by Pawsitive Coach
Photo: Patrice Schoefelt.
What is pack theory?
Pack theory, or Dominance theory, states that dogs, like wolves, are pack animals that follow a social structure which includes an 'Alpha dog', one that controls and ‘dominates’ the pack.
The spread of Pack theory has led to common misconceptions about dogs, namely the popular belief that when a dog is being disobedient, it is trying to establish “dominance” over its owner, that it wants to be the pack leader. Pack theory is commonly cited by trainers advocating the use of techniques aiming to lead the dogs to submission for the purpose of achieving obedience. Such techniques often involve the use of more or less aversive methods (for example the ‘alpha roll’) in order to show the dog who the ‘alpha’ is (1).
The theory has been heavily criticised by the modern scientific, veterinary and dog trainer community with the emergence of new information both on learning theory and on the social structure of dogs and even wolves (2, 3).
Unfortunately, the theory continues to hold popularity, partly owing to televised dog trainers who still advocate for dominance as a training method.
What scientific evidence do we have for/against pack theory?
Other than the obvious ethical implications of some of the techniques used by trainers claiming to follow pack theory, particularly when it comes to tools or gestures designed to inflict pain or fear, the two main scientific considerations making pack theory-based training methods obsolete and outdated are:
1. Pack theory was based on a study of wolves’ behaviour in captivity, the applicability of which in dogs has been heavily debunked by the same person who published the study.
The study, by Rudolph Schenkel (5), placed wolves taken from different zoos, who had never met each other, together in an artificial setting, and so a hierarchy was formed.
It was erroneously assumed that a hierarchy would be formed in the same way in wild wolves, which were thought to only come together in the winter for hunting. The original study was cited in a popular book by biologist Lucyan D. Mech (6) which fuelled the spread of the ‘alpha theory’.
However, following his own further research, Mech realised that the social structure in wolves in the wild was in fact entirely different to that observed in captivity by Schenkel.
Despite his pleads for his book to be withdrawn, Mech’s book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species” is still being printed and sold to this day.
Mech himself later issued new publications in which he described and explained that wolves in the wild actually behave in a way very similar to human families, with parental figures rather than an ‘alpha’ role (7, 8), which led to the Nuclear Family theory. However, the myths about pack theory’s applicability to dogs had already begun to spread. It is also worth highlighting that the theory was based on wolves. We know that there are behavioural differences between wolves and dogs including the way in which they interact with humans (9, 10), that humans have heavily influenced with selective breeding, and which makes it difficult to reliably apply behavioural theories observed in wolves to dogs.
2. Pack theory’s common applications often involve punishment, which has been extensively shown to be less effective than positive reinforcement.
Trainers who follow pack theory often (though not always, in case the "not all..." police arrive) advocate for aversive and/or confrontational methods such as ‘alpha rolling’, prong collars, choke chains, and shock collars or refer to themselves as ‘balanced trainers’ as a blanket term to say that they use punishment as a training method.
These tools are designed to inflict painful stimuli as punishment, or in some cases, they are used for negative reinforcement (i.e., taking away a painful stimulus as a ‘reward’ for good behaviour).
There is extensive evidence that positive reinforcement methods are more effective than positive punishment methods (11), and furthermore, that dogs treated with stimuli which induce pain or fear are more likely to develop behavioural problems (12), so even if punishment did treat the symptom (which it doesn’t), it wouldn’t address the cause and would likely make the underlying cause worse.
Research has demonstrated, for example, that shock collars are no more effective and may lead to a higher stress response in dogs than teaching the same skill with positive reinforcement (13).
We also know that using dominance techniques such as the aforementioned ones can lead to fear and aggression which in some cases can be dangerous to the handlers, in addition to the physical, psychological and general welfare implications it has on the dogs (14, 15).
Is dominance not a thing at all in dogs?
This is a more difficult question. Amongst dogs, i.e. between two dogs, there is something similar to a social relationship which some refer to as a social rank. The older dog (or the dog who has been in the household the longest) may 'rank' more highly than the new arrival, however, things get more complicated with the interplay of hormones.
Without going into too much detail which would warrant a separate post, some believe that puppies learn social etiquette during the key socialisation period (between 3 and around 14 weeks, although the specific time depends on each dog) and if they don't, they may continue to behave in a boisterous way that is 'disrespectful' to older dogs past the age where senior dogs are willing to tolerate this, and that this can cause fights (20).
