Is A Dog That Isn't Listening Dominant?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

"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

i agree with this completely. this is what i was trying to say in my previous post but this says it better!!!

[lovemesideways]

"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.

Couldn't this also be a case of, A dog who is completely unsuited to the role of leader, felt that is had to take up the mantle. Since its owner was so obviously failing. This creates a unstable reck of a dog.

When the owner shows the dog that it is capable of being leader in ways the dog can understand (ie. Correct body language, clear and consistent training and leadership)

The dog is Relieved to give up this mantle of being the top dog, because it wants to be a underling, thats what most domestic dogs have been bred to be happy with! With this change of status, the dog become a lot calmer and happier.

Therefore, proving the Hierarchy?

[m-j]

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

I do agree with what you are saying but.....

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

Just some thoughts on this type of aggression. I am a big believer if a dog like you have described is aggressing it is certainly anxious, concerned, not scared as such, but if a dog like this has to aggress doesn't it feel it's authority is being undermined so therefore feels anxious enough to rectify the situation? If it wasn't even mildly anxious, wouldn't it basically do the doggie equivilent of "whatever" and do nothing? Hasn't the body's homoeostasis or whatever it is called (where all in the body's chemicals etc are in their default status), been disrupted? Hope this makes sense

cheers

M-J

[Erny]

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

I agree with m-j. Even aggression in dominance has a basis of fear - fear of loss of valuable resource; status within pack; etc. If there was absolutely no fear present, why indeed would a dog show any early warning signs pre-attack?

Edited March 3, 2009 by Erny

[Lablover]

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.

Thats cool. From a personal point of view, I am not terribly interested in a dominant dog.

I have to admit, when first reading the thead, the poster seemed to confuse training and dominance. Communication difficulties between us...to say nothing between us and our dogs withstanding.

To the original poster what game/trial to you compete with your dogs. At the last very least, we may have a criteria.

[corvus]

I'm surprised how many people I normally disagree with I'm agreeing with this time.

I think there has been some confusion. I started the post in response to another thread where I was arguing that a dog that didn't listen to you was not necessarily dominant. It was off topic, so I started a new thread, but tried to be more neutral about it because I don't think I'm very popular on this board and I suspect some people disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. I used to catch myself doing the same thing and it clouds the vision and gets in the way of good discussion. Perhaps this is why I'm suddenly agreeing with people I normally don't agree with.

For those that are still confused, I have already stated my understanding of dominance as being an animal that consistently controls other individuals in order to secure resources. This is pretty much what jdavis used as a definition at the beginning of the thread.

I think that "control" is unfortunately often a matter of perspective with interspecific interactions. If you are both happy with an outcome, then who can say who is controlling the other? Being happy at the outcome does not mean you are the dominant one.

I do not think that ignoring someone is a dominant behaviour generally speaking. There are always exceptions. I invite people to think of them and challenge what I say. How will I learn if people don't challenge me? Just try to actually persuade me with an argument rather than telling me I don't understand the basics. That sure ain't gonna give me a reason to see things your way. I promise, I am easily persuaded with a good argument.

I see animal behaviour as a result of cost/benefit and risk analyses, although I do not think that animals are capable of doing this consciously. I believe that costs and benefits for individuals are variable and strongly related to motivation, or drive if you like. I believe motivation/drive changes for different situations and individuals.

Social hierarchies do not sit well with me because fluidity upsets my sense of order that hierarchies were supposed to satisfy. (I am being semi-facetious, here). My problem with hierarchies is that I think they can be explained more simply with cost/benefit and risk anayses and building a history with an individual over time. It could be just operant conditioning. I equate dominance with confidence and so don't think of a dominant animal as an alpha, but that is just my perspective and my choice of words. The concept is more or less the same. However, because I believe that every new individual has the potential to upset a history of dominant behaviour, I do not like to label dogs as alpha or dominant because it seems very final. That is not to say such dogs don't exist. Just that I think the terms are over-used and mean things they shouldn't. I try to keep dominant individuals and dominant behaviour as separate things in my mind.

