The Concept Formerly Known As "dominance"

[Erny]

It's true it's not the term dominance itself that is "wrong", but the way people have used it over the years. I understand that dominance is only a description of a relationship, I guess it's all the baggage that has caused it to be referred to as "the concept formally known as..."

And the thing is, to avoid the word "dominance" (even now it's being referred to as the "D-word" as though it is a bad word, instead of putting 'out there' what it's really about), we go to words such as "leadership". And then, because some people wrongly decide what their interpretation of it is, and do things (potentially wrongly) in its name, the word "leadership" becomes one that earns itself a spot on the "hit list" and a word to avoid.

So then we'll pick another word and another word.

"Dominance" is not a bad word. It's what we've allowed it to become, to represent. So instead of books and seminars and DVD's trying to decry the use of the word and hoping that the people who read, attend and watch, 'spread the word', what about books and seminars and DVD's doing more to explain really what it is and what it should be about and let those same people spread the word.

Often, the way these things are presented, it is as though the true theory is completely false. And I don't believe that it is. Many things are said which are really saying the same thing as what dominance theory says. It is just said as though with a new cover on an old book. Sure, some things are tweaked and/or refuted, but the essence is still there. That there is order and needs to be order within the hierarchical social pack.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Erny

[Prydenjoy]

As far as I know there are no stats describing or inferring how many dogs in the world are mistreated as a result of the misinterpretation of the dominance hierarchy concept (or a lack of structure, for that matter). It would be a little hard, considering we haven't figured out how applicable the dominance hierarchy concept is to dogs in the first place. You only have to look around on dog forums and email lists to see how commonly dominance is used (or misused), though. Jeanne provided a classic example. Shrugging that off as "not the concept but the interpretation of it" doesn't do anything to help dogs that are suffering due to the common interpretation of what "dominance" means in canine society. Like Jeanne, I think that one dog suffering needlessly is too many. Sometimes it's just not enough to stubbornly stick to the correct use of a term in a sea of people using it to mean something else. That's kind of trivialising the suffering of the dogs that are subjected to aversive practices designed to address the misinterpretation of the dominance hierarchy concept, don't you think?

Well said

Staranais, glad your dog bounced back ok! Our poor Tessa lived a life of depression, moping around miserably. When we finally started positive training with her it took over a year for her to get that "staffy smile" going (she was a mutt, but part staffy). She never truly bounced back but seemed a lot more comfortable and happy when we stopped trying to physically assert our dominance over her and use harsh corrections when she wasn't "obedient". We were misguided and I wish we could have provided her with a better start to life.

Erny, no one is saying that the word dominance doesn't apply to dogs, I use it myself sometimes but only when I have time to debunk the myths that go with it. I would never simply say to someone "be dominant to your dog" and leave it at that, saying "be a leader to your dog" I find is more specific and allows people to conjur up images to not allowing their dogs run rampant through their house, without the images of alpha rolls etc to creep in so readily.

[Staranais]

Staranais, glad your dog bounced back ok! Our poor Tessa lived a life of depression, moping around miserably. When we finally started positive training with her it took over a year for her to get that "staffy smile" going (she was a mutt, but part staffy). She never truly bounced back but seemed a lot more comfortable and happy when we stopped trying to physically assert our dominance over her and use harsh corrections when she wasn't "obedient". We were misguided and I wish we could have provided her with a better start to life.

That's sad. I'm glad she got her staffy smile going again! My old boy was a staffy too. They're lovely dogs.

I think a balance is needed, and that balance will be different for different dogs and different owners. I've got to say that I've seen many silly things going on in schools that hate the whole idea of dominance, as well as with instructors that overuse the concept of dominance.

At one point, my old boy and myself attended a volunteer run, positive only obedience school - it was pretty much clicker and treats only, toys were discouraged (disruptive!), dominance was a bad word, and corrections were a huge no-no. My boy's dog aggression and manners didn't improve with their methods, so I eventually left to experiment with training him my own way, but we went back a year or so later to sit the CGC. My boy passed cheerfully with flying colours - but the instructors dog, which had a bad reputation for being unruly and rank aggressive to both humans and dogs when I first attended the school, was still aggressive and uncontrollable after an additional year of clicker training. The dog was smart and bold and drivey, but he was also a rude, aggressive PITA with absolutely no respect for his owner. He needed to be taken down a rung or two, but the owner apparently just couldn't see that her dog ruled the roost since she didn't "believe" in dominance. I have no idea what ended up happening to the dog, or owner, but it wasn't heading anywhere good.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Staranais

[BJean]

