APDTNZ Position Statement on Dominance Theory

Defining Dominance

Within intraspecies (1) social interactions, dominance is described as a relationship, not a state of being or personality trait. The modern scientific consensus is that dogs are not inherently dominant or submissive. Dominance may be exhibited between two or more dogs within a confrontational situation or conflict which may occur, for example, in a competition over resources. However, dominance is often dependent on context and is not static. For instance, one individual might be dominant over another in some situations or at certain times but not in others. Additionally, dominance is almost never aggressive and is often a mitigation of conflict using subtle body gestures.

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that dominance may exist within interspecific (2) relationships, such as those between dogs and humans. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence to support this approach in dog training. More so, it certainly does not justify the use of punitive or aversive techniques or tools in training. There is nothing to suggest that the use of dominance or submission is needed for a dog to learn. Dogs learn from consequences, not rank. We know from the literature that dogs can learn from other dogs, from other species (like humans), and by interacting with their environment.

What to Do

Training should encourage a healthy and trusting relationship that minimises stressors and promotes positive welfare. Successful training outcomes, behaviour management and behaviour modification can be achieved while using the kindest and most ethical, humane practices – positive reinforcement, all while developing a strong human-dog bond. To achieve this, we can reinforce behaviours we want to see repeated in place of undesired ones, and we can establish an environment that will set the dog up for successful outcomes. All training protocols, including those used for animals assessed with “dominance aggression,” should focus on the function of the behaviour, its antecedents (3), and its consequences. Modification should be based on how that function can be altered by teaching an alternative behaviour, adjusting the dog’s emotional response through classical or operant counterconditioning (4) and systematic desensitisation5 or environmental management.

The APDTNZ Code of Ethics requires members who train dogs to focus on teaching clients the skills they need to avoid reinforcing  undesired behaviours and to demonstrate how to be a consistent and compassionate caregiver. Misunderstandings of the outdated dominance theory and the aversive techniques used to justify its use has no place in modern, evidence-based training.

Footnotes

(1) Intraspecies refers to relationships between individuals of the same species (example, dog-dog).

(2) Interspecific refers to relationships between individuals of two different species (example, dog-human).

(3) An antecedent is something that precedes the behaviour; the trigger or context that causes a behaviour to occur.

(4) Counterconditioning is the process by which we change the association of a negative emotional response to a stimulus to a positive response. There are two processes by which counterconditioning can be applied.

• Classical counterconditioning would be accomplished by pairing the sight, sounds and approach of a trigger with one of the dog’s favourites rewards to change the emotional state to one that is calm and positive. When referring to “counterconditioning,” this is the usually the intended definition.

• Operant counterconditioning would be accomplished by teaching an alternative appropriate behaviour (also known as Differential Reinforcement of an Incompatible Behaviour (DRI)).

(5) Systematic Desensitisation is an evidence-based approach to modifying behaviour that combines relaxation techniques with gradual exposure to help the dog slowly overcome pre-existing fears or phobias.

Article published by and reproduced with the permission of APDT USA

There has been a resurgence in citing "dominance" as a factor in dog behaviour and dog-human relationships. This concept is based on outdated wolf studies that have long since been disproven. Contrary to popular belief, research studies of wolves in their natural habitat demonstrate that wolves are not dominated by an "alpha wolf" who is the most aggressive pack member. Rather, wolves operate with a social structure similar to a human family and depend on each other for mutual support to ensure the group's survival.

Dogs are not wolves. The idea that dog behaviour can be explained through the application of wolf behaviour models is no more relevant than suggesting that chimpanzee behaviour can be used to explain the intricacies of human behaviour. While wolves and dogs share some similarities in behaviour, there are many more significant differences. Dog training and behaviour modification strategies that rely primarily on misinterpretations of wolf behaviour are therefore irrelevant, ineffective and can lead to serious negative complications. While dominance is a valid scientific concept, the term "dominance" itself is widely misunderstood, such as when it is used to describe the temperament of a particular dog.

Dominance is not a personality trait but a description of a relationship between two or more animals and is related to which animal has access to valued resources such as food, mates, etc. It should not be used in any way to support the belief that dogs are out to "dominate" us, especially as that misunderstanding causes some people to respond with force and aggression. This only serves to create an adversarial relationship filled with miscommunication and even more misunderstanding.

The unfortunate result is often anxiety, stress and fear in both dogs and humans towards each other. The use of techniques such as the "alpha roll" on dogs, which is based on these mistaken beliefs about dogs and wolves, has no place in modern dog training and behaviour modification. Dogs often respond to this perceived threat with increased fear and aggression, which may serve to make a behaviour problem worse and ruin the dog-owner relationship.

The APDT's position is that physical or psychological intimidation hinders effective training and damages the relationship between humans and dogs. Dogs thrive in an environment that provides them with clear structure and communication regarding appropriate behaviours, and one in which their need for mental and physical stimulation is addressed.

The APDT advocates training dogs with an emphasis on rewarding desired behaviours and discouraging undesirable behaviours using clear and consistent instructions and avoiding psychological and physical intimidation. Techniques that create a confrontational relationship between dogs and humans are outdated.

Modern scientifically based dog training should emphasise teamwork and a harmonious relationship between dogs and humans that fulfils both species' needs. Most of all, it should be a fun and enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

The Association of Pet Dog Trainers encourages and supports continued trainer education in order to promote gentle, effective, fast, and fun ways to train dogs using the most up-to-date information and sound, scientifically based methods.