominant natures bred out of them for 100s of years.

owners are calling their dog 'dominant' when it misbehaves, because that is the word thrown around so much

in the debates on pack theory, and when any training concept wishes to launch itself.

fact is, dominance aggression - where dogs exhibit aggression towards humans - has been bred out of most breeds

as a necessary part of the dogs function / purpose.

in all of sarah's examples i read naughty dogs who are misbehaving towards their owners -

NOT a dominant dog.

so yes when we have dogs like this, dominance aggression is easy to disprove (and misunderstand), because it did not exist in the individuals in the first place.

as i said, a dominant dog you recognise more from its behaviour towards what it doesn't know, rather than the owner it does know.

hence social hierachy is describing 'dominance, middlemen, and the submissive individuals blah blah'

quite distinct from a dominant dog, which is dominant in nature, independent of pack or no pack theory.

Edited March 2, 2009 by lilli