Pack Hierarchy

[corvus]

Dominance hierarchies in dogs have not exactly been debunked. It's complicated. There was definitely a backlash against it because it was being used to explain behaviours that were not actually related to dominance, which does not help dogs. Now it's kind of going back the other way a little bit. There are circumstances where dominance is in play, but it doesn't describe all interactions. Most of them can be explained by learning theory and resource holding potential. In my house, my smaller dog will regularly take Kongs and the likes from my bigger dog, because he gets away with it. Possession is 9/10ths of the law when it predicts success and/or failure to obtain a resource. My smaller dog is an excellent judge of this and seems to know when he can be safely obnoxious and steal and when he should be more cautious. This offers a clue as to what these interactions are all about. They are about living in harmony while maximising access to good things. This means there is not a law set in stone for all dogs. Dogs in groups will figure out how they stand with other dogs in different contexts, and that is why hierarchies often appear fluid. The exception is those dogs who very badly want priority access to everything. I know one in particular who certainly does not believe possession is 9/10ths of the law. He's very well socialised and gets on well with other dogs, but they must understand that he gets whatever he wants whenever he wants it. He seems to go out of his way to teach them this. Dogs that have lived with him have learnt that he's very serious about his right to anything that takes his fancy and usually come to believe it's better to just let him have it. So he learnt to be a little turd and claim possession to anything at all because it worked, and they learnt to let him because it worked for them. They would rather avoid the inevitable confrontation of trying to keep possession of their stuff. These days he is not allowed access to dogs that have good things. You can see that in this dog's case, possession does not predict his ability to access a resource. He takes whatever he wants from whoever he likes (as long as they are dogs). Thus, he doesn't respect any kind of possession is 9/10ths of the law rule.

Evolutionarily speaking, behaviours become stable in populations when they are beneficial. Dominance is widespread in the animal world because it is often a way for animals to contest resources relatively safely. But if there's a way to cheat the system, there will be an individual out there who does. The dog I just described who has done just that is not terribly social with the other dogs. They don't like to play with him because he has poisoned so many of their interactions that they are a little bit scared of him. That's unsurprising, and I guess the price he pays. But this does not seem to bother him. I expect if he was the kind of dog that valued social bonding with other dogs he would not be the kind of dog that demands priority access to everything.

[Weasels]

The dog I just described who has done just that is not terribly social with the other dogs. They don't like to play with him because he has poisoned so many of their interactions that they are a little bit scared of him. That's unsurprising, and I guess the price he pays. But this does not seem to bother him. I expect if he was the kind of dog that valued social bonding with other dogs he would not be the kind of dog that demands priority access to everything.

He's a Stampy!

(please 'scuse video quality!)

Edited December 4, 2012 by Weasels

[Wobbly]

There's a book by Patricia O'Connell called "the other end of the leash" which explains canine hierarchy very well I think. All social mammals have a hierarchical society, it neccesarily evolved to minimise the risk of fights over resources - the higher status dog gets the desirable resource (if he wants it) and the lower status dogs accept that as the social order, so there's no need for fights or injury over possession of desirable resources.

The thing that's debunked is people's erroneous notion that they need to enforce their own alpha status with stuff like alpha rolling and excessive correction. As O'Connell says - hierarchical status is there to STOP conflict, but so many people misunderstood "dominance theory" and bullied their dogs in the name of it. The theory was misunserstood and put people in conflict with their dogs when they didn't need to be. In that way it's maybe good the theory has been taken off it's pedestal, you see so many softer dogs who have had their drive and joy in life taken from them due to over-corrections in the name of misinterpreted dominance/submission theory.

But IMO, NILIF and the Triangle of Temptation stuff are still incredibly important for some dogs, dogs are social animals so they absolutely do have a social hierarchy, and the human needs to be respected by the dog as master of all the desirable resources. For the vast majority of pet dogs NILIF and very mild corrections are all a human needs to do to maintain position as the high status master of all resources.

TL:DR - Patricia O'Connel - "The Other End of the Leash" - give it a read, it's got really great explanations about this issue.

[Weasels]

Another good article about the subtlties of dominance theory is here - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201202/social-dominance-is-not-myth-wolves-dogs-and (and links therein)

Edit - and from Dr Roger Abrantes, head of the Ethology Institute at Cambridge:

Dominant behavior is a quantitative and quantifiable behavior displayed by an individual with the function of gaining or maintaining temporary access to a particular resource on a particular occasion, versus a particular opponent, without either party incurring injury. If any of the parties incur injury, then the behavior is aggressive and not dominant. Its quantitative characteristics range from slightly self-confident to overtly assertive.

Dominant behavior is situational, individual and resource related. One individual displaying dominant behavior in one specific situation does not necessarily show it on another occasion toward another individual, or toward the same individual in another situation.

...

Persistent dominant or submissive behavior from the same individuals may or may not result in a temporary hierarchy of a certain configuration depending on species, social organization and environmental circumstances. In stable groups confined to a defined territory, temporary hierarchies will develop more readily. In unstable groups, changing environmental conditions, in undefined or non-established territories, hierarchies will not develop. Hierarchies, or rather the involved strategies, are Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS), always slightly unstable, swinging forth and back around an optimal value depending on the number of individuals in the group and the single strategies each one adopts at any given time. Hierarchies are not necessarily linear, although in small groups and with time, non-linear hierarchies seem to have a tendency to become more linear....