I think there needs to be more attempts to "describe" dog behaviour, as you put it, lilli. Because clearly there are a lot of dog caretakers/pack leaders/human dog parents or whatever they choose to call themselves that don't have a great understanding of dog behaviour. Understanding our animals helps us to improve their welfare. It is a fact that there are dogs that are mistreated in the name of dominance. Anyone who cares about dogs ought to be concerned about that. Equally, I think it highly likely that there are dogs that are suffering due to lack of structure in their lives, or the ignoring of social behaviour because of the pendulum swing away from dominance hierarchies. Anyone who cares about dogs ought to be concerned about that as well. So bring on the scientific descriptions. I for one would like to see this settled for the sake of all dogs. Dog welfare sure floats my boat.

Oh for sure dog welfare rocks my boat

but I dont call discussions on the the word dominance and wafty nuances on how it might be described

a scientific description.

[corvus]

And the thing is, to avoid the word "dominance" (even now it's being referred to as the "D-word" as though it is a bad word, instead of putting 'out there' what it's really about), we go to words such as "leadership". And then, because some people wrongly decide what their interpretation of it is, and do things (potentially wrongly) in its name, the word "leadership" becomes one that earns itself a spot on the "hit list" and a word to avoid.

I think it's interesting that you consider "leadership" to be a substitute for "dominance". I don't. Because if we use the definition of dominance the way that it is used in other areas of animal behaviour and the way McConnell so carefully describes, they are not necessarily related at all. Are you considering "dominance" to be analogous to "social status"?

To be brutally honest and put myself in the firing line, I hate using the word "leadership" even more than I dislike "dominance". This is not because people do mean things to dogs in the name of leadership, now (although no doubt they do), but chiefly because it's an abstract and wishy-washy term and most people aren't actually born with leadership qualities. So when told to be a leader, what are they to do? They don't know how to be a leader. What does that even mean? I'm sure we've all found ourselves working under the supervision of someone with crap all leadership skills. It can be pretty horrifying. Dogs like structure and predictability and confident individuals. IMO that's a far more useful thing to tell people than that they need to display more leadership, for example.

Often, the way these things are presented, it is as though the true theory is completely false. And I don't believe that it is. Many things are said which are really saying the same thing as what dominance theory says. It is just said as though with a new cover on an old book. Sure, some things are tweaked and/or refuted, but the essence is still there. That there is order and needs to be order within the hierarchical social pack.

Have you read McConnell's blog yet, Erny? 'Cause really, that is certainly not what she is saying by any stretch of the imagination.

In general, I think you have made a fair call, but I can understand why there is this push to use different words or concepts and I support it for the same reason I think it's a good idea to introduce a new recall cue and start training it from scratch if you've accidentally poisoned your original one. I'm not sure exactly which alternative theories you are talking about as I really only know of Semyonova's Non-linear dogs, the resource-holding potential idea, and the behaviourist approach (dogs do what they have learnt works). I agree that there are common threads through it all, but I don't think they are in essence dominance theory. Was there a specific idea you were thinking of?

[Aidan]

most people aren't actually born with leadership qualities. So when told to be a leader, what are they to do? They don't know how to be a leader.

That's an interesting point, Corvus. If I'm to be completely honest (and I do use both "dominance" and "leadership", not interchangeably), I do seem to spend a lot of time repeating myself with clients saying stuff along the lines of "Why are you letting him decide you're going over there to bark at that dog, who is the leader here?"

It can take a lot of repetitions for some people to start to understand what it is that they have to do lead the dog down the path they want to follow, there is not some innate understanding that just needs to be pointed out.

I suppose with humans we're not just dealing with overt behaviours, but also cognition. So I would not avoid the term "leadership", but I would acknowledge that it does need to have some real meaning attached to it.

[Kelpie-i]

I'm with Staranais, I think the word dominance needs to be reclaimed and put straight once and for all. I hear it being used by many people, even veterinarians, both in the correct and incorrect manner, therefore rather than try to erase it from our vocabulary, why not clearly explain what dominance is and isn't.

I've heard of one Delta trainer who no longer likes the use of the word Leadership because it implies status....WTF!!?? What next?

[Prydenjoy]

why not clearly explain what dominance is and isn't.

Isn't that what McConnell is trying to do in her blog?

THUS, MY ANSWER IS YES AND NO: Here’s what I meant by “YES, the concept of “dominance” is relevant to dogs, and NO I don’t think it is relevant”. I think the concept is relevant IF AND ONLY IF it is understood that it is merely a way of describing one aspect of the relationship between social individuals. And I think NO, because once you use the word “dominance” all other aspects of personality, context, and the complexity of social interaction seem to fly out the window.

