The Concept Formerly Known As "dominance"

[Kelpie-i]

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.

Not too sure I agree. If this were the case then nearly all of the litter would show either dominant or submissive tendencies, dependant on how the mum was feeling during pregnancy. I'd need more proof of this for it to ring true.

Erny: 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

Agreed.

[Staranais]

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.

They were telling us at school the other day about some research they'd done on dairy cattle, where keeping pregnant dairy heifers hungry can not only decrease their unborn daughters ability to produce milk over their entire lifetime - it also appears to affect their daughter's daughters' lifetime ability to produce milk! Different to emotions and temperament, I know, but there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about in the big new world of epigenetics.

However, I find it very hard to believe that a tendency towards dominance doesn't also have a substantial genetic component, just like most other personality traits in dogs and humans do.

[BJean]

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"

Emotional state is not the same as base personality. A dam's emotional state can impact this but it will not change it.

Emotional states lead to behavioural responses ie possibility of "dominance"

What do you mean by this, please exaplin with an example, thankyou

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

A true dominant individual would be as I describe:

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

From my observations, 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.

They are born this way. No different to any other base personality.

... an individuals belief in their abiltiy to assert itself over another .

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.

How so? From which other animals will the baby puppy learn from? Why wouldn't all the pups in a litter learn the same lesson? Why does this pup interpret its interaction with the outside world in the way it does?

Dominance is not just bound to behaviour. It is how the dog sees the world and its place in it. It is intrinsic.

What possibilities do you think can create a dominant dog?

Genes are the biggest influence on a dog's base temperament ie: what it is born with

you only have to go over a selection of breeds/bloodlines

some breeds have dominance bred in them; they need this perspective it is part of what they are

just as some breeds have dominance bred out of them.

Perception of rank is part of dominance; on their own dogs need a perception of rank in order to operate.

Eg:

The voilition to shepherd a group of goats towards water or away from a threat requires

the dog to have a sense of willpower about what it wants to do and what it wants others to do.

If we look at breed traits -

why can t a great dane do the work of an Anatolian? Why can an Anatolian guard on its own isolated against human and animals but the great dane can not?

Similarly why cant an anatolian be expected to be as tolerant as a great dane?

imo what sets the general mindset of these two breeds apart, is selective breeding for/against perception of rank / dominance.

To an extent, the perception of dominance also impacts aggression, as on one level they are interelated.

Edited April 9, 2010 by lilli

[Erny]

They were telling us at school the other day about some research they'd done on dairy cattle, where keeping pregnant dairy heifers hungry can not only decrease their unborn daughters ability to produce milk over their entire lifetime - it also appears to affect their daughter's daughters' lifetime ability to produce milk! Different to emotions and temperament, I know, but there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about in the big new world of epigenetics.

.... Hi Star - that goes to something I raised in another (can't remember which, but it related to how much chemical we apply and how much processed food we feed to our dogs over their lifetime, and the affects) thread where I expressed my opinion/belief that it isn't just about what we feed our dogs when they come to us as pups, but that their health can be (regardless of our great feeding) affected by evolution throughout the generations and therefore it is really important that the parents and grandparents of our dogs are fed a wholesome, balanced diet suited to as closely as possible to their natural digestive needs, and that we need to very seriously consider the affects of chemicals frequented upon our dogs and what it might be doing to future generations.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Erny

[Staranais]

They were telling us at school the other day about some research they'd done on dairy cattle, where keeping pregnant dairy heifers hungry can not only decrease their unborn daughters ability to produce milk over their entire lifetime - it also appears to affect their daughter's daughters' lifetime ability to produce milk! Different to emotions and temperament, I know, but there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about in the big new world of epigenetics.

.... Hi Star - that goes to something I raised in another (can't remember which, but it related to how much chemical we apply and how much processed food we feed to our dogs over their lifetime, and the affects) thread where I expressed my opinion/belief that it isn't just about what we feed our dogs when they come to us as pups, but that their health can be (regardless of our great feeding) affected by evolution throughout the generations and therefore it is really important that the parents and grandparents of our dogs are fed a wholesome, balanced diet.

Yes, it's entirely possible, although I don't think anyone has studied it in dogs. I think they just observed the effect over 3 generations (the mother's metabolism affected the eggs that were in the calf that were in the mother), but still something for breeders to think about I guess!

[Prydenjoy]

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"?

