Alpha-Schmalpha: why every mention of "alpha dogs" or "dominant" dogs is dangerous to all dogs.
The erroneous approach to canine social behavior known as dominance theory (two million-plus Google hits) is based on a study of captive zoo wolves conducted in the 1930s and 1940s by Swiss animal behaviorist Rudolph Schen-kel, in which the scientist concluded that wolves in a pack fight to gain dominance, and the winner is the alpha wolf.
Schenkel's observations of captive wolf behavior were erroneously extrapolated to wild wolf behavior, and then to domestic dogs. It was postulated that wolves were in constant competition for higher rank in the hierarchy, and only the aggressive actions of the alpha male and female held the contenders in check. Other behaviorists following Schenkel's lead also studied captive wolves and confirmed his findings: groups of unrelated wolves brought together in artificial captive environments do, indeed, engage in often-violent and bloody social struggles.
The problem is, that's not normal wolf behavior. As David Mech stated in the introduction to his study of wild wolves (Mech, 2000), "Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. The concept of the alpha wolf as a 'top dog' ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots (Schenkel 1947; Rabb et al. 1967; Fox 1971a; Zimen 1975,1982; Lockwood 1979; van Hooff et al. 1987) is particularly misleading."
What we know now, thanks to Mech and others, is that in the wild, a wolf pack is a family, consisting of a mated pair and their offspring of the past one to three years. Occasionally two or three families may group together. As the offspring mature they disperse from the pack; the only long-term members of the group are the breeding pair. By contrast, in captivity unrelated wolves are forced to live together for many years, creating tension between mature adults that doesn't happen in a natural, wild pack.
ENOUGH ABOUT WOLVES
But that's all about wolves anyway, not dogs. How did it happen that dog owners and trainers started thinking all that information (and misinformation) about wolf behavior had anything to do with dogs and dog behavior? The logic went something like, "Dogs are descended from wolves. Wolves live in hierarchical packs in which the aggressive alpha male rules over everyone else. Therefore, humans need to dominate their pet dogs to get them to behave."
Perhaps the most popular advocate of this inaccurate concept, Cesar Mil-Ian, is only the latest in a long line of dominance-based trainers who advocate forceful techniques such as the alpha roll. Much of this style of training has roots in the military - which explains the emphasis on punishment.
As far back as 1906, Colonel Konrad Most was using heavy-handed techniques to train dogs in the German army, then police and service dogs. He was joined by William Koehler after the end of World War II.
Koehler also initially trained dogs for the military prior to his civilian dog-training career, and his writings advocated techniques that included hanging and helicoptering a dog into submission (into unconsciousness, if necessary). For example, to stop a dog from digging, Koehler suggested filling the hole with water and submerging the dog's head in the water-filed hole until he was nearly drowned.
Fast-forward several years to 1978 and the emergence of the Monks of New Skete as the new model for dog training, asserting a philosophy that "understanding is the key to communication, compassion, and communion" with your dog. Sounds great, yes? The Monks were considered cutting edge at the time - but contrary to their benevolent image, they were in fact responsible for the widespread popularization of the "Alpha-Wolf Roll-Over" (now shortened to the alpha roll). Reviewing the early observations of captive wolves, the Monks concluded that the alpha roll is a useful tool for demonstrating one's authority over a dog. Unfortunately, this is a complete and utter misinterpretation of the submissive roll-over that is voluntarily offered by less assertive dogs, not forcibly commanded by stronger ones.
The Monks also advocated the frequent use of other physical punishments such as the scruff shake (grab both sides of the dog's face and shake, lifting the dog off the ground) and cuffing under the dog's chin with an open hand several times, hard enough to cause the dog to yelp.
