The Concept Formerly Known As "dominance"

[Zug Zug]

On reflection I think you are right about the food guarding. I have a very submissive dog who guards his food treasures in the hope that my other (more dominant) dog will let him keep them. Sometimes she does. When she really wants it she just bowls straight into and over him and he has to give over. They both know who's boss.

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.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I would say that a dog who 'will go for a person' is a problem. I'm not saying they are sick dogs or anything like that, and from the dog's perspective that may be a sensible response. But it is dangerous behaviour so I don't know if I agree that it is not out of place. As you say, a dog like that needs to be very carefully managed and if it is not managed very well from very early on then I think that has the potential to turn into a dog that has 'gone wrong'.

Yes truly dominant dogs are rare creatures. I was attacked by a truly dominant male boxer about 15 years ago. No warning bark, no hesitation, he just launched straight at my throat and didn't stop. While I have a relatively dominant poodle bitch at home she is only dominant in relation to our other very submissive dog (and she tries to assert herself over us with very limited success). But when compared with this other dog her 'dominance' is actually very mild. It's all relative.

[Staranais]

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.

I read somewhere (can't remember where for the life of me!) that dogs seem to understand that others have the "right" to defend what's in their possession at any one time. Where status comes in is that more dominant dogs have a bigger circle of possession, so to speak - a dominant dog might exert passive control over a bone a few feet from his paws, with no one daring to take it, whereas a submissive dog might have to have the object actually in his jaws in order to prevent it being stolen.

Like I said, I can't remember where I read that, so have no idea how credible the source was. But it matches well with what I've observed myself.

I guess when I tell my dog to leave stuff alone that's over the other side of the room, she must think that I think that I'm really super dominant.

I've also noted that my girl is much happier bringing a valued possession to me on command than having me walk up and take it. She'll let me do it, but you can see the tension coiled up there waiting to explode (I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone else try to take a bone from her!) No idea why she feels more comfortable bringing me things on command rather than me taking them from her, since the end result is exactly the same, but it fascinates me.

[moosmum]

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.

Lilli,

Just wanted to say I thought you put that very well,it fits my idea of a dominant dog.

I would add I don't believe a dominant dog is one who will always try to assert his will over his leader/owner.His adaptive intelligence (in a sound confident mind) should let him accept leadership from those he can recognise as fit for the task.

So many seen to think 'dominance' means hard to train.

Sorry if I haven't worded well,newish to the forum and your training levels so not used to all your more professional terminology yet.

I'm learning!

Edited April 9, 2010 by moosmum

[BJean]

Lilli,

Just wanted to say I thought you put that very well,it fits my idea of a dominant dog.

I would add I don't believe a dominant dog is one who will always try to assert his will over his leader/owner.His adaptive intelligence (in a sound confident mind) should let him accept leadership from those he can recognise as fit for the task. So many seen to think 'dominance' means hard to train.

Sorry if I haven't worded well,newish to the forum and your training levels so not used to all your more professional terminology yet.

I'm learning!

Yes exactly

Just because a dog keeps trying it on with its owner doesn't mean that particular dog is 'dominant', just that the dog can see leeway and opportunity in what it does and doesn't have to do.

A dominant dog wont always challenge its owner, often that is sorted from the outset, but the owner does have to remember what the dog is; you cant ask it to do things in a way you may ask another dog; you cant be lazy with its instruction, or force it do to something - it is a strong bond of mutual respect.

imo the dominant dog makes the most loyal and intelligent dogs; they are the most clear with their intentions and where they are at.

agreed dominance does not mean hard to train, my true dominant dog is my most obedient and attentive.

Edited April 9, 2010 by lilli

[NaturallyWild]

Dominance is a really interesting concept to me.

Being a positive trainer (not permissive though, but no corrections) I absolutley believe in dominance. Dominance though is not specifically relevant to training and behaviour modification particularly because the label of dominance gets used in too broad a context. It is however a human label that involves control of a resource.

Dominance relates to an individual relationship with another living and emotionally responsive organism (a "being") at a single point in time.