No, wasn't asking anything, just making a statement that I thought the non linear dog theory book (what I read of it, anyway) was just a struggle to describe behaviors in ways other than attributing them dominance.

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

Wanted to, was too busy stressing over getting the house cleaned for today

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.). "

My point exactly, she waffles on and just states her observations, dancing around not using the term dominance the whole time, all the while describing dominant behaviors. Mind you there were some very interesting points... that could have been made in about half as many words...

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 )

So what is her definition of bite inhibition? A dog that demonstrates a soft bite if provoked, or a dog that never bites at all? Nearly every dog will bite if it is pushed past its threshold, and not all are taught bite inhibition. And didn't she say that there are aggressive breeds that you may be lucky enough not to touch it's hair trigger aggression, in that case how can the dog be labelled aggressive if it has never actually bitten anyone? All hypothetical questions, of course

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.

If a mother has high stress hormones during her pregnancy this will affect the base stress rate in her offspring. In humans this can lead to mental illness and all kinds of worries. Many factors interplay to produce a personality and "base temperament", including genetics, prenatal and post natal health and stress, upbringing, classical and operant learning. Of course a litter of pups is never going to be born with the same temperament as each other, that's genetics, doesn't mean to say that the stress of the mother does not play some kind of a role.

[Zug Zug]

Personally I would put more weight on genetic factors in determining levels of dominance. I think education/training can influence how that dominance is expressed and how much inhibition the dog exercises in day to day life, but I think we over-rate the importance of education in determining base temperament.

As a mother of fraternal twins who were in my womb at exactly the same time and were raised by the same people in the same circumstances, yet have very very different temperaments, it has always seemed to me that the 'nature' side of the 'nature/nurture' debate has been under-valued by many people. It is also evident when you look at litters of pups with very different temperaments. I think we tend to do this because we want to think we have more control over things than we really do.

Other things can influence a dog's behaviour, but I do think that the base temperament and level of dominance is something a dog is born with.

[Aidan]

As a mother of fraternal twins who were in my womb at exactly the same time and were raised by the same people in the same circumstances, yet have very very different temperaments, it has always seemed to me that the 'nature' side of the 'nature/nurture' debate has been under-valued by many people.

Very much so in the dog training world, not so in the scientific literature. There are literally thousands of twin studies (and adoption studies) and we have a pretty good handle on the nature/nurture interplay.

[Aidan]

My point exactly, she waffles on and just states her observations, dancing around not using the term dominance the whole time, all the while describing dominant behaviors.

Did you read the parts about self-organising systems? Very relevant I think.

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 )

So what is her definition of bite inhibition?

Good question. The issue is not so much a definition of bite inhibition but that she doesn't consider many of the things we would consider to be aggressive behaviour to be a part of aggression and argues that all of these behaviours (with the exceptions of an uninhibited bite or actually damaging behaviours) are just communication. I agree that they are communication, but find it very cumbersome to not describe them as aggressive behaviours.

I'm not sure why she draws a line either. A full, uninhibited bite to the stomach is also communication - "I'm lethal, nice knowing ya, sorry it had to end this way!"

Some breeds do have a higher probability of that sub-population which will display pathological aggression. BSL doesn't appear to solve that problem in practice.

[Prydenjoy]

I'm not sure why she draws a line either. A full, uninhibited bite to the stomach is also communication - "I'm lethal, nice knowing ya, sorry it had to end this way!"

So true!!

I didn't read all that much of it actually, I don't have a paper copy and was reading it on the internet, unless something is really fascinating I wont spend all too much time reading it on the net because there is so many other things to look at it's easy to get distracted! I'm sure if I had a paper copy I'd read the whole thing, but I'm not sure I'm going to buy it - I've got a long list of books on my wish list, it would probably be a fair way down the wish if I was going to buy it

[corvus]

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.

They were telling us at school the other day about some research they'd done on dairy cattle, where keeping pregnant dairy heifers hungry can not only decrease their unborn daughters ability to produce milk over their entire lifetime - it also appears to affect their daughter's daughters' lifetime ability to produce milk! Different to emotions and temperament, I know, but there's a lot that goes on that we don't know about in the big new world of epigenetics.

