In most cases, the dominance theory was used as an explanation, based on the idea that behavioural problems in dogs were caused by a drive to climb higher on the social ladder. Not obeying commands, sitting in higher places (for example, on the couch), walking through doors first, or eating before the owner were all seen as signs that the dog was trying to dominate the human. According to this theory, restoring a well-behaved household dog required breaking this behaviour through punishment and subduing the dog (Kovary, 1999).
Wolf biologist Dr. L. David Mech reached similar conclusions in the 1970s and 1980s. Since even this leading biologist supported the idea at the time, the theory was widely accepted as fact.
Criticism of dominance
Let’s take a closer look at the original research. It was conducted on a group of unrelated wolves kept in captivity. Later, more research was done on wild wolf packs. This showed that wolves actually live in family groups. A father and mother lead the pack, and offspring leave the group once they are mature enough.
During Schenkel’s and Mech’s early studies, the wolves were kept in a confined space with limited food. This naturally led to conflicts, which were not related to social rank, but rather to competition over food. Years later, the same wolf biologist, Dr. L. David Mech, concluded that the parent animals were not focused on dominating others, but instead on protecting and caring for the group. Conflicts were rarely resolved through aggression (Mech, 2008). Mech therefore revised his earlier findings and concluded that the term “alpha wolf” was no longer appropriate.
Increasing research supported the view that this earlier image of wolves did not reflect their natural behaviour in the wild. Several researchers concluded that the initial studies were not representative.
Since more and more studies show that there is no strict hierarchy in wolf packs (let alone one maintained through aggressive behaviour), the argument that dogs display such behaviour is also undermined (Van Kerkhove, 2004).
And what about feral (street) dogs?
Feral dogs live much closer to domestic dogs than wolves do. However, research shows that even among street dogs there are few conflicts that indicate a strict hierarchical structure. Their social organisation differs from that of wolves, as feral dogs do not (or no longer) live in family units. Their behaviour is better explained by circumstances, learning experiences, and motivation. Most interactions are characterised by “calming signals”, which serve to reduce conflict. These behaviours are therefore not aimed at submission to a dominant dog, but at de-escalating situations.
The term “dominance” is also often misused. Dominance is, in fact, a description of a relationship between two individuals, not a personality trait or behavioural characteristic. This relationship can change depending on context and time. A dog that may take possession of a bone in one situation may not do so in another.
So does dominance exist at all? Yes, but it is not a goal in itself. It is simply a description of the current relationship between dogs and/or humans, which can change depending on moment and context.
In short, multiple studies have shown that dogs do not seek a dominant position or controlling leadership, nor do they need it.
Behaviour vs. training
But what about behaviour we would rather not see? For example, growling when the dog is on the couch? Pulling on the leash? Reacting aggressively on leash? Or mounting people’s leg?
A study by Bradshaw (2009) examined a group of 19 dogs living in one household. It found that, based on their interactions, no stable hierarchy could be established. However, conflicts did occur, which were sometimes resolved through calming signals or through aggression. This behaviour is better explained by the concept of “Resource Holding Potential”: the motivation to obtain or retain something of value to the dog.
An example:
If a dog is lying on the couch, this may be a highly rewarding and comfortable place. If it is strongly motivated to stay there, it may growl in order to keep the spot. However, if its motivation is lower, it may simply leave without protest.
If a dog pulls on the leash, this is usually related to a strong motivation to get somewhere. The reason may be obvious (another dog) or less obvious (for example, wanting to move away from a frightening situation). But this has nothing to do with dominance or attempting to control the direction of movement.
As discussed earlier, behaviour is primarily explained by the emotions a dog experiences (Panksepp, 2005). Dogs experience seven basic emotional systems: seeking/desire, rage, fear, lust, care, panic/grief, and play. These emotions, combined with learning experiences, shape the behaviour we observe.
For example, a dog that growls at its food bowl. Body language often shows that this is rooted in fear—fear of losing its food. If it growls and you move away, the dog learns that growling successfully reduces its anxiety. If a neighbour approaches and the dog does not growl, it may be because the dog has never had a negative experience of them taking its food. There is therefore no learned threat response. This leads to two different reactions in what appears to be the same situation—once again often misinterpreted as dominance, while the real explanation lies in past experiences.
Within dominance-based thinking, physical interventions are often used: an “alpha roll”, a shove to the side, or forcing the dog onto its back in order to “subdue” it. If a dog is reactive on leash, it may be physically restrained to “assert control”. At first glance, these methods may appear effective.
Because of this, many “trainers” consider it a quick way to correct unwanted behaviour. However, the opposite is often true. Many dogs stop the unwanted behaviour out of fear of consequences, not because they have actually learned alternative behaviour. They may develop a state known as “learned helplessness”, which is considered a serious psychological condition. In addition, the dog may become more anxious, which can increase its motivation to defend resources such as food. This ultimately damages the relationship with the owner.
Would we not prefer a dog that trusts us, respects us, feels supported, and shows affection? Then we must offer the same in return. Respect its behaviour, emotions, and needs, and support it where necessary.
If we suppress growling, there is a real risk that the dog will skip the warning signal and go straight to biting. This makes behaviour less predictable and increases the risk of the dog ending up in a shelter.
By focusing on the underlying emotion and motivation, alternative, non-physical methods can be used to teach the dog different behaviour. This may take more time, but it leads to a stronger bond between dog and owner, and more durable behavioural change.