Dominance changes with change in time, context (ie which resource is involved and the situation it is available in) and who they are in relationship with at that time and whether that being has any value in that resource.

Dominance is very much a learnt experience and the continued "dominant" responses depend on the conflict created by the other organism involved and whether there is a felt need to continue the conflict.

Aversive responses to "dominance" I believe create greater conflict and often create greater problems which can spill over to different contextual situations.

Dominance is also related to self confidence and other emotional states, in combination with predicted expectation of an outcome.

Really interesting website that covers some research regarding dominance in dogs is at www.nonlineardogs.com. Shows that learning plays a huge role in creating dominance and that the responses we provide can influence this. In her book I'm not a fan of the way she belittles people that have different ideas though and goes a little far in saying it has nothing to do with social structure.

Leadership is then also a interesting concept in that is about guidance for how that other beings life is led. This can then encompass situations of dominance but how it is dealt with can be either in a passive or active manner.

One persons idea of leadership is different to another, the same applies with dogs...........so,

everything is contextual.

[Prydenjoy]

Great post NaturallyWild.

Really interesting website that covers some research regarding dominance in dogs is at www.nonlineardogs.com. Shows that learning plays a huge role in creating dominance and that the responses we provide can influence this. In her book I'm not a fan of the way she belittles people that have different ideas though and goes a little far in saying it has nothing to do with social structure.

I read a little of that book, but didn't continue because it seemed she really struggled to find any other explaination that could possibly describe dominance related behavior, the explainations seemed to waffle on and really seemed to simply describe the behavior more than actually getting to the roots of what was driving the behavior in most cases.

[Erny]

I read a little of that book, but didn't continue because it seemed she really struggled to find any other explaination that could possibly describe dominance related behavior, the explainations seemed to waffle on and really seemed to simply describe the behavior more than actually getting to the roots of what was driving the behavior in most cases.

I'm not sure what you're saying/asking here, Jeanne.

Are you asking "what makes a dog dominant"?

IMO there is the genetic propensity for the 'trait'. Then there are dogs who aren't truly "dominant" but do exhibit behaviours (decision making; controlling; etc) that would suggest "dominance" but are present only for the absence of guidance/calm-assertive leadership/boundaries and which behaviours are easily extinguished when those attributes are taught/introduced to the dog's owners.

[NaturallyWild]

IMO there is the genetic propensity for the 'trait'. Then there are dogs who aren't truly "dominant" but do exhibit behaviours (decision making; controlling; etc) that would suggest "dominance" but are present only for the absence of guidance/calm-assertive leadership/boundaries and which behaviours are easily extinguished when those attributes are taught/introduced to the dog's owners.

Quite possibly, but learning begins from the womb and I wonder whether this can contribute to much of the dominance responses (particularly if they are influenced by the emotional state that the mother was in during and after pregnancy. The other thing that still applies is that genetic or not there is still a learning factor that applies to these behaviours and may just make the task a little harder whether reward or correction based techniques are used. I'm actually using less behavioural training and more self awareness exercises such as the TTouch work and getting far greater results - the learning context has a huge impact.

[corvus]

Ooo, NaturallyWild, you're touching on a lot of really interesting stuff, there. Anyone watch the show on stress on ABC1 last night?

[Staranais]

Great post NaturallyWild.

Really interesting website that covers some research regarding dominance in dogs is at www.nonlineardogs.com. Shows that learning plays a huge role in creating dominance and that the responses we provide can influence this. In her book I'm not a fan of the way she belittles people that have different ideas though and goes a little far in saying it has nothing to do with social structure.

I read a little of that book, but didn't continue because it seemed she really struggled to find any other explaination that could possibly describe dominance related behavior, the explainations seemed to waffle on and really seemed to simply describe the behavior more than actually getting to the roots of what was driving the behavior in most cases.