I came across that paper yesterday, actually. It was unsurprising in light of the Dutch famine case (and similar research on rats and pigs) that was mentioned on the stress doco last night. They didn't say half the interesting things about that one on the show! Sapolsky relates in his book how a stressed mother results in the fetus actually being programmed to have a thrifty metabolism, storing away every little nutrient, and this metabolism later makes that person more prone to obesity, hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. If that person gets pregnant and eats a normal amount of food, their body continues to snatch up all the nutrients, thus starving the fetus and creating the same environment the mother had as a fetus and that fetus develops thrifty metabolism as well.

Fortunately the effect dilutes over time.

However, I find it very hard to believe that a tendency towards dominance doesn't also have a substantial genetic component, just like most other personality traits in dogs and humans do.

I don't think there's any doubt of that. I also think it is not a simple matter of all puppies in a litter being affected the same way by a stressed dam during gestation. We know that some individuals are remarkably resilient to stress, and that is most likely genetic. There's no reason why all puppies in a litter should be affected equally. We're talking about subtle interactions.

I'm just going to throw this out there...

Lilli, what if what you see as dominant behaviour is signs of dogs that don't care much for social harmony? I'm not saying those truly dominant dogs are not dominant, but suggesting that there could be more to it than brute force and assertiveness. Should we also be considering the sociality of the individual dog in question? I know a small dog like those you describe as dominant, and he is one of the least social dogs I have ever met. In contrast, my Kivi is the most social dog I have ever met. When I watch Kivi approach a dog pouring appeasement signals all over them and then proceeding to do basically what he likes, I think he's got the right idea. He is quite disarming. He doesn't get into fights, yet he usually gets what he wants. I would never call him dominant and I'm getting away from the accepted use of the word, here, but what I'm suggesting is that perhaps this definition of a dominant personality depends on a particular style of interacting that may belong more to less social dogs. In which case I wonder if it is applicable to more typically social dogs...

Mind you, I think just a week ago I was using this same dog mentioned above as evidence for social status in that he seemed to me to be defending his right to whatever he pleased whenever he pleased. But this is a game that he plays alone. The other dogs in his life just avoid him. What I'm suddenly thinking is he's a smart dog that makes intuitive leaps a lot of other dogs can't make. Maybe he knows he's defending his social freedom rather than a particular resource, kind of like my little dog (same breed) figured out which human controlled the resources at my parents' house when he stayed there over Christmas and then sought to control that human. A smart tactic for a strange and unfamiliar place (although it didn't work). He doesn't bother with those sorts of things here at home, though. The uncertainty doesn't exist here.

[moosmum]

I will be interested to see if lilli see it the same as I do here too,but IMO the dominance is a very social thing,the dominant is just supremely sure of his right to the his place.

Gotta cut this short...Genny running out!

[BJean]

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.

If a mother has high stress hormones during her pregnancy this will affect the base stress rate in her offspring. In humans this can lead to mental illness and all kinds of worries.

Two things,

one, what does stress have to do with producing a dominant dog?

and two, even if you want to argue for a high stress hormones during pregnacny

a dominant bitch is not going to stress to the extent a normal bitch would bcz of the dominat bitch's unique self-confidence and steadfast disposition.

Therefore, even if an environment was so dire that it caused a dominant bitch to stress to an extraordinary extent, that particular circumstance would be so rare and such an abnomoly that I dont believe it can be meaningfully applied to a discussion on what produces dominant dogs.

On stress as a causation factor:

where are all those dominant oodles and cockapoos farmed in high stress puppy mill conditions?

And how can other breeders guarantee that they will get at least one dominant puppy from a breeing with x and y -

not to mention, how does a litter born in the middle of nowhere with nothing but the routine of dawn and dusk, regularly produce dominant puppies?

Its not something in the water, its a genetic thing

Many factors interplay to produce a personality and "base temperament", including genetics, prenatal and post natal health and stress, upbringing, classical and operant learning. Of course a litter of pups is never going to be born with the same temperament as each other, that's genetics, doesn't mean to say that the stress of the mother does not play some kind of a role.

genetics produces base temperament;

anything during/after birth merely tempers the base temperament; it does not change it.

what post natal health and stress, upbringing, classical and operant learning do you think would produce a dominant pup?

Edited April 9, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

I'm just going to throw this out there...

