Elsevier

Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Volume 9, Issue 4, July–August 2014, Pages 184-191
Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Review
Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: Useful habit and useful construct?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.04.005Get rights and content

Abstract

In the last decade, the validity and relevance of the dominance model was regularly put into question regarding relationships between canids like dogs and wolves, and consequently, human–dog relationships as well. The concept underlying this model, scientifically defined as an intervening variable reflecting status difference between individuals, is applicable when formal status signals symbolize the long-term relationship between individuals, resulting in a formalized dominance hierarchy. This article reviews the basics underlying the concept of dominance and reflects on the value and importance of some new quantitative studies on the applicability of the concept of dominance in domestic dogs. The conclusions are, first, that formal dominance is present in the domestic dog, expressed by context-independent unidirectional formal status signals. Consequently, formal dominance (e.g., submission) plays an important role in assessing status in dog–dog relationships. Second, that nonverbal status–related communication in humans resembles that in dogs to a considerable degree, and hence dogs may be well able to interpret this human status–related nonverbal communication from their perspective. Dominance is therefore also likely to play a role in human–dog relationships. Hence, the dominance concept might be useful to explain the development of certain problems in dog–dog and dog–human relationships. However, enforcing a dominant status by a human may entail considerable risks and should therefore be avoided.

Introduction

The last decade saw a discussion on the validity and relevance of the dominance model regarding relationships between canids like dogs and wolves, and consequently, also concerning the human–dog relationship. The reasons for this were summarized in a much discussed article by Bradshaw et al. (2009), which denounces the concept of dominance in dogs and wolves on several grounds, to be mentioned in Dominance in dogs: considering the pro and contra arguments in more detail section. Recently, however, 3 new independent quantitative studies confirm the concept of dominance to be applicable in domestic dogs (Cafazzo et al., 2010, Trisko, 2011, van der Borg et al., 2012). Moreover, these studies also mention and confirm the existence of the so-called formal dominance in dogs. This aspect of dominance was ignored in previous discussions on dogs, whereas this is well known in primates as a most important expression of submission or dominance. One exception is the study of Bauer and Smuts (2007), who recognize formal dominance in dogs, partly on the basis of a quantitative analysis of play behavior. These 3 recent quantitative studies used the research model developed at Utrecht University in the years 1970-1980 (de Waal, 1977, van Hooff and Wensing, 1987). Therefore, it is time to reconsider the arguments, data, and methods leading to such opposing conclusions and also to clarify whether the recent confirmations of dominance in domestic dogs could be a result of a bias in the methodology.

In this article, we first establish the theoretical backgrounds for dominance and its counterpart submission. In doing so, we follow the logic of the Utrecht School of former professor Jan van Hooff and his former pupil Frans de Waal, who have significantly contributed to the development of the concept of dominance and to the methodology to investigate what role dominance might play as an organizing principle in species, and to what degree. Subsequently, we will discuss the validity and power of the argumentations and data from authors opposing the idea of dominance playing a role in dogs and wolves and contrast these with the results from the recent studies using the Utrecht dominance model. Finally, we will discuss possible implications for the human–dog relationship. We do not discuss in depth the mechanisms of formation of dominance relationships and the connection between dominance and leadership. The former has been modeled in the studies by Hemelrijk, 2002, Beacham, 2003, Forkman and Haskell, 2004, and Dugatkin and Dugatkin (2007), and the latter is discussed in the studies by Peterson et al., 2002, Bonanni et al., 2010, and Akos et al. (2014).

Section snippets

Some basics of dominance

Members of a social group may differ in many aspects. Differences may include asymmetries regarding physical power, stamina, lineage, personality, weight, weaponry, age, and so on (Chase and Seitz, 2011, Maynard Smith and Parker, 1976). These differences in personal properties of individuals may influence the dominance relationships (Bernstein, 1981) and may be stable over some time and to a certain degree. Stable asymmetries between individuals may lead to more or less predictable differences

Dominance in dogs: considering the pro and contra arguments in more detail

In this part, we follow the main arguments that would invalidate the concept of dominance for domestic dogs and comment on findings and conclusions.

  • 1.

    Personality trait or dimension of relationship? Some authors claim that dominance is not a trait, but a characteristic of a relationship (Bernstein, 1981, Langbein and Puppe, 2004, Bradshaw et al., 2009). Consequently, ‘use of the expression “dominant dog” is meaningless’ (Bradshaw et al., 2009, p. 138) Comparable statements can be found in

Dominance and the human–dog relationship

The 3 recent quantitative studies demonstrate that a limited number of formal status signals shown by dogs indicate dominance relationships (Table 1). They confirm the idea of Bauer and Smuts (2007) that formal dominance in dogs exists. Again other behaviors like staring, growling, and showing teeth at the opponent may primarily signify a tendency to become physically aggressive (a motivation) rather than having a communicative function concerning status (cf, Fatjo et al., 2007). We can support

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Frauke Ohl for her helpful comments on an earlier version to Natalie Cook for correcting the English language and to 2 referees for useful comments. The idea for the article was conceived by all 3 authors. The article was mainly written by the first author. No specific funding was provided.

References (95)

  • N. Freedman

    The analysis of movement behavior during a clinical interview

  • D. Goodwin et al.

    Paedomorphism affects agonistic signals of domestic dogs

    Anim. Behav.

    (1997)
  • A.C. Jones et al.

    Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): a review and evaluation of past research

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2005)
  • J. Langbein et al.

    Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods—a plea for a more standardized and precise approach in farm animals

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2004)
  • J. Ley et al.

    Personality dimensions that emerge in companion canines

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2008)
  • P.D. McGreevy et al.

    An overview of the dog-human dyad and ethograms within it

    J. Vet. Behav: Clin. Appl. Res.

    (2012)
  • G. Moran

    Long-term patterns of agonistic interactions in a captive group of wolves (canis lupus)

    Anim. Behav.

    (1982)
  • S.K. Pal

    Urine marking by free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to sex, seasons, places and postures

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2003)
  • S.K. Pal

    Parental care in free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2005)
  • S.K. Pal

    Play behaviour during early ontogeny in free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris)

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2010)
  • S.K. Pal et al.

    Agonistic behaviour of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to season, sex and age

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (1998)
  • S.K. Pal et al.

    Inter- and intrasexual behaviour of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris)

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (1999)
  • T.E. Rowell

    The concept of dominance

    Behav. Biol.

    (1974)
  • K.T. Strongman et al.

    Dominance hierarchies and conflict in eye contact

    Acta Psychologica

    (1968)
  • K. Svartberg

    A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consistent boldness-related personality traits in dogs

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2005)
  • K. Svartberg et al.

    Consistency of personality traits in dogs

    Anim. Behav.

    (2005)
  • G.J. Syme

    Competitive orders as measures of social dominance

    Anim. Behav.

    (1974)
  • Z. Akos et al.

    Leadership and path characteristics during walks are linked to dominance order and individual traits in dogs

    PLoS One

    (2014)
  • L. Andersen et al.

    Aggression and group size in domesticated pigs, Sus scrofa: ‘when the winner takes it all and the loser is standing small’

    Anim. Behav.

    (2004)
  • J.L. Beacham

    Models of dominance hierarchy formation

    Behaviour

    (2003)
  • I.S. Bernstein

    Dominance; the baby and the bathwater

    Behav. Brain Sci.

    (1981)
  • J.K. Burgoon et al.

    The fundamental topoi of relational communication

    Communication Monogr

    (1984)
  • S. Cafazzo et al.

    Dominance in relation to age, sex, and competitive contexts in a group of free-ranging domestic dogs

    Behav. Ecol.

    (2010)
  • S. Cafazzo et al.

    Scent-marking behaviour in a pack of free-ranging domestic dogs

    Ethology

    (2012)
  • D.R. Carney et al.

    Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power

    J. Nonverb. Comm.

    (2005)
  • R.A. Casey

    The “D” word: should we be talking about dominance in dogs

    Vet. Matters

    (2009)
  • R. Coppinger

    Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin. Behavior and Evolution

    (2001)
  • S. Creel et al.

    Rank and reproduction in cooperatively breeding African wild dogs: behavioral and endocrive correlates

    Behav. Ecol.

    (2007)
  • H. de Vries et al.

    Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies

    Anim. Behav.

    (2000)
  • F.B.M. de Waal

    The organization of agonistic relationships within two captive groups of Java-monkeys (Macaca fascicularis)

    Z. Tierpsychol.

    (1977)
  • F.B.M. de Waal

    Dominance style and primate social organisation

  • F.B.M. de Waal et al.

    The formal hierarchy of rhesus monkeys: an investigation of the bared teeth display

    Am. J. Primatol.

    (1985)
  • R. Derix et al.

    Male and female mating competition in wolves: female suppression versus male intervention

    Behaviour

    (1993)
  • C.G. DeYoung et al.

    Unifying the aspects of the Big Five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation

    J. Pers.

    (2013)
  • C. Diederrich et al.

    Behavioural testing in dogs: a review of methodology in search for standardisation

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2006)
  • C. Drews

    The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour

    Behaviour

    (1993)
  • L.A. Dugatkin et al.

    Extrinsic effects, estimating opponents' RHP, and the structure of dominance hierarchies

    Biol. Lett.

    (2007)
  • Cited by (29)

    • A survey of dog behavior modification practice in the UK: Who is offering it, what methods are they using and how effective do their clients perceive practitioners to be?

      2023, Journal of Veterinary Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      This might be important to understand if the levels of knowledge and practical behavior modification skills vary significantly between the different CP types (Luescher et al., 2007; Mc.Bride et al., 2018). Regarding the behavior modification plan (BMP) itself, there is controversy surrounding the appropriateness of the different types of training methods available (simplistically reward vs. punishment) (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Schilder et al., 2014; Westgarth, 2016; Todd, 2018). Again, data are lacking in the UK about which training methods are typically employed to resolve unwanted canine behaviors and which category of CP is using them.

    • Status-related aggression, resource guarding, and fear-related aggression in 2 female mixed breed dogs

      2016, Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Without this, there would be no predictability to social stability and a serious risk of injury to members of the social group (De Keuster and Jung, 2009; Van Der Borg et al., 2015). The role of factors other than dominance, that is, inappropriate social and communication skills, temperamental reactivity and excitability, poor environmental control because of human interference, space distribution and availability, and confinement should be considered in cases of aggression between household dogs (De Keuster and Jung, 2009, Landsberg et al., 2013a). Bradshaw et al. (2009) defines dominance as a property of dyadic relationships (i.e., limited to the interactions between 2 dogs, and not applicable to the complex social structure of a group), and suggests that associative learning and subjective resource value are useful factors to consider when analyzing agonistic behaviors between dogs.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text