The website is a little bit worrying too, here's what she has to say about the staffy, pitbull, english bull terrier, rotweiller, german shepherd, and other dogs that have had aggression "bred back into them":

"And it’s a fact — these dogs are, by nature, always prepared to be highly aggressive. They don’t

want to avoid aggressive encounters at all, and often look for an excuse to start attacking. These

dogs will approach and present a stick or other object as if they are inviting play, and they then

begin an all-out attack on the first animal in the area that so much as moves (which animal is all too

often a human one). Incidents with humans and children show that these dogs have an

unpredictable hair trigger (which, if you are lucky, you may never accidentally touch, in which case

you might think you have a ‘nice’ pit bull, American Staffordshire terrier, Presa Canaria, etc.). "

Guess I was just lucky with my old stafford boy and never touched his "trigger", since he never as much as growled at me or any other human in his life. Or perhaps she just has no idea about aggression or prey drive, or about the difference between aggression directed towards dogs and towards humans? Paragraphs like that make me think she just wants to write any canine aggression off as being bad and unnatural, instead of analysing the different ways and reasons that any dog can be aggressive.

She also claims that the dog isn't a hunter or true predator, which my girl sitting in the yard would like to raise a paw and dispute. Sure, she likes to scavenge, but she loves to hunt, bite and chase.

It's a pity, since some of the rest of the website is interesting and some of the articles are really well thought out.

[Kavik]

My GSD must be broken then - he does actively try to avoid conflict

[Staranais]

My GSD must be broken then - he does actively try to avoid conflict

Perhaps you just haven't triggered him yet, Kavik!

[Aidan]

Seymonova is a tricky one. She makes some very good points, she also makes some points that I would strongly disagree with. It is often difficult for people to take her seriously because she is a BSL advocate. It takes a strong commitment to avoiding personal bias and putting emotions aside to read her material but I do think it is worth reading all the same.

You also have to consider her definitions; e.g the only aggressive dogs are those that do not demonstrate bite inhibition. Not a definition I would agree with, but in order to interpret some of her work (and especially to have a discussion with her!) you have to temporarily install that definition into your brain (then remember to remove it when you've finished )

[NaturallyWild]

Ooo, NaturallyWild, you're touching on a lot of really interesting stuff, there. Anyone watch the show on stress on ABC1 last night?

I'm studying craniosacral therapy at the moment (for humans) and there is a big focus on understanding embryology and foetal development and the potential impact on health, emotions, and physical issues.

This is an area where science is only now just starting to understand part of what happens. Genetics actually plays no role in the first several days after conception, so there is some other driving force that tells the cells what to do.

How this relates to "dominance", well trauma (and this could be considered just a bump to big emotional situations) at any stage of life (particularly early on) has the possibility to have a huge impact on physiology and create changes in physical and emotional responses to things that are related (or completely unrelated in many situations). How we adapt to situation and whether our body is given the oppertunity to heal itself emotionally or physically plays a big role. Dominance can be caused from a hole variety of things, but for me how I respond is in trying to create a willing partnership in the relationships that are occuring, not to focus on the conflicts I would create by assuming I (or others) should be more dominant.

[BJean]

IMO there is the genetic propensity for the 'trait'. Then there are dogs who aren't truly "dominant" but do exhibit behaviours (decision making; controlling; etc) that would suggest "dominance" but are present only for the absence of guidance/calm-assertive leadership/boundaries and which behaviours are easily extinguished when those attributes are taught/introduced to the dog's owners.

Quite possibly, but learning begins from the womb and I wonder whether this can contribute to much of the dominance responses (particularly if they are influenced by the emotional state that the mother was in during and after pregnancy. The other thing that still applies is that genetic or not there is still a learning factor that applies to these behaviours and may just make the task a little harder whether reward or correction based techniques are used. I'm actually using less behavioural training and more self awareness exercises such as the TTouch work and getting far greater results - the learning context has a huge impact.

Make which task a little harder?

Learning begins in the womb, yes.

But the learning is tempered by the genetic disposition of the individual.

I do not think the mother's emotional state during pregnancy will impact an indivudal's base temperament.