Lilli, what if what you see as dominant behaviour is signs of dogs that don't care much for social harmony? I'm not saying those truly dominant dogs are not dominant, but suggesting that there could be more to it than brute force and assertiveness. Should we also be considering the sociality of the individual dog in question? I know a small dog like those you describe as dominant, and he is one of the least social dogs I have ever met. In contrast, my Kivi is the most social dog I have ever met. When I watch Kivi approach a dog pouring appeasement signals all over them and then proceeding to do basically what he likes, I think he's got the right idea. He is quite disarming. He doesn't get into fights, yet he usually gets what he wants. I would never call him dominant and I'm getting away from the accepted use of the word, here, but what I'm suggesting is that perhaps this definition of a dominant personality depends on a particular style of interacting that may belong more to less social dogs. In which case I wonder if it is applicable to more typically social dogs...

Hmm no I dont think so, social harmony is very important to them.

Too tired now, will have to elaborate later

[Prydenjoy]

I think you've misunderstood me, I never said that stress is the be all and end all, it is probably a tiny tiny tiny factor, but not one that should be discounted altogether. Yes, genes play a massive role (I've studied genetics at uni, I do understand their power) but I also believe that life experiences play a role and that what a dog learns to expect, it comes to expect, to an extent (hence all the literature that states that social heirachy is fluid). A dog may become dominant in a house or pack because the other members allow it to be. I think the problem comes in with your definition vs my definition. I believe dominance describes a relationship (as I've read, I didn't just make that bit up), you seem to believe that dominance describes a dog that wants everything its way, all the time. In my definition that would be an unstable dog in need of a visit from a very good behavioralist

[BJean]

I think you've misunderstood me, I never said that stress is the be all and end all, it is probably a tiny tiny tiny factor, but not one that should be discounted altogether.

Ok, how is stress a tiny tiny factor - in terms of cause and effect?

Yes, genes play a massive role (I've studied genetics at uni, I do understand their power) but I also believe that life experiences play a role and that what a dog learns to expect, it comes to expect, to an extent (hence all the literature that states that social heirachy is fluid). {/b] A dog may become dominant in a house or pack because the other members allow it to be.[/b]

Yes of course, but this is not a dominant dog.

What you describe is a dog that has learned to merely take up the slack.

As succintly said by Erny:

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.

I think the problem comes in with your definition vs my definition. I believe dominance describes a relationship (as I've read, I didn't just make that bit up), you seem to believe that dominance describes a dog that wants everything its way, all the time. In my definition that would be an unstable dog in need of a visit from a very good behavioralist

Actually I think the problem comes with a definition describing a relationship, where that defintion does not take into account what a dominant dog actually is.

So we have people believing that true dominant dogs are made not born and that a behaviourist can change this type of dog's outlook, moreover that there is something worng with this dog's outlook, and that dominant dogs are unruly and unstable. (Quite the opposite)

As previosuly stated, it is not the dominance word that is the problem but peoples misattribution of it, possibly because it is very hard to describe something that is only a theory.

To clarify:

A dominant dog does not change with time.

A dominant dog believes in itself and its right from the day it is born to the day it dies.

This has NOTHING to do with the relationship between that particualr dog and its owner/handler ie: it doesn't mean that the dog is out of control, continually challenges the owner, is not obedient - their bond is extremely close, out of necessity it has to be.

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 10, 2010 by lilli

[moosmum]

Corvus,

An antisocial dominance no doubt exsists,but I would consider it more an abnormality that nature would cull.

In wolf packs,wolf parents have been known to cull their own ofspring for just such tendencies and I have seen domestic dogs do the same,for abnormal behaviour.

I don't think of dominance as rare,but relative to dominance of others the dog has contact with and isn't just brute force and agression.A whole lot of other factors are at work too.confidence being a major one and for lack of a better word,I will use Ego.

If the dog is just out right aggressive to all and sundry it surely implies instability.Their survival and that of their pack members depends on them having some sense of when they are out classed.

I have 2 bitches I see as very dominant.Both accept an older female as a leader.They were raised by the older dog and both these dominant types tried her dominance before they were physicaly ready to "Win".Both accepted her leader ship after that,but ONLY because she is a good leader who does not ever bully.She does not try to dominate,more mediates.To some degree,they accept her leadership on their own terms if that makes sense? She is not the dominant one,tho' still a leader.

1st sign of bullying and either of these girls would out the older dog from her position.

The same 2 dominant bitches were raised apart and I keep them apart(luckily one is here only temporarily tho fairly long term now) left to their own devises,they would fight very seriously untill one or both were badly hurt.

