Patricia McConnell Seminar: The D Word

Do dogs have dominance hierarchies? Do wolves? And does it matter?

Many people argue that canine behavior can be explained by dominance- or its flipside, submission. Books have been written, television shows have been produced, and there are arguments all over the internet about “the D word.”

One of the biggest problems with the concept of dominance is that the term has been so overused (and, Patricia argues, misused) that it doesn’t mean much at all anymore. I have coworkers who talk about how dominant (or submissive) their dog is, and I’m often left wondering just what exactly they mean by that. And Maisy? Well, I’m just thankful they’ve never asked me to categorize her.

Scientists describe dominance as “priority access to a preferred, limited resource.” In other words- if there are two dogs and one beefy bone, who gets it? Which dog will stubbornly insist it’s his, and which will defer to the other’s assertion? This definition is very narrow, and the concept of dominance is really only relevant when there is competition over a resource.

But it's not just any resource. What if one dog doesn’t really care who gets the bone? Maybe he’d fight for a hunk of chicken, but doesn’t care enough about the bone to go head-to-head for it. Dominance really depends on the resource in question. Is it a preferred resource? If not, then it's not dominance.

That other word- limited- is also important. If there is only one bone, we’ve got a problem, but if there are two dogs and twenty bones? Well, both dogs are likely going to get a bone. The resources aren't limited enough to create competition, and again, there’s no need to assert dominance.

If you’re getting the feeling that dominance is very context specific, you’re right, but it gets even more specific because dominance is determined on a case-by-case basis. Unlike in birds, dominance hierarchies in most mammals are not linear. There is no “pecking order.” Just as I can get my way with my husband only to have to defer to my boss, Maisy might be willing to take on Fido to get the bone, and then submit to Rover. In other words: the term dominance describes a relationship between two individuals, not personality.

So, do wild canids have dominance hierarchies? It depends on the canid, of course. Patricia told us that foxes have dominance relationships dependent on the resource base- in months where there are plenty of small critters, the need for dominance is much smaller than in leaner times. Coyotes tend to be “faculatively social,” with only some signs of dominance and submission. And wolves? Well...

Much has been written about dominance in wolves, to the point that the notion of an “alpha wolf” long ago entered the popular lexicon. But many of the studies of dominance in wolves were based on captive situations. L. David Mech, the man who did some of the most well-known studies, went on to study wild wolves and found that they tend to live in family systems, not packs of unrelated wolves. To become the leader, the alpha wolf, requires reproduction more than dominance. The differences are profound; a family member can leave if there is conflict, a captive wolf cannot. As a result, Mech has now gone on record as saying that the term “alpha” really only applies to captive situations which require extreme signaling and displays in order to maintain harmony in a very unnatural situation.

We’ve already talked about how wolves and dogs are very different, both physically and behaviorally. So does this mean that we should drop the concepts of dominance and submission for dogs entirely? Both Bradshaw and Coppinger suggest that we do. Bradshaw even says that dogs don’t have the cognitive ability for status. Instead, he talks about “resource holding potential,” which seems like a nice way to discuss “the d-word” without all the baggage that comes along.

Patricia shared that she believes there is some sort of dominance/submission relationship between dogs. After all, when there’s two dogs, someone has to get the bone. She has also seen puppies who seem very interested in controlling resources at an early age- so much so that she thinks there is probably a genetic component to this tendency.

She’s not entirely sure what to call the tendency though. Do you call it “controlling resources”? “Status seeking”? “Dominant”? No matter the words chosen, though, one thing is clear: the concept as a whole is just not useful in living with dogs. Our dogs are very rarely in competition for resources with us, and failing to respond to our commands has nothing to do with who could win the bone- it has to do with training.

Nor is dominance related to aggression, at least not in the sense that aggressive dogs must therefore be dominant. Aggression can be a way to win the bone, but so can groveling. There’s a pretty big difference in the tactics of Gaddafi and those of Ghandi, and yet both could get priority access to desired resources.

I’m very thankful my coworkers have never asked me if Maisy is a “dominant dog.” I honestly don’t know how to answer the question. It just doesn’t come up in our relationship. Part of this is probably because I view her as a teammate or partner; we work together to achieve our goals. She has the freedom to request things she wants, and I am free to say no... or more likely, to spoil her rotten. It doesn’t seem to matter, really. If she is “dominating” me, then it is with my permission… and enjoyment.