Apparently by stating I'm a zoologist I have stapled my degree to my forehead and point to it before I say anything. I have it underneath my avatar so people know what the hell I'm on about when I start rambling about wild animals, which happens pretty much every time I open my mouth. It is there precisely so I don't have to say "Oh, I'm a zoologist" every second post. I do not know why that apparently makes me an academic snob. I don't give a stuff about degrees. I'm just passionate about science and learning and my job gives me a sometimes bizarre perspective on things.

My dry sense of humour goes down like a lead balloon sometimes, but nonetheless it creeps into things all the time and leaves me trying to convince people that I'm not a complete loony who thinks animals are people. Trust me, I don't!

[Just Midol]

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!

I'm only responding to these two comments here, and won't be responding to anything else in this thread.

Anthropomorphism is applying attributes unique to humans to animals.

If a dog can't "know" something and can't make a choice then behaviour modification is impossible.

A choice is deciding between two outcomes. Lets say I was using an e-collar as +P. The dog quickly learns (so he knows) that if he disobeys my sit even at a distance, he'll get a zap. This means he makes the choice to listen to my command.

Also Kelpie, if you honestly think that comment was Anthropomorphising then you better fire almost all of the trainers working for you. I heard every single one of them refer to a dogs ability to make choices.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Just Midol

[Are You Serious Jo]

and I suspect some people disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.

Have you considered that some of the people who have disagreed with you might have done so because, now wait for it, you were wrong?

I pointed out things I didn't agree on based on what I know from uni, reading literature and my own research. When you put your opinion out there based on your profession you better believe that you will be called on it if it is incorrect or unclear. You know why, because when you are putting forward an argument and use your degree as back up you have an extra responsibility to be factual because some people take that as gospel. DOL is nothing compared to how your work is challenged as an academic, but you should know that, right?

That aside, I don't agree with your ideas on dominance, I am adult enough to agree with people I don't like if we have the same ideas and have done so many times here, maybe time to get over it

[m-j]

I don't think I'm very popular on this board

I know you are not the first to think this but it makes for interesting disscussions, having other perspectives thrown in to the mix. If we all agreed it would make things rather boring and I must admit having a different perspective thrown at me about a comment I have made gives me something to think about when picking up dog poo from many dogs at work

and leaves me trying to convince people that I'm not a complete loony who thinks animals are people. Trust me, I don't!

No they don't have internet hierarchies sorry just my pathetic sense of humour

cheers

M-J

[Are You Serious Jo]

There are other zoologists here (and people with other degrees), but 99% of posts are irrelevant to zoology so no need to keep reiterating it or bringing it up in posts or putting it under an avatar. You can take that as advice on why you think you have problems, or not.

[Kelpie-i]

Also Kelpie, if you honestly think that comment was Anthropomorphising then you better fire almost all of the trainers working for you. I heard every single one of them refer to a dogs ability to make choices.

Midol, the anthropomorphising I was referring to was the fact that you feel a dog is being dominant if is it not listening to you. You come accross as placing YOUR human emotions and beliefs onto your dog's actions. Almost as though you take it as a challenge to your persona and status when your dog doesn't listen to a command.

My trainers know their stuff, many of them experts in their chosen field of dog sports and dog behaviour issues and will impart information to the clients in a manner that is easy for the layman to understand. If this means describing something in a slightly anthropomorphic way, then so be it and there is no harm in it as long as the information imparted is correct. As I always say...you've gotta "walk the walk before you can talk the talk".

Dogs make choices every day and it's the dog who feels it is working as a team with its owner is the one who will make the choices to happily and willingly comply with commands. If your dog is continously refuting a command/s, then there is something seriously wrong with either your training and/or your relationship. A dog is not a robot and I don't believe it should not be treated as such...it is a thinking, breathing being. And because of this, things aren't always as clear cut as you would like to have them.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Kelpie-i

[Just Midol]

Also Kelpie, if you honestly think that comment was Anthropomorphising then you better fire almost all of the trainers working for you. I heard every single one of them refer to a dogs ability to make choices.