Both these dogs will accept strange dogs and can be quite friendly,but only as long as the new dog is no threat to the pack and accepts that these are the dominant ones socialy.Over stepping the boundaries in any way is not on.

A pack instinct is part of a balanced whole.

In your earlier thread on pack dynamics I believe these are the ones who step up in defense of the pack,and will eventualy lead a split in the pack when number are too great for to sustain pack integrity.

Hope this makes sense!

[corvus]

An antisocial dominance no doubt exsists,but I would consider it more an abnormality that nature would cull.

In wolf packs,wolf parents have been known to cull their own ofspring for just such tendencies and I have seen domestic dogs do the same,for abnormal behaviour.

Really? Do you have a reference for that? There was this fascinating doco on ABC a few months ago following a hyena clan led by a brutal female who would frequently and randomly attack the other clan members. There was something wrong with her. Aside from being a nutcase, she also appeared to be infertile. She was really hurting the group, but I think in the end they just got hungry and fed up and revolted. They didn't kill her or kick her out of the pack, just ganged up on her and drove her away from kills if I remember correctly. She stayed on the periphery. I honestly think they reacted mostly to being starved by her than being relentlessly bullied. Hyena social life can be harrowing.

I question if this is significant to dogs, who do not appear to depend on living in groups to survive.

In your earlier thread on pack dynamics I believe these are the ones who step up in defense of the pack,and will eventualy lead a split in the pack when number are too great for to sustain pack integrity.

Hope this makes sense!

Er... kinda? I have to admit I'm a bit confused. They are dominant but accept the leadership of another dog? As long as she's nice to them? And accept other dogs as long as they toe the line? But can't live in harmony with each other?

I have problems with the idea of a dominant dog being one that believes in his right to things, for example. Because it doesn't really gel with the definition of dominance being actually getting a contested thing. I whole-heartedly believe that Erik was born believing the world is his oyster and he should have whatever he desires whenever he desires. Thing is, he doesn't always get what he desires. He is the smallest member of the household besides the rabbits, and sometimes no matter how much he wants something he just physically can't get it. To me, he is more outrageously optimistic than dominant. He tries things on just in case. He learns the quickest and easiest way to get what he wants by trying lots of different things. He talks back, he sometimes tries to be controlling, and he is very demanding despite none of it ever really getting him anywhere. He does things that are historically futile just to see if they are still futile. He is enterprising, clever, very aware of his surroundings, and very good at taking advantage of momentary lapses. He is highly motivated for rewards and he's very confident. I don't think that these qualities make him dominant, but they do set him up with advantages in social interactions so that he often wins them despite being small. The other little dog I mentioned before has similar qualities, although he is much lazier and more laid back than Erik, but takes stubborness to dizzying heights. He will keep at something for days before he will give in.

I am thinking that just calling a dog dominant because they tend to get what they want is not enough. I am thinking that the reasons why they tend to get what they want are more important. And I think we are talking about a continuum. If we have a dog that has the attitude but not the size or strength to back it up, is it not dominant even if it always wins contests? If we have a dog that has the size and strength and the attitude but not the motivation to do much with it, is that a dominant dog? To me there are no clear answers to those questions.

I would like to hear more about your dogs and social harmony, lilli. I have to say your description of them physically throwing another dog off a desired resource shocked me. I can't imagine my dogs ever being that violent. My mother's Vallhund who I keep mentioning will force other dogs off food regardless of their size, but he would never just dive in with full contact. He doesn't need to. Just makes some noise and charges and the other dogs scatter, despite them all being bigger than him. If they don't move he bites them, but he doesn't throw them around or hurt them. He's mostly noise, but he is respected because the other dogs know he's not bluffing.

[moosmum]

An antisocial dominance no doubt exsists,but I would consider it more an abnormality that nature would cull.

In wolf packs,wolf parents have been known to cull their own ofspring for just such tendencies and I have seen domestic dogs do the same,for abnormal behaviour.

Really? Do you have a reference for that? There was this fascinating doco on ABC a few months ago following a hyena clan led by a brutal female who would frequently and randomly attack the other clan members. There was something wrong with her. Aside from being a nutcase, she also appeared to be infertile. She was really hurting the group, but I think in the end they just got hungry and fed up and revolted. They didn't kill her or kick her out of the pack, just ganged up on her and drove her away from kills if I remember correctly. She stayed on the periphery. I honestly think they reacted mostly to being starved by her than being relentlessly bullied. Hyena social life can be harrowing.