I think the whole blog is worth reading before jumping to conclusions to what it is about. She has not said that it is not applicable to dogs, read it for yourself and see.

Kelpie, I think your Delta trainer needs to get herself a cat

[~*Shell*~]

I think the entire dominance theory comes down to your definition of the word and the way you interpret a behaviour. As McConnell says, once you use the word dominance, all other aspects of personality, context and complexity of social interaction seem to fly out the window because this is the way it is used by the general public - it now has a certain stigma attached to it. To me, the idea of dominance (as I see it) is relevant however I don't think it's as simple as "my dog is dominant" or "my dog is submissive" which is what happens when you talk to some trainers (though I must admit I don't see those on this forum). I don't think those two camps will ever come together and agree on one explanation. To me, it is one aspect of their social interaction, not the entire basis of social interation. Some of the behaviours my dog exhibits are "dominant" gestures and some aren't, they're based on his personality, breed, context, learned behaviours, genetics and social interaction. What one person would see as dominant, I would see as insecure. Like staranais said, some people see everything as dominance - others don't believe in it at all. I'm somewhere in the middle.

Seriously, I don't think changing the word we use will help - people will always have different ideas about whatever word you use and it's interpretation. Semiology teaches us that. You can pretty much guarantee that someone "famous" (or several people) will get hold of the word and teach it to people who will take it for it's simplest or most obvious definition and will misunderstand it.

I think a lot of the reason the general public has taken this idea and run with it is because it tell the owner that "no, you didn't do anything wrong. It's just that you have a dominant dog." Simple changes to certain routines often have a big effect too. It's not that the dog is dominant or not, it's just that the dog finds something else rewarding (like sitting and waiting before they are allowed to eat - jumping on their owner with the dog's bowl in their hand is not rewarding anymore because it gets the dog nowhere) and will exhibit a learned behaviour to get that reward. If a trainer says to the owner "the dog is doing that because he respects you as a leader now" the idea that every bad behaviour comes down to dominance idea is reinforced to that owner.

Edited April 8, 2010 by ~*Shell*~

[Erny]

I think it's interesting that you consider "leadership" to be a substitute for "dominance".

I don't and didn't say I did. But I have been at a seminar or two where the same person/s "debunking the dominance myth" (title is pretty clear in its description to tell you what the seminar was about) mentioned she was now hesitant to use the term "leadership" inference being for the same reason these people don't like to use the "dominance" word.

So obviously there are people who are in the public who have interpretations of what they perceive these words are meaning to others. And instead of shouting from the roof-tops of what those words should and do mean, they run away from the word/s.

The same people who want to decry the word "dominance" set up their information booths to suggest dominance doesn't exist (refer use of the word "myth" in the seminar title referred to above). They are the ones IMO who are reinforcing the perception of dominance that some people already have.

I expect that the wrong things do happen. And I expect that some of those wrongs are quite hurtful to some dogs. But I can't also help thinking that those things would happen anyway, even if that person had never heard of "dominance" in his or her lifetime. Just my thoughts on it, because there aren't conclusive stats to go by. But I honestly do not see that many (if any) people who are brutal to their dogs in the name of "dominance".

[corvus]

I think it's interesting that you consider "leadership" to be a substitute for "dominance".

I don't and didn't say I did. But I have been at a seminar or two where the same person/s "debunking the dominance myth" (title is pretty clear in its description to tell you what the seminar was about) mentioned she was now hesitant to use the term "leadership" inference being for the same reason these people don't like to use the "dominance" word.

Sorry, I misunderstood. Is it one person or two? Or more?

So obviously there are people who are in the public who have interpretations of what they perceive these words are meaning to others. And instead of shouting from the roof-tops of what those words should and do mean, they run away from the word/s.

I have to say I've seen a fair bit of people trying to make it clear what "dominance" actually is. I have several dog books that use the word with the intended definition and have defined it quite clearly beforehand, I have participated in several very detailed discussions about it with trainers in other parts of the world where the proper definition has been stressed, and here's Trish McConnell trying to make it clear as well. The speakers at the NDTF conference were also very clear on what it actually meant. As far as I can see, it IS being shouted from the rooftops. It took years for it to work its way into every aspect of dog ownership, and I expect even with the shouting it will take a lot longer to be put back in its place, if it ever is. As was suggested several times on the blog, it's self-reinforcing for people to lean so heavily on it.

