In the 1970s, scientists published a behavioural study on a pack of captive grey wolves. In this study, unrelated wolves were housed together in a zoo. The researchers observed many acts of aggressive behaviour between the wolves during the study, especially in relation to food and mating partners. They concluded that the 'alpha' wolves achieved priority in obtaining food and mating partners by forcefully taking control over the pack through violent acts. This kept the lower ranking wolves in line, rather than allowing them to move up the 'dominance hierarchy'. This finding was quickly applied to dogs, suggesting that dogs too constantly strive for alpha status, even against us humans. This led to dominance-based training methods being used to teach dogs in which trainers claimed that we must act as the alpha of the pack and not let our dogs 'dominate' over us. This includes ensuring we always eat before our dogs, walk through doorways before them and never allow them on our furniture to prove that we are in charge. However, there were many problems with making this assumption and the research itself has since been debunked by the very researcher who was largely responsible for the study, Dr David Mech.
Both the conclusion of the study and the theory that the findings can be applied to pet dogs was flawed for several reasons. Firstly, dogs are not wolves. Dogs evolved many thousands of years ago, meaning that humans have been manipulating their breeding and rendering them less and less behaviourally similar to the wolf for thousands of years. Secondly, the set up of study itself had problems. In the wild, wolf packs consist of related wolves - usually mother, father and their offspring. In the study, however, unrelated wolf packs were forced to live together which is very unnatural and would therefore cause the wolves to behave very differently.
Additionally, dogs know we are not dogs! Concluding that we should act as the 'alpha' suggests that dogs perceive us to be another dog. I can at least speak for myself when I say I don't look or smell like a dog!! It is utterly pointless for us to act as if we are a dog when our dogs know that is not the case! Therefore, we can not act as the 'alpha dog' of the pack. So don't worry - you can go ahead and feed your dog before your own dinner time or allow them to walk ahead of you through a doorway! However, this is not to say that we cannot lead our dogs. Parents are the leaders of their children as the children look up to them for guidance in many situations. The child trusts their parents to keep them safe and teach them how to act in different situations. The same applies in a dog's life as long as there is trust between dog and owner.
Wolf packs in the wild are much more similar to a nuclear human family format with the parents living with their offspring and occasionally other related wolves. The young wolves freely offer behaviour and are not forced with violence as we were first led to believe by Dr Mech's initial research. It is most likely that the wolves in the study showed a lot of aggression and 'submissive' behaviours purely out of survival instincts in this unnatural environment where mating partners and food resources were limited. Although some wolves were brave enough to use aggression to scare other wolves away from food and potential mates, the other wolves instead chose to obtain food in a quieter manner. This does not prove that wolves (and certainly not dogs) rule their natural packs with a 'dominance hierarchy', but rather that this unusual situation forced these wolves to behave differently for their own safety and survival. It was a human concept to believe that wolves use 'rank reduction' techniques to achieve hierarchy status. Dr David Mech has since debunked his initial study with more recent research, stating that wild wolves do in fact live and behave very differently to those he studied in captivity. In wild wolf packs, it makes no sense for the family to act aggressively towards one another as this would affect the family's survival chances and inhibit their ability to hunt and live together. Instead, both wolves and dogs tend to have a natural social order, just as human families do. One member of the family may be a stronger leader but this is not achieved through acts of aggression. In my own home, my dogs each have priority access to different resources over one another. For example, Bella (sprollie) will not allow Molly (border collie) to have first access to food chews but she will allow Molly to take toys from her. This is achieved through natural agreement between my dogs rather than through displays of aggression. If my dogs ever do display any 'aggressive' behaviours such as growling, this is more out of fear that their resource will be taken away by the other dog rather than a display of 'dominance'.
Dr David Mech has since carried out studies on wild wolves and concluded that his new findings contradicted his previous research. In 2000, he is quoted as saying 'attempting to apply information about the behaviour of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps'.
So...why does all this matter?
Here is a video of a very famous dog trainer who has his own TV show and uses dominance-style training techniques:
Sadly, despite the fact that the supposed 'science' that dominance theory was based on has been proved to be incorrect on multiple occasions and more effective methods have been discovered, it is still a widely used and talked about way of training. Because using aggression and violence towards a dog can create perceived immediate 'fixes' to a behavioural problem, it can appear impressive and also makes great TV! We know that punishment does work in the short term. For example, it would be very easy to simply physically harm a dog every time he barked at a loud noise and this would quite quickly cause him to stop barking. However, what is the dog learning from this experience?? Has he really learned to stop barking at the loud noise or has he simply learned that if he barks whilst you are close by he will be hurt? Have we really solved the issue of why the dog was barking in the first place? Unfortunately, TV programmes do not show the long term effects of using these techniques. To answer these questions, the dog has learned to fear you, he has only learned that harm will come to him if he barks in this situation and we have not solved the issue as to why he was barking to begin with. This is a very dangerous way to train a dog or any other animal. If you have taught your dog to fear you, this will lead to a great number of other, worse behavioural problems. For example, how would your dog now choose to come back to you when he's off lead and you call him when he has learned that you may cause him harm? How could he trust you to handle and groom him when your hands have caused him pain? These are the longer term affects that cause huge numbers of dogs to be put to sleep due to dangerous behavioural problems caused by dominance style training techniques.
Dogs only have so many ways of communicating their fear to us or another animal. These options are to move away, freeze or fight back. If a dog has regularly attempted to move away from the thing they fear but this has been unsuccessful then they will eventually move to the next step which would to become increasingly aggressive. So, to go back to our example of a dog barking at a loud noise, your dog will learn to try to run away from you when they hear the loud noise because they know you will try to hurt them. However, if you were to continue to hurt them even after this, then they will have no choice but to escalate their communication. This will include growling, showing their teeth, snapping and eventually a bite as a last resort to tell you to get away from them if the previous warnings have failed. This is an example of the true way dogs learn which is through classical and operant conditioning which I will talk about in my next blog post.
So...it's safe to say that dominance style training techniques are not a scientifically or morally appropriate way to teach our dogs. More recent science shows us that reward-based training methods are the most effective way of training our dogs and allows us to live harmoniously with our dogs. With this method, dogs are taught to trust their owner rather than fear them. This leads to a strong, trusting relationship between dog and owner where the dog looks to the owner for guidance. This makes training much simpler than having to become aggressive towards a dog and means that even younger members of our families can teach the dog in safety. It makes no sense that we would have to train our dogs using violence and fear because this would mean that only very strong members of our families would be able to do this. I for one would not be a dog trainer if this was the case!
Comments