19/07/2024
๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ผ๐บ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ: "All you need to do is to be very strict from the beginning so they learn what their place is".
๐ ๐ฒ: ๐
A few weeks ago, I was working with a client and her cute pup, and this is what a member of the public told us when they saw us doing some training together. They might have been well-meaning - but also extremely misinformed.
โ You do not need to use intimidation, punishment, and aversives, or be 'very strict' with your dog to show them what their place is because you don't need to show them what their place is in the first place! โ
This type of thinking comes from what is known as the 'dominance theory'. This theory has led professionals, as well as dog owners, to design and apply training techniques based on punishment, coercion and aversion.
This tendency has been probably motivated by the belief that for dogs to be well-behaved, humans need to assert their authority using force and intimidation to be the 'alpha', the 'dominant pack leader', the 'top dog' and prevent dogs from achieving a higher social status over them and become 'dominant'.
There are so many problems with this.
๐ Early studies and flawed foundations.
The 'dominance theory' is incorrect. The early studies on wolves' behaviour have been based on groups of captive unrelated wolves forced to form artificial groups and share the same territory and resources, which inevitably led them to compete over these resources through aggression.
Wild wolves living naturally in their habitat, on the other hand, rather than a strict hierarchical organisation, form cohesive and cooperative social structures which resemble more a family group, where aggression is rarely seen between individuals and where it does not serve the purpose of achieving a higher social status (Mech, 2008; Eaton, 2011)
๐บ Dogs are not wolves.
Another problem with the 'dominance theory' is the assumption that wolves and dogs behave and form similar social structures as they share a common ancestor. Whilst the fact that they share a common ancestor is undoubtedly true, dogs have changed a lot from wolves since domestication, and the social groups they form are very different from those formed by wolves (Eaton, 2011; Miklรณsi, 2015).
Studies about free-ranging feral dogs show how their social structures are loose and fluid, with unrelated individuals coming and going, and that the relationship between the breeding pair and the offspring is fundamentally different too, with the mother being the main and mostly the only provider for her puppies, and with breeding behaviour being more influenced by reproductive cycles and the situation rather than by the existence of a family-like group of related individuals like in wolves (Coppinger and Coppinger, 2002; Van Kerkhove, 2004; Miklรณsi, 2015).
The same can be said for groups of domestic dogs, who rather than strict and hierarchical structures or 'packs', seem to form loose and fluid social groups, where their interactions, and in particular aggressive behaviours, are not driven by the aim of achieving a higher social status within their group (Van Kerkhove, 2004; Bradshaw et al., 2009).
๐ Being 'dominant' is not about status.
It's now important to note that the word 'dominant' has been erroneously used for decades to describe an individual, as if 'being dominant' was an individual trait, a character trait.
What the word 'dominant' really defines is not a status, but it refers to those behaviours that are displayed in relation to other individuals and that have been learned in order to acquire and maintain access to those resources that a dog values the most, and that might well be different between the same two individuals when the resource in question is different (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Eaton, 2011).
The truth is that unlike wolves, domestic dogs do not need to form packs with other dogs in order to survive as they donโt need to cooperate to hunt and find food: all their needs are provided for by us, their human carers.
We also know that dogs donโt form packs with us either and that they are not in competition with us, but they are part of our social group, of our family.
๐ In other words, dogs are not domesticated wolves, and they are not trying to dominate us.
This means there is truly no need to use methods based on the need to 'dominate' our dogs. Reward-based training techniques that support kinder, ethical and cooperative methods work and, the way I see it, are just much nicer for all the involved. โ๏ธ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References
Bradshaw, J.W.S., Blackwell, E.J. and Casey, R.A. (2009) Dominance in domestic dogs โ useful construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 4(3), pp. 109-144.
Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. (2002) Dogs. A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. University of Chicago Press.
Eaton, B. (2011) Dominance in Dogs. Fact or fiction? Dogwise Publishing.
Mech, L. D. (2008) What Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf? International Wolf, 18(4), pp. 4-8.
Miklรณsi, A. (2015) Dog Behaviour, Evolution and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.
Van Kerkhove, W. (2004) A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal dog social behavior. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7(4), pp. 279-285.
