Debunking Dominance

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The researchers spent six months studying dogs freely interacting at a Dogs Trust rehoming centre, and reanalysing data from studies of feral dogs, before concluding that individual relationships between dogs are learned through experience rather than motivated by a desire to assert “dominance”.

Link to the press release: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6361.html

I have a copy of the paper which is from the most recent Journal of Veterinary Behaviour. I'm sure corvus, jdavis and our other academic friends can probably access it but if not, someone emailed it to me. PM me if you want a copy. The idea that experience plays a big role was something Dunbar talked about when he was out here.

[Erny]

I recently attended a seminar that was focused on debunking dominance. I found the collective speakers to be contradictive to not only each other but also (and in at times quite blatantly) when comparing what they'd spent time telling us to things that were said at the end to support something else they'd said. I didn't find that the 'evidence' they produced to be particularly convincing.

Haven't read the info in the link you've given Anita and need to get organised to dash out right now, so it will be a 'later' exercise.

But even without reading the info in the link and merely looking at the following sentence you quoted :

The researchers spent six months studying dogs freely interacting at a Dogs Trust rehoming centre, and reanalysing data from studies of feral dogs, before concluding that individual relationships between dogs are learned through experience rather than motivated by a desire to assert “dominance”.

I can see where there would be a truth in that but which wouldn't necessarily "debunk dominance". If the dog has "learnt through experience its individual relationship" it might be quite satisfied to 'follow' rather than to 'lead' and so to the eye may not appear to seek a higher ranking position.

Poorly worded on my part - but I'm in a hurry. Hope the point I'm trying to make at least to some degree makes sense.

I've listened and read and heard a fair amount in relation to the "debunk dominance" theories being touted and IMO (so far) it really doesn't "debunk" it all. It strikes me that it's just a different way of wording things but when push comes to shove, ranking; dominance; and submissiveness is still apparent amongst many dogs in their relationships with their owners.

To me, it's becoming a "rose by any other name" matter.

But this is all without me reading the link so I'm hoping that what I've written targets what it is even about .

ETA: Oh .... and just an extra thing to mention as I think many people have the wrong idea about "dominance" simply due to the connotation that has been put on the word over time. For me "dominance" is NOT a dirty word. To me it doesn't mean being bullied or something/someone having ill intent. To me it doesn't mean one being under the thumb. To me it is simply the one that governs and is seen to have the right to that government. I've noticed that many who entertain the "debunk dominance" theory do like to speak of the word "dominance" as though it is something bad and use the word with all the negativity they can muster. Just my opinion .

Edited May 22, 2009 by Erny

[Tonymc]

A pretty ordinary article. Tony

[Jigsaw]

It would be interesting to read the whole paper. Abstract available HERE

It is unfortunate that the word dominant has been to be linked to aggression by many people today. I think perhaps there is often an emotional reaction to the word dominant when discussing dogs where we think of, if not the carrying out of aggression the perceived threat of aggression.

My one query with the study is the use of all neutered male domestic dogs. Perhaps the full article explains why but a mix up of the sexes might have given a more rounded study.

[Erny]

I think perhaps there is often an emotional reaction to the word dominant when discussing dogs ....

I have recognised this problem for quite some time, Jigsaw. Even in the latest seminar on the topic, one of the speakers said she hates using the term "leadership" (which is a word that has been used frequently rather than the word "dominance"). So in typical form as our current society seems to be heading, instead of education, the general opinion is to 'ban' (so to speak) the use of something that some groups don't like. In this case, certain words.

It makes it difficult to speak succinctly on a topic (let alone write about it) and we're getting to the point where we need to say or write 20 words where in times past, one or two would do.

If these groups would instead focus their lobby to clarify what words such as "dominance" should be construed to mean when we talk about it in the context of dog/dog relationships and dog/human relationships they wouldn't have to worry so much about running away from the word usage. And I think we could then move on and forward a bit easier.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Erny

[Are You Serious Jo]

I'll see if I can access it, might have to order it if we don't subscribe to the journal. I'm already seeing red flags though with the posts.

[Erny]

I'll see if I can access it, might have to order it if we don't subscribe to the journal. I'm already seeing red flags though with the posts.

Oh? What do you mean? (not challenging - genuine question). Why "red flags"?

[Are You Serious Jo]

Shelter dogs and all desexed males, variables that could affect the results. I have it now so I'll review it a bit later today.

[Erny]

Having had a quick glance at the article, there's a number of things that I would bring to attention for converse discussion. For one example :

“The blanket assumption that every dog is motivated by some innate desire to control people and other dogs is frankly ridiculous.

I agree with the above. IE That dogs are not generally motivated by some innate desire to control people and other dogs. BUT ..... If our interactions with dogs 'tells' the dog (and it is the dog's interpretation of our messages that counts here) that we aren't in control, then dogs (generally speaking) will step up to the plate (IMO). I am not even sure if there IS a blanket assumption that "every dog is motivated by some innate desire to control people". Is this just the writer's interpretation of it?