While professing that "training dogs is about building a relationship that is based on respect and love and understanding," even their most recent book, Divine Canine: The Monks' Way to a Happy, Obedient Dog (2007), is still heavy on outdated, erroneous dominance theory Immediately following their suggestion that "a kindly, gentle look tells the dog she is loved and accepted," they say "But it is just as vital to communicate a stern reaction to bad behavior. A piercing, sustained stare into a dogs eyes tells her who's in charge; it establishes the proper hierarchy of dominance between person and pet." (Its also a great way to unwittingly elicit a strong aggressive response if you choose the wrong dog as the subject for your piercing, sustained stare.) Despite the strong emergence of positive reinforcement-based training in the last 20 years, the Monks don't seem to have grasped that the "respect" part needs to go both ways for a truly compassionate communion with your dog. Perhaps one of these days ...
BIRTH OF MODERN TRAINING ERA
Just when it seemed that dog training had completely stagnated in turn-of-the-century military-style dominance-theory training, marine mammal trainer Karen Pryor wrote her seminal book, Don't Shoot the Dog. Published in 1985, this small, unassuming volume was intended as a self-help book for human behavior. The author never dreamed that her modest book, paired with a small plastic box that made a clicking sound, would launch a massive paradigm shift in the world of dog training and behavior. But it did.
Forward progress was slow until 1993, when veterinary behaviorist Dr. Ian Dunbar founded the Association of Pet Dog Trainers. Dunbar's vision of a forum for trainer education and networking has developed into an organization that now boasts nearly 6,000 members worldwide. While membership in the APDT is not restricted to positive reinforcement-based trainers, included in its guiding principles is this statement:
"We promote the use of reward-based training methods, thereby minimizing the use of aversive techniques."
The establishment of this forum facilitated the rapid spread of information in the dog training world, enhanced by the creation of an online discussion list where members could compare notes and offer support for a scientific and dog-friendly approach to training.
Things were starting to look quite rosy for our dogs. The positive market literally mushroomed with books and videos from dozens of quality training and behavior professionals, including Jean Donaldson, Dr. Patricia McConnell, Dr. Karen Overall, Suzanne Hetts, and others. With advances in positive training and an increasingly educated dog training profession embracing the science of behavior and learning and passing good information on to their clients, pain-causing, abusive methods such as the alpha roll, scruff shake, hanging, drowning, and cuffing appeared to be headed the way of the passenger pigeon.
A STEP BACKWARD
Then, in the fall of 2004, the National Geographic Channel launched its soon-to-be wildly popular show, The Dog Whisperer. Dominance theory was back in vogue, with a vengeance. Today, everything from housetraining mistakes to jumping up to counter surfing to all forms of aggression is likely to be attributed to "dominance" by followers of the alpha-resurgence.
"But," some will argue, "look at all the dogs who have been successfully trained throughout the past century using the dominance model. Those trainers can't be all wrong."
In fact, harsh force-based methods (in technical parlance, "positive punishment") are a piece of operant conditioning, and as the decades have proven, those methods can work. They are especially good at shutting down behaviors - convincing a dog that it's not safe to do anything unless instructed to do something. And yes, that works with some dogs. With others, not so much.
My own personal, unscientific theory is that dog personalities lie on a continuum from very soft to very tough. Harsh, old-fashioned dominance-theory methods can effectively suppress behaviors without obvious fallout (although there is always behavioral fallout) with dogs nearest the center of the personality continuum - those who are resilient enough to withstand the punishment, but not so tough and assertive that they fight back. Under dominance theory, when a dog fights back, you must fight back harder until he submits, in order to assert yourself as the pack leader, or alpha.
Problem is, sometimes they don't submit, and the level of violence escalates. Or they submit for the moment, but may erupt aggressively again the next time a human does something violent and inappropriate to them. Under dominance-theory training, those dogs are often deemed incorrigible, not suitable for the work they're being trained for nor safe as a family companion, and sentenced to death. Had they never been treated inappropriately, many might have been perfectly fine.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, a very "soft" dog can be easily psychologically damaged by one enthusiastic inappropriate assertion of rank by a heavy-handed dominance trainer. This dog quickly shuts down - fearful and mistrusting of the humans in his world who are unpredictably and unfairly violent.