To me, it's got to the point where it is so badly and widely mis-used that I doubt it is recoverable, at least not until we have a more descriptive and useful paradigm take over for a while. Maybe one day we can say dominance again without all the connotations, but I imagine not for a good long while. It is extremely annoying and insulting to have people misinterpret you and link your words to ideas and practices you find abhorent. I don't blame people for running from that prospect.

But I honestly do not see that many (if any) people who are brutal to their dogs in the name of "dominance".

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Kelpie-i]

why not clearly explain what dominance is and isn't.

Isn't that what McConnell is trying to do in her blog?

THUS, MY ANSWER IS YES AND NO: Here’s what I meant by “YES, the concept of “dominance” is relevant to dogs, and NO I don’t think it is relevant”. I think the concept is relevant IF AND ONLY IF it is understood that it is merely a way of describing one aspect of the relationship between social individuals. And I think NO, because once you use the word “dominance” all other aspects of personality, context, and the complexity of social interaction seem to fly out the window.

I think the whole blog is worth reading before jumping to conclusions to what it is about. She has not said that it is not applicable to dogs, read it for yourself and see.

Kelpie, I think your Delta trainer needs to get herself a cat

Jeanne, yes she most probably is and hopefully all of the other "kill the word dominance' army might sit up and listen. After all, if Trish McConnell writes it, it must be right...right???

'My' Delta Trainer is actually a well known spokesperson for the group

[Zug Zug]

Here is the way my brain reacts to the 2 words 'dominance' and 'leadership':

Dominance - power over something/someone else

Leadership - showing someone the way / leading someone somewhere

To me they are very different things. And yes, these are absolutely subjective statements, and yes they are value-laden. But I think these are common interpretations of these words in the wider community.

There is no reason that 'dominance' needs to imply the use of force and harsh corrections. But the practical application of 'being dominant' and 'being the alpha' by so many dog owners does in fact lead so many of them to do that kind of thing.

I've seen people give some awful, sneak-attack corrections to their dogs while growling at them 'I'm the boss!'. In years gone by I had instructors encouraging me to behave in the same way. It comes from a twisted concept of what leadership is about between a dog and its human, I think. And it brings out the ugly side of some handlers, at their dogs' expense.

That may not be what 'dominance' is really all about, but it is what it is translated as by a lot of handlers.

[BJean]

Here is the way my brain reacts to the 2 words 'dominance' and 'leadership':

Dominance - power over something/someone else

Leadership - showing someone the way / leading someone somewhere

To me they are very different things. And yes, these are absolutely subjective statements, and yes they are value-laden. But I think these are common interpretations of these words in the wider community.

There is no reason that 'dominance' needs to imply the use of force and harsh corrections. But the practical application of 'being dominant' and 'being the alpha' by so many dog owners does in fact lead so many of them to do that kind of thing.

I've seen people give some awful, sneak-attack corrections to their dogs while growling at them 'I'm the boss!'. In years gone by I had instructors encouraging me to behave in the same way. It comes from a twisted concept of what leadership is about between a dog and its human, I think. And it brings out the ugly side of some handlers, at their dogs' expense.

That may not be what 'dominance' is really all about, but it is what it is translated as by a lot of handlers.

Zug Zug, how would you define / describe a dominant dog?

What behaviours do dominant dogs exhibit?

Edited April 8, 2010 by lilli

[Zug Zug]

Hmm good question. I guess I was thinking largely about humans trying to exert dominance over their dogs.

But in my mind I would think a dominant dog that is well-balanced is a dog that is calling the shots. Gets the bone, greets other dogs with a high posture and a high level of confidence. Is very happy to alert owners to wanting to go out to the loo (i.e. not shy about heading to the door and barking to be let out). Might even hump the other dogs. That kind of thing.

Dominance gone wrong: a dog that guards the food or the couch, prevents people from getting into their own beds, territorial barking, possessive aggression.

How would you describe a dominant dog?

[Prydenjoy]

Dominance gone wrong: a dog that guards the food or the couch, prevents people from getting into their own beds, territorial barking, possessive aggression.

I don't completely agree, particularly with possessive aggression. Sometimes, I believe, this is due to insecurities which have got nothing to do with dominance.

One example of a dog displaying dominant behavior to their owner I saw recently was a dog that barked at its owner to throw the ball. She was distracted and didn't throw it straight away and the dog jumped up and started biting her hand (so she promptly picked up the ball and threw it). Apparently he does it all of the time. It was quite clear who was king of the castle in that house. That said, it was also a learned behavior. All these things interplay and you can rarely blame dominance alone on any problem behavior (that I can think of off the top of my head anyway).