To me, the "debunking dominance" argument is incomplete in that respect.

I feel I'm having trouble expressing myself today, so I'm not sure if what I'm trying to say is written in a manner which is understandable.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Erny

[Erny]

Shelter dogs and all desexed males, variables that could affect the results. I have it now so I'll review it a bit later today.

Oh - sorry. I thought you meant that posts such as mine expressing my take on it was raising "red flags".

[Are You Serious Jo]

Nah, I usually agree with most things you post

[Kelpie-i]

I attended the same seminar that Erny attended and it was nothing short of "hillarious" in some parts.

When one of the speakers stated that she didn't even like the word "leadership", I had to wonder what she would call the act of being in control, guiding, educating and keeping the peace with dogs

Edited May 23, 2009 by Kelpie-i

[Erny]

Actually, Kelpie-i .... when you read that article it is condemning "leadership" as well. What it doesn't do, and nor have the transcripts and seminar I've listened to before it, is explain to people what TO do.

It somehow strikes me to be along the lines of not having any expectation of rights to make decisions; to guide; to assert. A bit like 'parenting today' where the divisive order of parent/child has, from what I see and hear, been blurred to the point of equality in such a fashion that in some cases I don't think kids have the guidance they knowingly or not, actually need.

Here's another sentence taken from that article that I would question :

In our referral clinic we very often see dogs which have learnt to show aggression to avoid anticipated punishment

Ok - first, it doesn't suggest what punishment. Second, it doesn't suggest that it might have been inappropriate punishment or punishment delivered with bad timing. Instead, the sentence leads the reading to automatically assume that any punishment at any time leads to aggression.

And here's yet another that I'd question :

At Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity, rehoming centre staff see the results of misguided dog training all the time.

They're a "welfare charity". Do they really know the proper history of the dogs' experiences in life to be able to attest that the dogs' behaviour (which I am assuming by the context of their sentence means those with problem behaviours) is the result of misguided training (which they see "all the time")? And is "misguided training" supposed to mean "training by those who recognise and/or believe that heirarchy order amongst dogs/humans does exist? I mean, I frequently see problematic behaviour in dogs which has come about due to "misguided training". But conversely, for me most of the time it is for the exact opposite reason ..... ie because the human treated the dog as some sort of 'equal' and in doing so set no boundaries, guidelines etc. and was generally therefore quite confusing for the dog.

And this one :

Far from being helpful, the academics say, training approaches aimed at “dominance reduction” vary from being worthless in treatment to being actually dangerous and likely to make behaviours worse.

What "academics"? And do these "academics" not know or see what I have seen as far as strategies that ARE aimed at (using their words) "dominance reduction" yet are very effective and beneficial to the dogs' welfare; are structured so as to not only not be dangerous but also reduce the danger that perhaps existed due to the dog having no structure, no understanding of expectations or boundaries?

Going through that article with a critical eye, to me it talks much but tells little. The words used have been used (IMO - the impression I get, at least) to "coerce" (a technique that the writer herself has already condemned) the reader into thinking that "dominance belief" or "leadership" is bad, rather than putting out the actual factual information to prove what they say.

All in all ..... a poorly constructed largely unsupported article. IMO . Perhaps the full version (this is only an extract?) provides more in facts and statistical information. But in its present form it strikes me as more an attempt to brainwash than to educate.

ETA: And BIG DEAL if eating first or going through doors first makes no impression upon the dog as far as leadership ( can you say that?!) is concerned? Personally, I don't think it necessarily has a direct correlation either. BUT what stuff like that DOES do is gives PEOPLE something to do .... something akin to setting boundaries/guidelines and training. And stuff like that DOES work. And whether they (eg. the author of the article) believe it or not, what HARM in it? Or do they just like to throw that sort of stuff up in an endeavour to make those who don't believe in what they say, appear stupid? Their way of running them down? But then, if they are so right, why do they have to run them down, or give the impression that's what they are doing?

Edited May 23, 2009 by Erny

[Are You Serious Jo]

There should be 10 pages, do you have the whole paper? I am too braindead to concentrate, have given up reading a friends draft and can't even form a proper sentence so have to read the paper when I am clear headed.

[Erny]

There should be 10 pages, do you have the whole paper? I am too braindead to concentrate, have given up reading a friends draft and can't even form a proper sentence so have to read the paper when I am clear headed.

No I don't JDavis. And right now, I think I'll concentrate on packing up for the night rather than getting into it.

How did you get the whole paper? Is it a further download link?

[Are You Serious Jo]

I got it through uni, send me your email addy and I'll send it to you.

[Just Midol]

The main problem I have with these articles and people who attempt to debunk dominance entirely is that they don't offer a viable or realistic alternative... That and they're always emotive arguments.

[Erny]

I agree, Midol.

[Erny]

I got it through uni, send me your email addy and I'll send it to you.

PM'd it through, JDavis.

Thank you .

[Cosmolo]

Can't believe leadership i now a dirty word We're going to run out of words to use!