If You Want to Know More
Dog Sense, by John Bradshaw
Dogs, by Raymond Coppinger and Lorna Coppinger
L. David Mech's website- complete with links to articles and videos

Patricia's Own Blog Posts on the Subject:
The Concept Formerly Deseribed as Dominance
Dogs and Dominance: What's a Person to Do?
Dog Training and the D Word
Dominance Mythologies (Patricia's summary of a presentation by Suzanne Hetts)

Patricia McConnell Seminar: Behaviors with a Genetic Influence

The Labrador’s desire to retrieve. The Great Pyrenees and his devotion to his flock. The Border Collie’s infamous eye. There is no doubt that each breed of dog shares more than physical similarities: they also share behavioral tendencies, a fact which clearly demonstrates that a dog’s genetics contributes to the way he acts.

But beyond breed-related predispositions, what other behaviors can be inherited? Patricia identified five, although she freely admitted that two of them are based on personal speculation alone. The other three have some science that show they tend to be pretty stable over time.

The first, and possibly the most researched, is shyness. Shyness is not the same as docility. It has nothing to do with submission. And it doesn’t really tell you how the dog will act. Shyness, scientifically speaking, has to do with fear of the unfamiliar.

This behavioral trait is actually a continuum, with shyness at one end and boldness at the other. It is influenced by the level of cortisol, the HPA axis, and the activity of the amygdala. A study by Goldsmith and Lemery demonstrated that it is surprisingly stable through an individual’s life. They discovered a correlation between a child’s cortisol baseline and his mother’s, and found that the baseline level taken one and a half years before a child started school could predict a teacher’s evaluation of inhibition at age seven.

In other words, shyness is strongly linked to genes, and is incredibly easy to pass on. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the child (or monkey or rat or cat- all have been studied) who runs from something new and unfamiliar stands a better chance of surviving than the one who boldly investigates strange and potentially dangerous things. It also makes sense then that shyness is expressed early in an individual’s development. Patricia shared that Margaret Seary Young found it was the only trait reliably predicted on puppy tests.

Reactivity is “mediated by physiology,” Patricia told us, and it is therefore logical that it would be influenced by genetics. Reactivity here does not refer to the bark-growl-lunge type of behavior problem that we dog people usually define it as. In this case, it simply has to do with how quickly and how much a dog responds to its environment.

Reactivity can be desirable in certain contexts- a herding dog that doesn’t have a short reaction time probably won’t be very good at his job. On the other hand, there are times where you need a “bomb-proof” dog who doesn’t really notice, much less respond to, what’s going on around him.

It’s also important to know that reactivity is separate from the shy/bold continuum. A very bold dog might notice and respond quickly to his environment, although he will probably do it in very different ways than the shy dog does.

Another behavioral trait that seems to have a genetic influence is frustration tolerance because it is mediated, in part, by the amygdala. However, there also appears to be a strong environmental component to frustration tolerance as well. Who can’t relate to being more irritable when tired, hungry, or in pain?

A dog who is having difficulty tolerating frustration is more likely to act out aggressively. Interestingly, aggressive dogs typically show lower amounts of serotonin and higher concentrations of cortisol, which also suggests there's a link to genes.

The last two behaviors are the ones that don’t (yet) have any scientific research to back up: predisposition to use mouth and status seeking. Both of these traits are things that Patricia has observed enough to believe they are genetically inherited. For the first, she says it just makes sense. Australian Cattle Dogs, for example, would need to use their mouths in order to herd cows. As for status seeking, Patricia said there seem to be puppies that are interested in controlling resources at a very early age… but more on that soon.

It’s clear that there are a number of behavioral traits that have at least some genetic influence. They go beyond just breed-related tendencies, and help explain why two dogs of the same breed can act quite different from one another. Of course, we already know that the environment is an important factor, too. In my next entry on the seminar, I’ll tell you about some of those factors, including in utero experiences, early stimulation, and socialization.

If You Want to Know More

• Linking temperamental fearfulness and anxiety symptoms: a behavior-genetic perspective, an article by Goldsmith and Lemery
• The genetic contribution to canine personality, by Saetre et al This study found that shyness/boldness has a strong genetic component.
• Shyness-boldness predicts performance in working dogs, by Svartberg
• Blood concentrations of serotonin, cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone in aggressive dogs, a study by Rosado et al
• Breed Differences in Canine Aggression, a surprising article by Duffy, Hsu, and Serpell
• Behavior Problems in Dogs, by William Campbell, the book which introduced the concepts of “passive defense reflex” and “active defense reflex.”