Most crossover trainers (those who used to train with old-fashioned methods and now are proud to promote positive reinforcement-based training) will tell you they successfully trained lots of dogs the old way. They loved their dogs and their dogs loved them.
I'm a crossover trainer and I know that's true. I also would dearly love to be able to go back and redo all of that training, to be able to have an even better relationship with those dogs, to give them a less stressful life - one filled with even more joy than the one we shared together.
WE'RE NOT DOGS-AND THEY KNOW IT
Finally, the very presumption that our dogs would even consider we humans to be members of their canine pack is simply ludicrous. They know how impossibly inept we are, for the most part, at reading and understanding the subtleties of canine body language. We are equally inept, if not even more so, at trying to mimic those subtleties. Any attempts on our part to somehow insert ourselves into their social structure and communicate meaningfully with them in this manner are simply doomed to failure. It's about time we gave up trying to be dogs in a dog pack and accepted that we are humans co-existing with another species - and that we're most successful doing so when we co-exist peacefully.
The fact is, successful social groups work because of voluntary deference, not because of aggressively enforced dominance. The whole point of social body language rituals is to avoid conflict and confrontation, not to cause it. Watch any group of dogs interacting. Time and time again you'll see dogs deferring to each other. It's not even always the same dog deferring:
Dog B: Hey, I'd really like to go first. Dog A: "By all means, be my guest." Dog B passes down the narrow hallway.
Dog A: "I'd really like to have that bone." Dog B: "Oh sure - I didn't feel like chewing right now anyway." Dog A gets the bone.
Social hierarchies do exist in groups of domesticated dogs and in many other species, including humans, and hierarchy can be fluid. As described above, one dog may be more assertive in one encounter, and more deferent in the next, depending on what's at stake, and how strongly each dog feels about the outcome. There are a myriad of subtleties about how those hierarchies work, and how the members of a social group communicate - in any species.
Today, educated trainers are aware that canine-human interactions are not driven by social rank, but rather by reinforcement. Behaviors that are reinforced repeat and strengthen. If your dog repeats an inappropriate behavior such as counter surfing or getting on the sofa, it's not because he's trying to take over the world; it's just because he's been reinforced by finding food on the counter, or by being comfortable on the sofa. He's a scavenger and an opportunist, and the goods are there for the taking. Figure out how to prevent him from being reinforced for the behaviors you don't want, and reinforce him liberally for the ones you do, and you're well on your way to having the relationship of mutual love, respect, communication, and communion that we all want to have with our dogs.
DOG BEHAVIORS THAT ARE COMMONLY MISIDENTIFIED AS "DOMINANT" DOMINANCE APPROACH Dog jumps up on Explanation - Dog is trying to be dominant. people to greet them. Solutions - Positive punishment: Make jumping up painful or uncomfortable. Knee dog in chest, step on his hind feet, grasp his paws and squeeze to make him uncomfortable. Problems with dominance approach - * May cause injury to the dog. * May teach the dog to be fearful of people. * You can condition the dog to find people handling his paws aversive. Dog growls when Explanation - Dog is being dominant. being handled or restrained. Solutions - Positive punishment: Scruff shake, cuff, alpha roll, forced restraint. Negative reinforcement: Restrain dog until he submits, then release him (submitting makes the bad thing -restraint-go away). Problems with dominance approach - * May elicit escalating aggression. * May damage your dog's trust in you and other humans. * May teach the dog you and other humans are dangerous. * It doesn't teach the dog to like handling and restraint. He's still tense about it, so potential for future resistance exists. Dog pulls on Explanation - Dog is being alpha (alpha always leash. goes first). Solutions - Force dog to walk behind you with tight leash, leash jerks, aversive sounds. Use pain-causing equipment such as choke chains, prong collars, shock collars. Problems with dominance approach - * It is false that high-ranking member of the social group always goes first. * Jerking on leash may cause long-term damage to dog's neck and spine. * Use of aversives (sounds, physical punishment, leash jerks, shock) may damage relationship