Dogs are often considered to be man's best friend, but we've given them a very rough deal over the years. We've not only misunderstood their body language and behavior for decades, we've also incorrectly declared that they have a dominance hierarchy going on, with an alpha dog, the leader of the pack, who rules with dominance and aggression. Dominance hierarchy refers to a system in animal groups that is based on a pecking order, usually established and maintained by behavior in aggressive encounters. One, or a few members, hold a highest rank, and the others are submissive to those ranking higher, and dominant to those ranking lower, like a chain of command. We've been led to believe that all dogs are trying to be the alpha dog and that their aim in life is to be top dog, and dominate not only all of the dogs, but also us. And that if we don't show them who's boss, if we feed them first, or let them walk through doors before us, or let them sleep on our beds, or we don't alpha role them, or we pin them to the floor as punishment, then we are in danger of being dominated by the very pet we thought we were friends with. We've basically got it very wrong. There is still much confusion about the use of the term, dominant, as a character trait of an individual dog. Although some ethologists have warned against the use of the term dominant to describe individual dogs, there are also many high profile examples in the dog training world, where dominance is described as a characteristic of an individual dog. Among ethologists, dominance is normally attributed to the usual behavior between two individuals when they interact over a situation, or a resource, in which one will always back down rather than fight. The status of the consistent winner is known as dominant and that of the loser, subordinate. We now understand, through research that has been done, that dominance is not something which is fought for, but something that is given. Dominant dogs don't reinforce their status by being continuously aggressive. Subordinate dogs reinforce it by giving off formal appeasing signals, as they usually recognize, or learn from past experiences, supremacy. It's a bit like saying an elected government is dominant. Well they are, but only because we voted them in. These general principles underly how dogs interact with each other, but there will obviously also be differences depending on previous learning experiences and individual motivation. It is now generally accepted, that the term dominant should be used to describe relationships rather than individuals. So, where does the idea of where dominance hierarchy come from in dogs? This notion came from studies done in the 1930s and 1940s on captive and unrelated wolves in a zoo in Switzerland. While studying the sociology of the wolf, they noted a male lead wolf and his accompanying bitch, form a pair, and by incessant control, violent rivalries between individual members of the pack and repression of all types of competition, they could defend their social position. One of the main problems with ththise study was that it didn't involve any study of wolves in the wild. For decades, this was the only study done on wolf behavior, and later research would publish similar findings on the dominant, subordinate and leader-follower relationships within captive wolf packs. So, the notion of alpha wolf was reinforced. In more recent years, applied ethologists have spent more time studying wolves in the wild and observing different behaviors from those zoo-bound wolves. These studies have shown that wild wolves live in families, two parents with their younger cubs or pups. They observed that they do not have an innate sense of rank. There is no dominant, supreme leader and no submissive, cowering follower. They are a cooperative, cohesive family unit. The supposed alphas are what we would call, in any other social group, parents. The offspring naturally follow their parents, as you would expect in any other species. Nobody has won the role of dominance by fighting. They simply are dominant, or in charge, for want of a better expression, by the simple fact that they are the parents. As the pups become older, they do not try and overthrow the supposed alpha. They simply, eventually disperse, mate, have their own pups and therefore, form their own pack. Subtly, those captive wolves first studied were unrelated in an enclosed environment with limited resources. And resources matter to animals, and humans. Different individuals find different resources more precious or important than others. For some, food is a resource worth guarding, protecting, or even fighting for, over anything else. For others, it might be that their bed is their most important resource, but they're less motivated to guard their food. For our dogs, it might be their favorite toy, a bone, but not their dinner in a bowl, or even their owner, that is their most prized resource. They are individuals with individual preferences and concerns, and guarding a resource should not be misinterpreted as an attempt at being this mythical alpha being. It's important that when we are looking at dog behavior here, that we actually look at dogs and not base it on historical work done on a different species, just like we wouldn't base human behavior on chimpanzee studies. So we need to remember, too, that dogs are not wolves. Dogs have been domesticated over thousands of years. They have been selected and changed genetically to make them dependent on humans, which is why they need to be with people. We wanted this behavior, so we bred for those human-friendly traits. The domestic dog does not exist independently of people, so is therefore, not wild. They may be part of our family, but they still have their own individual dog needs that we need to ensure we are providing for.
