Canine Dominance
Revisited
by David Appleby
The subject of how dominance should be defined is often discussed. In
particular there has been criticism that it is often misdiagnosed as
the cause of behaviour problems. Obviously such criticism is correct
but some commentators have also tried to re-interpret the effect of the
treatment programmes typically recommended for "dominance" problems.
This new insight suggests that the benefits of any change in behaviour
have nothing to do with the notion of dominance but the individual’s
response to situations. However it is possible that this interpretation
describes the processes that occur at a local level i.e. how the individual
feels at time when it is dominated.
Before we look at this issue we have to be careful to use correct terminology.
To say that an individual is dominated would be wrong if we use the term
out of context. In effect, dominance can be looked at as an equation.
In simple terms this comes down to; do you normally get your own way
plus something you want minus any concerns you may have about the ability
of an individual who wants the same thing to stop you. If you think they
can then you are likely to feel inhibited. If you and the other individual
keep having incidents like this you should reach the point where you
can anticipate who will win and in what contexts this is likely to occur.
Now you have a ranking system and one of you is dominant.
Ranking systems have evolved in pack society because fighting decreases
when everybody knows where they stand. Problems tend to occur in the
human/dog relationship when owners convey signals that unwittingly cause
their dog to develop a sense of high status. For example, an owner who
readily hands over the food they are eating when their dog demands it
may be developing in it a sense of high status in that context.This may
encourage it to feel that it can challenge them in other situations.
Of course this act on its own is unlikely upset the dog's perception
of the appropriate ranking order but if it gets the wrong signals often
enough it may think it is dominant.
However, scientists believe that a dogs do not have a sense of self
so it could be more accurate to say that it behaves with no inhibition
and it is uninhibited behaviour that we interpret as dominant behaviour.
Owners often describe a belief that their dog is trying to increase its
status over them. This would require that their dog has a capacity for
forward planning and to know how its behaviour affects the feelings and
thoughts of others, which we believe they are not capable of. So the
notion that the dog behaves with lesser or greater inhibition according
to who it is interacting with and the value of the resource in question
may be a better way of describing what is going on.
Click here for
a more detailed look at what may encourage a dog to become uninhibited
Behaviour Modification and Problem Prevention Programmes
There are behaviour modification programmes that are suggested for reducing
the sense of high status in dogs that have become unresponsive to their
owners or challenge them for resources. The same advice is often given
to stop these problems developing. These are variously described as status
reduction, rank reduction, dominance, assertiveness or ‘learn-to-earn’ programmes.
Whatever their title they could be said to work by increasing a dog’s
inhibition about doing its own thing or throwing its weight about or
by preventing a loss of inhibition in dogs that are presently well behaved,
particularly maturing and newly acquired dogs.
There are five main criticisms of status related programmes.
- They are often inappropriate.
- Not following them does not necessarily result in the type of behaviour
that we call dominant.
- The programmes tend to have a blanket set of rules not all of which
are applicable to every individual.
- Where they are used successfully the effect of better behaviour is
achieved by virtue of the fact that the dog becomes depressed and withdrawn.
(This
is the individual response referred to at the beginning of this article).
- The implementation of the programmes so changes the dog/owner relationship
because of rules such as don't let your dog sit on your lap, or not
until it is invited, that owners are unwilling to keep them up.
Let's look at these in turn.
- Misdiagnosis is always a bad thing and yet "dominant" behaviour
is frequently cited for all sorts of relationship problems that have
other causes. For example, we must avoid using the label to describe
a lack of response to the owners wishes caused by insufficient or inappropriate
training. Similarly dominance must not be blamed for defensive behaviour
caused by fear of the owner's intentions. This often occurs where "punishment" is
used in an attempt to stop the behaviours owners don't want.
- You can do all the things the programmes say you should not do,
such as letting your dog sleep on your bed, without the automatic development
of problems related to lack of inhibition. However they can develop
in this environment. Furthermore research has shown that "dominance" problems
are more likely to occur if the owner tends to be indulgent. Only if
it were shown that dogs regularly develop a lack of inhibition in homes
where owners take control of the resources the dog values could prevention
programmes be said to be irrelevant.
- The tendency to have a set of rules for prevention that covers
all resources is caused by the fact that it is not possible to know
what
each dog will value without studying them. Most owners will not be
aware of the need or have the understanding that would enable them
to do this.
A wise man once said; "experienced owners can break all the rules
and will know when to introduce them because they can see problems
developing. Owners who do not have knowledge, experience or intuition
will not know
the problem is developing until the consequences occur". This
is what makes guidelines for people to follow helpful.
- There seems to be little doubt that programmes introduced to
cure a dominance problem can result in depression and withdrawn behaviour.
It is thought that this is a reaction to failing to get anticipated
pleasures
such as portions of the owner's food or to lie on the sofa. This
reaction is not in conflict with the intention of rank reduction (i.e.
the development
of inhibition). Wildlife films are the bastions of descriptions of
dominant and submissive behaviour. On one of these we may see a wolf
that expects
to get tasty morsel. If another thwarts it by denying it access it
may go through the same emotional process. However, as with the family
dog,
once its expectations are altered through repetition depressed and
withdrawn behaviours should stop. Significantly, owners who are asked
to implement
these programmes report that depressed behaviour is only a transient
stage.
- Do owners stick to these programmes if they are introduced to
cure problems? They do if they can see the benefit, which brings us
back to
the most important point, which is point one.
© David Appleby
|