***I did not read that in a scientific paper,but an article written by a bloke who adopted a wolf into his family in the 70s.He observed a wild wolf family pack to try to get a better understanding of pack dynamics and how a wolf could fit into his own family.

In the group he observed there was one pup who was overly aggressive with its littermates,constantly and viciously attacking them.

The male was seen to discipline this pup several times before killing it.

I have heard similar stories from native americans and people in a position to observe,but nothing I can provide a direct reference to,sorry.

My own bitch killed and devoured a pup at 3 days old.In the beginning it was treated as all others.I noticed at 2 days old it moved in a very frienzied manner when ever disturbed and examined it for any physical defects or abnormalities and could find nothing.Eating and defecating normaly,but mum grew more upset at its behaviour till I started to wonder should I remove it.I went back out to look again and mum had already disposed of it.

The Hyena who displayed dominant only behaviour WAS removed from her influence within the pack,for one reason or or another.

I question if this is significant to dogs, who do not appear to depend on living in groups to survive.

*****IMHO it is significant if people are replacing other dogs as a pack,and I believe generaly dogs are a very social animal.

In your earlier thread on pack dynamics I believe these are the ones who step up in defense of the pack,and will eventualy lead a split in the pack when number are too great for to sustain pack integrity.

Hope this makes sense!

Er... kinda? I have to admit I'm a bit confused. They are dominant but accept the leadership of another dog? As long as she's nice to them? And accept other dogs as long as they toe the line? But can't live in harmony with each other?

I have problems with the idea of a dominant dog being one that believes in his right to things, for example. Because it doesn't really gel with the definition of dominance being actually getting a contested thing. I whole-heartedly believe that Erik was born believing the world is his oyster and he should have whatever he desires whenever he desires. Thing is, he doesn't always get what he desires. He is the smallest member of the household besides the rabbits, and sometimes no matter how much he wants something he just physically can't get it. To me, he is more outrageously optimistic than dominant. He tries things on just in case. He learns the quickest and easiest way to get what he wants by trying lots of different things. He talks back, he sometimes tries to be controlling, and he is very demanding despite none of it ever really getting him anywhere. He does things that are historically futile just to see if they are still futile. He is enterprising, clever, very aware of his surroundings, and very good at taking advantage of momentary lapses. He is highly motivated for rewards and he's very confident. I don't think that these qualities make him dominant, but they do set him up with advantages in social interactions so that he often wins them despite being small. The other little dog I mentioned before has similar qualities, although he is much lazier and more laid back than Erik, but takes stubborness to dizzying heights. He will keep at something for days before he will give in.

I am thinking that just calling a dog dominant because they tend to get what they want is not enough. I am thinking that the reasons why they tend to get what they want are more important. And I think we are talking about a continuum. If we have a dog that has the attitude but not the size or strength to back it up, is it not dominant even if it always wins contests? If we have a dog that has the size and strength and the attitude but not the motivation to do much with it, is that a dominant dog?

(*** I would say no***) To me there are no clear answers to those questions.

**** Yeah,I guess I by that explanation, to define dominance I would have to say its NOT a personality trait so much as an act of forcing submission.

My most dominant dogs are ones who will forcefully and aggressivly fight to maximise and hold their position in the pack,very decisivly and confidently.but they will accept leadership while it brings maximum benefits acheivable?

So I guess I am realy describing potentialy successfull alpha behaviour ****

I would like to hear more about your dogs and social harmony, lilli. I have to say your description of them physically throwing another dog off a desired resource shocked me. I can't imagine my dogs ever being that violent. My mother's Vallhund who I keep mentioning will force other dogs off food regardless of their size, but he would never just dive in with full contact. He doesn't need to. Just makes some noise and charges and the other dogs scatter, despite them all being bigger than him. If they don't move he bites them, but he doesn't throw them around or hurt them. He's mostly noise, but he is respected because the other dogs know he's not bluffing.

[Prydenjoy]

Actually I think the problem comes with a definition describing a relationship, where that defintion does not take into account what a dominant dog actually is.

Have you read the article lilli, I'm curious?

In reality, there is no such thing as a “dominant personality”. Dominance is a relationship between individuals, not a description of a temperament.