and dog's confidence, and may give the dog a negative association with passing stimuli, causing reactive/aggressive behavior. POSITIVE APPROACH Dog jumps up on Explanation - Dog is trying to get your attention people to greet and/or greet you. He has been reinforced for them. jumping up because it gets human attention. Solutions - Negative punishment: Take away all reinforcement for jumping up. Turn away, step away, walk away. Jumping up makes good stuff go away. Management: Use a tether, leash, or barrier to prevent reinforcement. Positive reinforcement: Reinforce appropriate greeting behaviors such as "sit" (either asked for or offered). Polite greeting makes good stuff happen. Dog growls when Explanation - Dog is uncomfortable being being handled or restrained, and (perhaps) has learned that restrained. growling can make restraint stop. Solutions - Use counter-conditioning to give the dog a new, positive association with handling and restraint. Touch, feed a treat; touch, feed a treat; gradually increasing length and pressure of touch as he comes to accept and enjoy it. Dog pulls on Explanation - Dog wants to get to where he wants leash. to go faster than boring two-legged human can move. Pulling often succeeds in getting him there, so pulling has been reinforced. Solutions - Prevent reinforcement for pulling by stopping when dog pulls, or backing up ("penalty yards") without jerking on the leash. Positive reinforcement: Reinforce loose leash generously, at first with every step, with high-value treats and forward progress, gradually reducing frequency of treats as loose-leash walking behavior increases.
RELATED ARTICLE: Comments on "alpha" dominance theory
There is a growing body of information available to anyone who wants to learn more about why dominance theory is so outdated and incorrect. Here are 10 resources to get you started:
1 The American Society of Veterinary Animal Behaviorists Position Statement on Dominance: "The AVSAB recommends that veterinarians not refer clients to trainers or behavior consultants who coach and advocate dominance hierarchy theory, and the subsequent confrontational training that follows from it. (tinyurl.com/avsabdominance)
2 The Association of Pet Dog Trainers Position Statement on Dominance: "The APDT's position is that physical or psychological intimidation hinders effective training and damages the relationship between humans and dogs. Dogs thrive in an environment that provides them with clear structure and communication regarding appropriate behaviors; and one in which their need for mental and physical stimulation is addressed. The APDT advocates training dogs with an emphasis on rewarding desired behaviors and discouraging undesirable behaviors using clear and consistent instructions and avoiding psychological and physical intimidation. Techniques that create a confrontational relationship between dogs and humans are outdated" (apdt.com/about/ps/dominance.aspx)
3 Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist Kathy Sdao: " ... Even if dogs did form linear packs, there's no evidence to suggest that they perceive humans as part of their species-specific ranking. In general, humans lack the capability to even recognize, let alone replicate, the elegant subtleties of canine body language. So it's hard to imagine that dogs could perceive us as pack members at all." (tinyurl.com/kathysdaodominance)
4 Dr. Patricia McConnell, PhD, ethologist: "People who argue that ethology supports 'getting dominance over your dog' are not only focused on an issue more relevant 50 years ago than today, they are misrepresenting the findings of early researchers on social hierarchy. Social hierarchies are complicated things that allow animals to live together and resolve conflicts without having to use force every time a conflict comes up." (4pawsu.com/pmdominance.htm)
5 Dr. Meghan Herron, DVM: "Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them, or intimidating them with physical manipulation such as alpha rolls [holding dogs on their back], do little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses." (tinyurl.com/meghanherrondominance)
6 Low Stress Handling, Restraint, and Behavior Modification of Dogs and Cats, by Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM: " ... dogs jumping on people are not vying for higher rank; they are simply jumping because they want attention and they often get it by doing so. When dogs jump on counters to steal food ... despite having been punished previously when you are present, they are using an alternate strategy for obtaining food and getting the chance to investigate ... These unruly behaviors occur not because the animals are vying for rank but because the behaviors have been rewarded in the past."
