HOT TOPIC: The D Word

Dominance in domestic dogs has been in the headlines lately. According to a new study by researchers at Bristol Vet School, establishing the position in the pack is not the main motivator for pet dogs. Training concepts that rely on dominance reduction are likely to be useless at best or at the extreme, downright dangerous. The end result is likely to be a fearful dog that does not feel able to express natural behaviours – a welfare issue in its own right; or an aggressive dog.

The idea that owners must position themselves as leader of the pack has been questioned by behaviourists for several years now. The new study is based on observations of dogs at Dogs Trust re-homing centres and a review of studies of feral dogs. The researchers concluded that dogs learn through experience, rather than being motivated by a desire to exert dominance.

There has been widespread concern by animal charities and behaviourists that television behaviourists who advocate techniques to dominate the dog, such as pinning the animal to the floor, have been responsible for serious behavioural problems, with some dogs having learned to show aggression in an effort to avoid punishment.

Techniques that are widely used to avoid dominance problems, such as feeding the dog after the family has eaten and going through doorways first are also worthless, say the researchers, as they merely show the dog what to expect in certain situations.

Meanwhile a study published in the same month from a research team working out of the University of Córdoba claims that 40% of dominance aggression in dogs is associated with a lack of authority on the part of the owners who have never performed basic obedience training with their pets or who have only carried out the bare minimum of training. The team say owner-dependant factors have the most influence over aggression in dogs and that is associated with first-time dog ownership; failure to subject the dog to basic obedience training; spoiling or pampering the dog; not using physical punishment when it is required; buying a dog as a present, as a guard dog or on impulse; spaying female dogs; leaving the dog with a constant supply of food, or spending very little time with the dog in general and on its walks. Confusingly, the researchers suggest that owners ‘re-establish dominance’ over their pet to correct the behaviour.

So where does this leave us when it comes to making a recommendation to an owner. Well the ‘dominance’ theory has little credence with the UK’s top behaviourists. Sarah Whitehead is a behaviour specialist and APBC member from Windsor, Berkshire, “So called ‘rank reduction programmes’ have once again become popular with owners believing that they have to perform ‘alpha rollovers’ on their dogs, or deny them rewards, such as attention, comfort, or food in the name of leadership. Of course, these have an emotional and behavioural impact. The removal of an expected reward is in fact a psychological punishment. If a dog repeatedly performs a behaviour which the owners find infuriating, such as barking, attention seeking, or pulling on lead, ask yourself what’s reinforcing it. These are not symptoms of dominance or so-called ‘alpha’ behaviour. Your dog is not trying to challenge for leadership. It’s far more simple and obvious than that: dogs repeat behaviours that get rewarded. Of course, rewards include getting to the park at top speed, eye contact, vocal contact and physical contact. They also include getting humans wound up, cross and upset. Moving away from imposing a set of dominance rules does not mean being out of control. Indeed, clear signals of reward and non-reward are essential for dogs. They need boundaries, but what these are will depend on the dog and the owner’s specific needs.”

Rachel Casey is one of the authors of the Bristol paper and has these words of caution for those unsure as to how to interpret available studies, “Unfortunately the concept of ‘dominance’ is well embedded in historic scientific literature and the public consciousness. In fact, some texts and papers still define some presentations of aggressive behaviour as ‘dominant’ because they are using definitions of particular behavioural presentations from older literature. Pérez-Guisado and Muñoz-Serrano (2009) have conducted research investigating potential risk factors for ‘dominance aggression’. In doing so they have used a particular collection of behavioural signs, defined them as ‘dominant’ based on previous literature, and investigated environmental risk factors for dogs showing this collection of signs. This is interesting in that it gives further information about potential risk factors for this collection of signs, but cannot be concluded to support the hypothesis that dogs develop such signs because they are motivated to be ‘high ranking’."

The ground breaking work carried out by the Bristol team is sure to have many implications for the future interpretation of canine behaviour. Many in the profession are keen to know more and at our request Rachel Casey has written a comprehensive article on the topic especially for Veterinary Matters. The article explains how owners make mistakes by believing that their dog is seeking to achieve higher status and gives some practical examples. To receive your copy email jane_quail@hillspet.com

Reference:
‘Dominance in domestic dogs – useful construct or bad habit? by John W. S. Bradshaw, Emily J. Blackwell, Rachel A. Casey. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 109-144 (May-June 2009).
For free downloadable hand-outs, videos and more information on behaviour and training for dog owners visit: www.cleverdogcompany.com
For accredited educational courses for veterinary staff visit: www.thinkdog.org