Midol, the anthropomorphising I was referring to was the fact that you feel a dog is being dominant if is it not listening to you. You come accross as placing YOUR human emotions and beliefs onto your dog's actions. Almost as though you take it as a challenge to your persona and status when your dog doesn't listen to a command.

I never said that was the only reason. In fact, I've said multiple times that it isn't the only reason. There are probably dozens of reasons why a dog won't respond to a command, one of those is dominance.

I'm not placing any of my emotions into the dog's actions.

Anyway, won't be checking back in, cbf posting in here when people ignore half of the things I say.

[Kelpie-i]

never said that was the only reason. In fact, I've said multiple times that it isn't the only reason. There are probably dozens of reasons why a dog won't respond to a command, one of those is dominance.

I'm not placing any of my emotions into the dog's actions.

Anyway, won't be checking back in, cbf posting in here when people ignore half of the things I say.

Can you please show me where you've stated this Midol....I cannot seem to find it.....genuinly!

You're coming accross as being angry!! Are you losing control???

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Anyway, won't be checking back in, cbf posting in here when people ignore half of the things I say.

I don't think you've fully appreciated what you are saying in much of this discussion.

I think it's laudable that you are looking to expand your experience, but one of the most useful things you could do is to stop judging and start considering other people's experience with a bit more respect.

[WoofnHoof]

I agree with Kelpie-i re the anthropomorphism, Midol why not take a step back and have a look at what you have written objectively? If you feel that a dog needs to be 'put in it's place' because you feel it has ignored you then it's fairly obvious that there is some emotional projection going on. I'm sure that no one is ignoring half the things you say, more that only half of what you are saying is eliciting a response, people don't need to respond to everything you've said in order to discuss one or two points.

My only comment re animal choices is that there are many many factors which influence the choices an animal makes, not just "will I or wont I do what is asked of me?" The ability of an animal to obey a trained command is reliant on many things, including breed factors, so it is important to remember that a dog's point of view is completely different to our own and the signals they receive both from us and the world around them are totally foreign to our own senses. Of course I am going way off topic but animal choices are as contentious as the issue of dominance IMO.

Back to dominance though, lilli with your experiences with breeds that are less dependent on human interaction, what sort of behaviour would have to be exhibited before you would consider that dog to be a 'dominant' dog? I'm interested because I think the picture of a dominant type of behaivour would be much clearer without the human influence that other breeds can have, even sibes who are considered to be an independent breed, I don't think they are entirely because from a working dog perspective they still work under the direction of their handler, and in the presence of the handler, while guardian dogs are less used to human direction?

[Erny]

...

Edited March 3, 2009 by Erny

[Are You Serious Jo]

Of course I am going way off topic but animal choices are as contentious as the issue of dominance IMO.

Tell me about it, subject of my faeces, oops I mean thesis.

[Lablover]

Of course I am going way off topic but animal choices are as contentious as the issue of dominance IMO.

Tell me about it, subject of my faeces, oops I mean thesis.

I can imagine. Sometimes I wonder if this line covers most.

Simply put, animals (or anything with more than two brain cells) behave for one of two reasons: to acquire desirable outcomes or to avoid undesirable outcomes.

[WoofnHoof]

Of course I am going way off topic but animal choices are as contentious as the issue of dominance IMO.

Tell me about it, subject of my faeces, oops I mean thesis.

I can imagine. Sometimes I wonder if this line covers most.

Simply put, animals (or anything with more than two brain cells) behave for one of two reasons: to acquire desirable outcomes or to avoid undesirable outcomes.

I agree, the complexity arises when we try to figure out what the animal percieves as desirable/undesirable, as well as when we try to infuence that perception as we do when training.

[The Spotted Devil]

As we've got on to the topic of animal choices.....there is a fair bit of research trying to establish the use of animal choices in a controlled environment as indicators of animal welfare. Sounds simple, but it gets very complicated when the way the experiment is conducted (e.g. the length of time the animal has access to the choice) can affect the outcome. It's not clear cut but very, very interesting.