This could be described as a 'dominance' issue (and indeed "dominance aggression" is cited in several textbooks, although some argue that it tends to be due to something else, such as resource guarding), but the important thing to note here is that this happens between dogs, not between a dog and a human.
What conclusions can we draw?
As mentioned above, painful methods of punishment can of course be viewed as unethical and that is indeed my personal standpoint. However, as ethical values are subjective, this may not be considered as strong an argument against using Dominance Theory-based methods as other more factual ones and for this reason, I have mostly focused on enlisting scientific evidence that debunks dominance theory and its applications.
What can be said based on scientific research, however, is that the negative impact of aversive methods on dogs’ mental and physical well-being and the repercussions on their relationship with their human handlers are certainly significant (16–19) and should be considered, particularly since there is minimal evidence to support the efficacy of such methods over positive reinforcement-based ones and where the scientific community has ubiquitously refuted the original Pack theory that they were derived from.
When choosing a trainer or a behaviourist, owners should make sure they are qualified (in the UK, this will usually mean they are registered with a reputable organisation such as the IMDT/IMDTB or the APDT/APBC) and follow force-free, positive-reinforcement based methods.
Looking for a behaviourist/trainer? Get in touch.
Dr Miriam Carone, MBBS, GPST, IMDTB
References
1. Kerkhove,W. van (2010) A Fresh Look at the Wolf-Pack Theory of Companion-Animal Dog Social Behavior. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0704_7, 7, 279–285.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0704_7
2. Yin,S. (2009) Dominance vs. unruly behavior. The APDT Chronicle of the Dog.
3. AVSAB (2009) Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals. American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior.
4. Millan,C. and Peltier,M.J. (2009) Be the pack leader.
5. R. Schenkel (1947) Captivity Observations. Expression Studies on Wolves.
6. Mech,L.D. (1968) Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species First. University Of Minnesota Press, Minnesota.
7. Mech,L.D. (2008) Whatever happened to the term alpha wolf? International wolf.
8. Mech,L.D. (1999) Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Wolf.
9. Heberlein,M.T.E., Turner,D.C., Range,F. and Virányi,Z. (2016) A comparison between wolves, Canis lupus, and dogs, Canis familiaris, in showing behaviour towards humans. Animal Behaviour, 122, 59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2016.09.023
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27974861
10. Dá M Mikló Si,A.´, Kubinyi,E., Zsef Topá,J., Rta Gá,M., Fia Virá Nyi,Z. and Csá Nyi,V. (2003) A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do control for effects of the differential level of socialization to humans and thus resulted in potentially misleading interpretations. Current Biology, 13, 763–766.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S
11. Hiby,E.F., Rooney,N.J. and Bradshaw,J.W.S. (2004) Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 63–69.
12. Herron,M.E., Shofer,F.S. and Reisner,I.R. (2009) Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117, 47–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2008.12.011
13. Cooper,J.J., Cracknell,N., Hardiman,J., Wright,H. and Mills,D. (2014) The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training. PLoS ONE, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0102722
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25184218
14. Shalvey,E., McCorry,M. and Hanlon,A. (2019) Exploring the understanding of best practice approaches to common dog behaviour problems by veterinary professionals in Ireland. Irish Veterinary Journal, 72.
https://doi.org/10.1186/S13620-019-0139-3
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30949341
15. Blackwell,E.J., Twells,C., Seawright,A. and Casey,R.A. (2008) The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3, 207–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVEB.2007.10.008
16. Schilder,M.B.H. and Van Der Borg,J.A.M. (2004) Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85, 319–334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2003.10.004
17. Vieira de Castro,A.C., Fuchs,D., Morello,G.M., Pastur,S., de Sousa,L. and Olsson,I.A.S. (2020) Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15, e0225023.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023
18. Vieira de Castro,A.C., Barrett,J., de Sousa,L. and Olsson,I.A.S. (2019) Carrots versus sticks: The relationship between training methods and dog-owner attachment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 219, 104831.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2019.104831
19. Guilherme Fernandes,J., Olsson,I.A.S. and Vieira de Castro,A.C. (2017) Do aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare?: A literature review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 196, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2017.07.001
20. Dunbar,I. (2001) After You Get Your Puppy: The Clock is Ticking! James & Kenneth Publishers, Berkeley.