7 Study - University of Bristol: 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." (tinyurl.com/univbristoldominance)
8 The Culture Clash, by Jean Donaldson 1996, 2005, James and Kenneth Publishing): "The dominance panacea is so out of proportion that entire schools of training are based on the premise that if you can just exert adequate dominance over the dog, everything else will fall into place. Not only does it mean that incredible amounts of abuse are going to be perpetrated against any given dog, probably exacerbating problems like unreliable recalls and biting, but the real issues, like well-executed conditioning and the provision of an adequate environment, are going to go unaddressed, resulting in a still-untrained dog, perpetuating the pointless dominance program."
9 Dominance in Dogs: Fact or Fiction, by Barry Eaton (2011, Dogwise Publishing): " ... The alpha wolf is not the dictator of a pack, but a benevolent leader, and domestic dogs are not dictatorial and are unlikely to try to raise their status to rule over other dogs in a pack environment."
"I believe it's time to open our minds and consider the concept of pack rules as a thing of the past and recognize that dogs are not constantly trying to dominate their owners."
10 Dominance Theory and Dogs, by James O'Heare (2008, 2nd edition, Dogwise Publishing): " ... while the notion of social dominance holds potential for value in a social psychology and ethology context, it is an insidious idea with regards to explaining and changing behavior between companion dogs or dogs and people ... it should be abandoned completely in that context in favor of a more efficient, effective and scientifically defensible behavioral approach."
From an interview: "The most significant problem with viewing dog-human relationships in the context of social dominance is that it implies and promotes an adversarial relationship between the two. It sets up a win-lose scenario, that actually ends up in a lose-lose scenario (as most win-lose scenarios do). It is incompatible with cooperation by its very nature, cooperation being something you need to promote an effective bond and training environment."
RELATED ARTICLE: The four principles of operant conditioning
POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT: The dog's behavior makes something good happen. "Positive," in behavioral terms, means something is added. "Reinforcement" means the behavior increases. When your dog sits, you feed him a treat His behavior (sitting) made something good happen, something was added (the treat). As a result, your dog is more likely to offer to sit again, so the behavior increases. Positive trainers use positive reinforcement a lot.
POSITIVE PUNISHMENT: The dog's behavior makes something bad happen. (Positive means something is added, punishment means the behavior decreases.) Example: When your dog jumps on you knee him hard in the chest. He gets off. His behavior (jumping up) made something bad happen; something was added (your knee in his chest). As a result, your dog is more likely to think twice before jumping on you again. "Positive trainers" do not use positive punishment very much, if at all.
NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT: The dog's behavior makes something good go away. (Negative = something is taken away; punishment = the behavior decreases.) When your dog jumps up, you turn your back and step away. His behavior (jumping) made something good (your attention) go away. Positive trainers use negative punishment as a mild negative consequence for unwanted behavior.
NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT: The dog's behavior makes something bad go away. (Negative means something is taken away; reinforcement increases the behavior.) Example: A trainer wants a dog who is lying down to sit. He pulls the dog's leash upward, tightening the collar. When the dog sits up, the trainer slacks the leash. The dog's behavior (sitting) makes the bad thing (the tightened collar) go away. Positive trainers may use a limited amount of negative reinforcement in the form of mild physical pressure, or sub-threshold presentation of an aversive stimulus (CAT).
BY PAT MILLER, CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, CDBC
Pat Miller, CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, CDBC, is WDJ's Training Editor. Author of numerous books on positive dog training, she lives in Fairplay, Maryland, site of her Peaceable Paws training center, where she offers dog training classes and courses for trainers. See "Resources," page 24, for more information.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Whole Dog Journal|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2011|
|Previous Article:||Coming up a bit short: sometimes a diet looks complete at first glance, but nutrient calculators reveal deficiencies.|
|Next Article:||Addison's disease; adding "real" foods; canned plants.|