ReviewDominance in domestic dogs revisited: Useful habit and useful construct?
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)
- et al.
A pay-off asymmetry in resident-resident disputes between shrews
Anim. Behav.
(1984) - et al.
Cooperation and competition during dyadic play in domestic dogs Canis familiaris
Anim. Behav.
(2007) - et al.
Measuring social structure: a comparison of eight dominance indices
Behav. Processes
(2006) - et al.
Predictive value of activity level and behavioral evaluation on future dominance in puppies
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(1994) - et al.
Effect of affiliative and agonistic relationships on leadership behaviour in free-ranging dogs
Anim. Behav.
(2010) - et al.
Dominance in domestic dogs—useful construct or bad habit?
J. Vet. Behav: Clin. Appl. Res.
(2009) - et al.
Self-structuring properties of dominance hierarchies: a new perspective
Adv. Genet.
(2011) - et al.
Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy: a comparison of the I&SI and the BBS methods
Anim. Behav.
(2000) Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals—a cross-species comparison
Ethol. Sociobiol.
(1995)- et al.
Ambivalent signals during agonistic interactions in a captive wolf pack
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
(2007)
The analysis of movement behavior during a clinical interview
Paedomorphism affects agonistic signals of domestic dogs
Anim. Behav.
Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): a review and evaluation of past research
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods—a plea for a more standardized and precise approach in farm animals
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
Personality dimensions that emerge in companion canines
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
An overview of the dog-human dyad and ethograms within it
J. Vet. Behav: Clin. Appl. Res.
Long-term patterns of agonistic interactions in a captive group of wolves (canis lupus)
Anim. Behav.
Urine marking by free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to sex, seasons, places and postures
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
Parental care in free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
Play behaviour during early ontogeny in free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris)
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
Agonistic behaviour of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to season, sex and age
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
Inter- and intrasexual behaviour of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris)
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
The concept of dominance
Behav. Biol.
Dominance hierarchies and conflict in eye contact
Acta Psychologica
A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consistent boldness-related personality traits in dogs
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
Consistency of personality traits in dogs
Anim. Behav.
Competitive orders as measures of social dominance
Anim. Behav.
Leadership and path characteristics during walks are linked to dominance order and individual traits in dogs
PLoS One
Aggression and group size in domesticated pigs, Sus scrofa: ‘when the winner takes it all and the loser is standing small’
Anim. Behav.
Models of dominance hierarchy formation
Behaviour
Dominance; the baby and the bathwater
Behav. Brain Sci.
The fundamental topoi of relational communication
Communication Monogr
Dominance in relation to age, sex, and competitive contexts in a group of free-ranging domestic dogs
Behav. Ecol.
Scent-marking behaviour in a pack of free-ranging domestic dogs
Ethology
Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power
J. Nonverb. Comm.
The “D” word: should we be talking about dominance in dogs
Vet. Matters
Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin. Behavior and Evolution
Rank and reproduction in cooperatively breeding African wild dogs: behavioral and endocrive correlates
Behav. Ecol.
Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies
Anim. Behav.
The organization of agonistic relationships within two captive groups of Java-monkeys (Macaca fascicularis)
Z. Tierpsychol.
Dominance style and primate social organisation
The formal hierarchy of rhesus monkeys: an investigation of the bared teeth display
Am. J. Primatol.
Male and female mating competition in wolves: female suppression versus male intervention
Behaviour
Unifying the aspects of the Big Five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation
J. Pers.
Behavioural testing in dogs: a review of methodology in search for standardisation
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour
Behaviour
Extrinsic effects, estimating opponents' RHP, and the structure of dominance hierarchies
Biol. Lett.
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 BehaviorCitation 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.
Dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) behavioral adaptations to a human-dominated niche: A review and novel hypothesis
2021, Advances in the Study of BehaviorSocial behaviour of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in a public off-leash dog park
2018, Behavioural ProcessesSocial learning in repeated cooperation games in uncertain environments
2018, Cognitive Systems ResearchDo aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare?: A literature review
2017, Applied Animal Behaviour ScienceStatus-related aggression, resource guarding, and fear-related aggression in 2 female mixed breed dogs
2016, Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and ResearchCitation 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.