[BJean]

Hmm good question. I guess I was thinking largely about humans trying to exert dominance over their dogs.

But in my mind I would think a dominant dog that is well-balanced is a dog that is calling the shots. Gets the bone, greets other dogs with a high posture and a high level of confidence. Is very happy to alert owners to wanting to go out to the loo (i.e. not shy about heading to the door and barking to be let out). Might even hump the other dogs. That kind of thing.

Dominance gone wrong: a dog that guards the food or the couch, prevents people from getting into their own beds, territorial barking, possessive aggression.

How would you describe a dominant dog?

From my observtions, dominant dogs dont exhibit leadership

they assert their will power and what they want

if they want other dogs (and / or humans) to do a cetain thing, they wil push this

but that is not leadership.

In a dogs mind, imo, power is very much part of dominance

or an individuals belief in their abiltiy to assert itself over another -

that belief can exist menatlly as well as physically

but the dominant dog will always back up the mental with the physical,

because it believes in itself and its right of way.

fwiw a dog trying it on with its owner is not 'dominant'

that can merely be (and often is) a dog taking up the slack.

A dominant dog does not make the rules

rather it sets them;

people are not at ease with the term 'dominant' because of their own human connotations -

but 'power' - making another appease ones willpower

is part of the psyche of a dominant dog.

you only have to watch a dominant dog shoudler down another

or stand up to the world around them,

or stare down a human with intent

to see that power and force are very much at play.

(nb why this would then apply to the human-dog relationship I dont know, as I said it seems people go bananas when they see or hear the word dominance).

Probably because true dominant dogs are not that common,

that owners/trainers/theorists can misunderstand or misuse the word -

apply it where it is not really warranted

or where the dogs motivation is not understood.

But it is no wonder that many pet owners / pet trainers claim they have never seen it or it doesn't exist -

because it rarely does, in its true form, in most companion breeds.

dominance gone wrong? I dont know what that means

a dominant dog has not gone wrong bcz its holds up the couch or what it considers theirs - imo dominance is a unique mindset that needs to be managed.

in my breeds a dominant individual will go for a person it does not consider relevant if that person asks them to get off the bed. couch -

that wouldn't be out of place or 'gone wrong'

that would just be the dog asserting its willpower over another and meaning it because its birthright wired it that way.

territorial barking imo has nothing to do with dominance, that's other breed traits / drives at work.

actually in one of my breeds I say the more a dog barks, the more warninng it gives, the less nerve a dog has. By definition a dog with no nerve can't be dominant.

A dog I would describe as dominant does not give much warning bark at all.

Too full of itself and its own ability for that.

A dominant dog is a dog with adaptive intelligence, will power and the mental and physical nouse to back that mindset up.

dominance imo, is the way a dog sees the world and its place in it. A dominant dog is just more prepared to assert itself over another. And they are born this way.

Edited April 8, 2010 by lilli

[Aidan]

Dominance gone wrong: a dog that guards the food or the couch, prevents people from getting into their own beds, territorial barking, possessive aggression.

I don't completely agree, particularly with possessive aggression.

In observations of wild wolves a more submissive wolf will resource guard from a more dominant wolf and this is frequently accepted by the more dominant wolf.

[BJean]

Dominance gone wrong: a dog that guards the food or the couch, prevents people from getting into their own beds, territorial barking, possessive aggression.

I don't completely agree, particularly with possessive aggression.

In observations of wild wolves a more submissive wolf will resource guard from a more dominant wolf and this is frequently accepted by the more dominant wolf.

In my main 'pack' of 3 anatolian females and one central asian male

the young female will resource guard from the other more assertvie dogs

but when not 'frequently accepted',

the older and more assertive central asian male literally knocks/throws her out the way and takes her food.

Resource guarding works as a bluff

but only when the dominant dog does not really want to assert their way.

My other group which is true dominant anatolian male and alpha central asian female

they cannot be fed within 50 metres of each other

or a serious fight will explode. They are both very aggressive when it comes to their possessions.

Edited April 8, 2010 by lilli

[Prydenjoy]

Dominance gone wrong: a dog that guards the food or the couch, prevents people from getting into their own beds, territorial barking, possessive aggression.

I don't completely agree, particularly with possessive aggression.

In observations of wild wolves a more submissive wolf will resource guard from a more dominant wolf and this is frequently accepted by the more dominant wolf.

I guess that's where Pats comment that "possession IS the law" comes in

Berri never tries to take anything from Mango, even though he is Mr Alpha Wannabe and she's so soft and submissive.