Of course, when it comes to human to dog interactions, and dog training, theories based on a concept of dominance are rubbish, useless. No argument there. It is though, just as hopeless at describing relationships between dogs, interactions between strange dogs, or dogs that live together? I am struck by how (on the forum) we seem comfortable in describing a dog as engaging in submissive behaviour, but not by describing dogs as engaging in dominant behaviour towards another dog. If submissive behaviour is not in response to the behaviour or attitude of another dog, then is it mis-labelled, I wonder? Is submissive behaviour just an expression of fear? So 'submissive' is a bit of a hang over, we should be saying 'fearful' behaviour? I haven't started to look this up, or read anything, just wondered if there were useful thoughts to start me off wondering about it...
Ah, there is a lovely explanation here, in this paper : http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Behavior/Bradshaw_2009.pdf
So we should best label 'submissive' behaviour as 'appeasement' behaviour, of course. http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Behavior/Bradshaw_2009.pdf Where puppies develop in social contact with the mature members of their ‘‘pack,’’ they are likely to learn consistently that competition with adults is unsuccessful, and that avoidance or appeasement successfully avoids conflict and means that they are tolerated and more likely to access resources. These behaviors are, therefore, likely to persist in the younger animals as they develop into adulthood, maintaining the ‘‘dominance relationship’’ between the older and younger animals, unless environmental circumstances lead to one or another member of the dyad learning an alternative outcome for their interactions.
I certainly observe a 'pecking order' when we have three dogs in the house. Twiglet (puppy) is 'boss' and the others (both three years old) do her bidding. If they are each given a Kong I have to keep an eye on them or Twiglet ends up sitting on two while eating the other. The other two dogs just lie and watch her pleadingly! I see neither fear nor appeasement in any of them. I don't think it's an age thing - I think she runs rings round them because she's more intelligent. .
My two swop around and defer to each other at the water bowl, whoever gets there first, the other will wait. They never wish to eat from the others' bowl. If senior dog wishes to sit on a particular bed, he will look at junior dog, wagging his and with a quizzical look on his face and junior dog just gets up and moves. Doesn't really answer your question, just one example.
My understanding was that dominance does exist but it is a fluid thing and is connected to different resources and the strengths of each dog. It is the view that dominance is a goal in its own right and there is a fixed alpha etc that is incorrect. Where dogs are domesticated and not short of resources this becomes even more skewed. I may be mistaken though. Look forward to hearing from everyone and reading your links later
Interesting question! Yes, I agree with the "appeasement" label, that makes more sense to me. I think Barb has it right - the idea of dominance in its own right is the goal is where we got it wrong. Not surprisingly, though - unfortunately this seems to be the modus operandi of lots of humans so not surprising that we ascribe it to dogs too, just as we ascribe other human emotions and motivations to dogs (and other animals) that really aren't there. I think the whole "survival of the fittest" idea has snuck in to our thoughts about this too, making the alpha and dominance theory ring true.
I agree with Barbara. I can't remember where I read about this which is really annoying. As Barbara has said it depends how much a dog values a resource whether it behaves dominantly or not. I see this theory in practise with my two every day. I'm not sure if this link will work but it's a Nando Brown video where he uses a quote that explains how we are already dominant in our relationship with our dogs because we provide everything our dog needs to survive which is why dominance in training, and when interacting with dogs isn't necessary we don't need to be anymore dominant. I've read this explanation before in behaviour books and find it interesting that although dominance has become sort of a dirty word in the human/dog relationship we are dominant by the very nature of that relationship. Oh the it did work