If I take a litter of 8 pups, all different personalities, maybe one is true dominant

I do not think the mother's emotional state will impact on this. The mother's emotional state is also a reflection of her personality, which is why often dominant lineage begets another.

Edited April 9, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

IMO there is the genetic propensity for the 'trait'. Then there are dogs who aren't truly "dominant" but do exhibit behaviours (decision making; controlling; etc) that would suggest "dominance" but are present only for the absence of guidance/calm-assertive leadership/boundaries and which behaviours are easily extinguished when those attributes are taught/introduced to the dog's owners.

Quite possibly, but learning begins from the womb and I wonder whether this can contribute to much of the dominance responses (particularly if they are influenced by the emotional state that the mother was in during and after pregnancy. The other thing that still applies is that genetic or not there is still a learning factor that applies to these behaviours and may just make the task a little harder whether reward or correction based techniques are used. I'm actually using less behavioural training and more self awareness exercises such as the TTouch work and getting far greater results - the learning context has a huge impact.

Can you give an example of a dominant response

and how this may have been influenced by the dam?

[NaturallyWild]

Seymonova is a tricky one.

...but in order to interpret some of her work (and especially to have a discussion with her!) you have to temporarily install that definition into your brain (then remember to remove it when you've finished )

Absolutely agree. She seems to be very steadfast in pushing her beliefs, yet asks us to throw any other assumptions others aside so as to research something correctly. Bit of a contradiction, but I agree with much of what she says.

[BJean]

Ooo, NaturallyWild, you're touching on a lot of really interesting stuff, there. Anyone watch the show on stress on ABC1 last night?

I'm studying craniosacral therapy at the moment (for humans) and there is a big focus on understanding embryology and foetal development and the potential impact on health, emotions, and physical issues.

This is an area where science is only now just starting to understand part of what happens. Genetics actually plays no role in the first several days after conception, so there is some other driving force that tells the cells what to do.

How this relates to "dominance", well trauma (and this could be considered just a bump to big emotional situations) at any stage of life (particularly early on) has the possibility to have a huge impact on physiology and create changes in physical and emotional responses to things that are related (or completely unrelated in many situations). How we adapt to situation and whether our body is given the oppertunity to heal itself emotionally or physically plays a big role.Dominance can be caused from a hole variety of things, but for me how I respond is in trying to create a willing partnership in the relationships that are occuring, not to focus on the conflicts I would create by assuming I (or others) should be more dominant.

This assumes that dominant dog is an aberration, that had it not been for inutero circumstacne a,b,c

the dog would be something else.

What things can cause dominance?

Edited April 9, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

The website is a little bit worrying too, here's what she has to say about the staffy, pitbull, english bull terrier, rotweiller, german shepherd, and other dogs that have had aggression "bred back into them":

"And it’s a fact — these dogs are, by nature, always prepared to be highly aggressive. They don’t

want to avoid aggressive encounters at all, and often look for an excuse to start attacking. These

dogs will approach and present a stick or other object as if they are inviting play, and they then

begin an all-out attack on the first animal in the area that so much as moves (which animal is all too

often a human one). Incidents with humans and children show that these dogs have an

unpredictable hair trigger (which, if you are lucky, you may never accidentally touch, in which case

you might think you have a ‘nice’ pit bull, American Staffordshire terrier, Presa Canaria, etc.). "

oh gawd and she is training and preaching to others ...

[NaturallyWild]

I do not think the mother's emotional state during pregnancy will impact an indivudal's base temperament.

If I take a litter of 8 pups, all different personalities, maybe one is true dominant

I do not think the mother's emotional state will impact on this. The mother's emotional state is also a reflection of her personality, which is why often dominant lineage begets another.

Plenty of research out there showing that the emotional state of a mother will impact on the emotional state (or personality) of the newborn. Emotional states lead to behavioural responses ie possibility of "dominance"

I don't understand your label of "true dominant"? Please explain further.

Dominant lineage - could not this be because of learnt experiences from another animal that behaves dominant?

I'm not saying genetics has no role, but there are a lot of other possibilities, so I "try" not to assume.