In the opinion of this author, the mistake we have committed hitherto has been to regard dominance and submission as more or less static. We haven’t realized that these characteristics, as phenotypes and as all other traits, are constantly under the scrutiny and pressure of natural selection. They are adaptive, highly variable and highly quantitative and quantifiable.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Weasels

[Skruffy n Flea]

wow! thanks for the invaluable input corvus, theLBD [weasels] and wobbly! so damned informative i'm almost tripping over my tongue...

bbs :)

[Skruffy n Flea]

Dominance hierarchies in dogs have not exactly been debunked. It's complicated. There was definitely a backlash against it because it was being used to explain behaviours that were not actually related to dominance, which does not help dogs. Now it's kind of going back the other way a little bit. There are circumstances where dominance is in play, but it doesn't describe all interactions. Most of them can be explained by learning theory and resource holding potential. In my house, my smaller dog will regularly take Kongs and the likes from my bigger dog, because he gets away with it. Possession is 9/10ths of the law when it predicts success and/or failure to obtain a resource. My smaller dog is an excellent judge of this and seems to know when he can be safely obnoxious and steal and when he should be more cautious. This offers a clue as to what these interactions are all about. They are about living in harmony while maximising access to good things. This means there is not a law set in stone for all dogs. Dogs in groups will figure out how they stand with other dogs in different contexts, and that is why hierarchies often appear fluid. The exception is those dogs who very badly want priority access to everything. I know one in particular who certainly does not believe possession is 9/10ths of the law. He's very well socialised and gets on well with other dogs, but they must understand that he gets whatever he wants whenever he wants it. He seems to go out of his way to teach them this. Dogs that have lived with him have learnt that he's very serious about his right to anything that takes his fancy and usually come to believe it's better to just let him have it. So he learnt to be a little turd and claim possession to anything at all because it worked, and they learnt to let him because it worked for them. They would rather avoid the inevitable confrontation of trying to keep possession of their stuff. These days he is not allowed access to dogs that have good things. You can see that in this dog's case, possession does not predict his ability to access a resource. He takes whatever he wants from whoever he likes (as long as they are dogs). Thus, he doesn't respect any kind of possession is 9/10ths of the law rule.

Evolutionarily speaking, behaviours become stable in populations when they are beneficial. Dominance is widespread in the animal world because it is often a way for animals to contest resources relatively safely. But if there's a way to cheat the system, there will be an individual out there who does. The dog I just described who has done just that is not terribly social with the other dogs. They don't like to play with him because he has poisoned so many of their interactions that they are a little bit scared of him. That's unsurprising, and I guess the price he pays. But this does not seem to bother him. I expect if he was the kind of dog that valued social bonding with other dogs he would not be the kind of dog that demands priority access to everything.

okay, hierarchy and dominance exists but is not mutually exclusive. my boy's possession [of the bones] is not an example of his dominance or bella's submission; it's likely due to bella not being brought up to chew bones [my ignorance], and byron [perhaps] was in his previous life and even tho i get the distinction [thank you :)], 9/10ths possession i don't believe applies here either.

so, with the bone chewing, i'm comfortable knowing it's not dominance/hierachical so thank you for clarifying that for me :)

the 9/10ths possession however does apply when it comes to toys and this is where i'll need further clarity: bella is strong-willed, a bitch of the highest order with massive personality and when i encourage 'play', she seems to demand first and sole access to every toy i make available.

wobbly wrote: The thing that's debunked is people's erroneous notion that they need to enforce their own alpha status with stuff like alpha rolling and excessive correction. As O'Connell says - hierarchical status is there to STOP conflict, but so many people misunderstood "dominance theory" and bullied their dogs in the name of it. The theory was misunserstood and put people in conflict with their dogs when they didn't need to be. In that way it's maybe good the theory has been taken off it's pedestal, you see so many softer dogs who have had their drive and joy in life taken from them due to over-corrections in the name of misinterpreted dominance/submission theory.

i fell into the *alpha roll* trap way back in the beginning; then i realised that i didn't have dogs considered *red zone* ha! i worry tho that i excessivly correct and ignorantly!

my ideal play time is both dogs having a good time; tugging, running and retrieving, responding to commands and receiving treats for desired results. whatever toy byron has, bella goes for his front legs [not nipping, just a gapping mouth with *arhg-ing*], he'll then drop the toy and she'll immediately take possession of it. i don't consider this conducive with 'fun' for byron. i make efforts to suppress bella's *leg going* behaviour but i fear i'm interrupting the natural order of things between the two dogs and that's the last thing i want to do! that in and of itself is a conflicting message! i'm also concerned that bella is receiving conflicting information from me because on the one hand i'm allowing play and then on the other, i'm preventing an aspect of her play mentality. she commonly grabs up a toy and taunts byron with it to engage him and then bolts off outside with it [in the hope i believe that byron will follow her lead; he rarely does!].

byron [to me and my OH] appears delicate; he's certainly no where near as strong as bella in a number of ways, much more so he lacks her exuberance and confidence. she bounces at him barking continuously, another behaviour that i make effort to inhibit only wanting to stop her barking. again, i believe i'm sending her conflicting messages.

whatever it is, it's not an extreme situation by any means and i'm damned sure i can work it out with the right instruction.

wobbly, i use NILIF and ToT daily whether i'm just running them thru their basic training or feeding or grooming, and the results, from my perspective, are excellent every time.

TheLBD's post goes to the same BUT there is never any injury nor does there appear to be any shift in hierachy or dominance, if it actually exists here between the animals.

both dogs [and one cat] appear to co-exist equally and reasonably with no vying for attention or demanding position, except when it comes to toys and the dogs, with bella seemingly at the top of the tree and if anyone can help me understand or solve that riddle, i would be forever grateful.

thank you all again for your time and knowledge. i hope there is more to come :)