Why Dominance Fails as a Scientific Concept in Dogs

1. Where the Alpha Model Came From

1.1 Captive Wolves

The model rests on one assumption: that wolves live in rigid linear hierarchies maintained by ongoing aggression, and that dogs inherited the same social imperative.

The observations behind it came from unrelated wolves confined together in enclosures — animals that could neither disperse nor form natural family units. Rudolph Schenkel's zoo studies in the 1940s described intense competition for rank among such groups and produced the term that later became "alpha."

1.2 What Wild Wolves Actually Do

L. David Mech, who did more than anyone to popularize the term, subsequently spent years observing wolves in the wild and reached a different conclusion. Mech (1999) describes wild packs as family units: a breeding pair and their offspring from the previous one to three years. The animals labeled "alpha" are simply the parents. Younger wolves do not fight their parents for control; they disperse to find mates and start families of their own, and sustained contests for rank are rare.

Mech has since argued repeatedly that inferring natural wolf behavior from captive groups of unrelated animals is a methodological error — roughly comparable to inferring family dynamics from people housed together under duress. The hierarchical aggression observed in enclosures is a product of the housing, not a description of wolf society.

1.3 What the Correction Does Not Mean

The captive-wolf finding was a methodological error about which animals were observed, not a verdict on wolf research. Decades of wild-wolf work stand, and the same researcher who popularized the alpha term produced much of it. What failed was the transfer: observations of unrelated wolves in enclosures were carried across to domestic dogs without either correction being applied.

Nor does any of this mean dominance does not exist. The construct describes something real in some social relationships, and Chapter 6 sets out where it has been measured in dogs. The defensible claim is narrower: dominance is not a suitable explanatory model for most of the problems that bring dogs to training (what it takes to turn a label into a measurable claim).

1.4 Why the Correction Did Not Travel

The captive findings entered popular culture in the 1970s and 1980s and were amplified through training books and television long before the wild-pack correction was published — and the corrected version is considerably less dramatic. This is a case where the science moved and the popular model did not.

1.5 Why This Article Argues Two Things at Once

Two claims are easy to confuse and are argued separately here. The first is that the alpha model — a rank order encompassing humans, expressed through everyday household behaviors, correctable by confrontation — has no empirical support. The second is that dominance as an ethological construct describes something real in dogs.

Both are true, and treating the second as a defense of the first is the most common misreading in this debate.

2. Why Dogs Are Not Small Wolves

2.1 Dogs Are Not Small Wolves

Even a correct account of wolf social structure would not transfer straightforwardly to dogs. Domestication has altered social organization, ecological niche, and the relationship to humans.

Dogs have been selected over millennia for reduced aggression toward humans, increased sociability, and heightened sensitivity to human communicative signals (which is why they read human gestures as well as they do). They do not depend on coordinated pack hunting. They occupy a niche in which cooperation with humans, not competition for rank within a conspecific group, is the adaptive strategy — a disposition shaped further by early social experience (during the sensitive period).

The practical consequence is that dogs accept human control of resources readily and without coercion. Nothing in the ethology requires an owner to establish rank through force (and breed differences shape this less than commonly assumed).

2.2 What Domestication Changed and What It Did Not

The argument that dogs are not wolves is sometimes overstated into a claim that dogs have no social structure at all. The free-ranging evidence discussed later contradicts that, and the more careful version is narrower: what dogs inherited from wolves is not a pack system built around breeding suppression and cooperative hunting.

Free-ranging dogs form groups with multiple breeding individuals, scavenge rather than hunt cooperatively, and raise young without the alloparental system that structures a wolf pack. Those differences are what make the wolf analogy fail, not an absence of social organization (as the free-ranging literature describes for dog-dog life).

2.3 The Household Is a Third Case

Neither the wolf pack nor the free-ranging group describes a household with two neutered dogs, scheduled meals, no reproductive competition and no resource scarcity. Almost every variable that structures the social systems studied in the literature has been removed.

Extrapolating from either to a living room is the error the alpha model makes with wolves and the corrective literature occasionally makes in reverse. Free-ranging findings are the better analogy of the two and they are still an analogy.

3. What Dominance Means in Ethology — and What the Popular Model Gets Wrong

3.1 A Property of Relationships

In ethology, dominance is not a personality trait. In the ethological sense it is a property of a relationship, defined by priority access to contested resources and identified by the direction of formal status signals — which individual consistently signals submission to which.

It is also context-dependent. A dog that retains a bone against a housemate may defer completely in other situations. Describing a dog as "a dominant dog" mistakes a relationship variable for a trait, which is a category error before it is an empirical one.

3.2 Between Species, the Concept Does Not Apply Cleanly

Dominance describes competition within a social group for the same resources. Dogs and humans do not occupy the same ecological niche and are not structured around contested priority access in the way a dog–dog relationship can be. Applying the term to human–dog relationships is not standard scientific usage.

3.3 What the Popular Model Claims, and Why Each Claim Fails

That dogs continually test humans for rank. There is no evidence for this, and it requires a motivational system nobody has demonstrated.

That non-compliance indicates a rank challenge. Most problem behavior is driven by fear, anxiety, frustration, conflict, high arousal, pain, or straightforward reinforcement history (and pain in particular is regularly misread as attitude).

That physical intimidation is the remedy. Alpha rolls, leash jerks, and scruff shaking are positive punishment; compliance to end them is negative reinforcement. Both raise stress rather than resolving what produced the behavior.

That dogs will not defer without force. They defer readily to predictable, resource-controlling humans without any of it, because cooperation that pays is reinforcing in its own right (through the same reward systems that drive all canine learning).

4. The Live Scientific Debate

4.1 The Published Exchange

This is where popular anti-dominance writing tends to overstate its case, and it is worth getting right.

Bradshaw, Blackwell and Casey (2009) argued that dominance is a poor framework for understanding companion dog behavior and proposed alternatives grounded in learning history and individual relationships. Schilder, Vinke and van der Borg (2014) responded that formal dominance is present in domestic dogs, expressed through context-independent unidirectional status signals, and that the construct remains useful when properly defined. Bradshaw, Blackwell and Casey (2015) then replied, distinguishing the well-established use of dominance in the ethology of wild species from its contested use in dogs as a character trait or motivational description, and concluding that dominance is a property of relationships rather than a trait of individuals.

4.2 What Follows From It

Two things follow. First, the popular alpha model is not what any side of this exchange defends — even the researchers arguing that dominance is a useful construct are describing formal status signaling between cohabiting dogs, not a human–dog power contest. Second, anyone claiming the scientific question is entirely closed is overstating. What is closed is the application to human–dog relationships and the justification of force. What remains open is how much explanatory weight formal dominance carries in dog–dog social life.

4.3 Why Owners Recognize the Pattern Anyway

Owners of multi-dog households frequently describe consistent asymmetries: one dog reliably takes the resting place, the other yields (conflict between dogs in the same household). Those descriptions are usually accurate, and the critical literature is often heard as denying them.

It does not. What it disputes is the interpretation — that the asymmetry reflects a rank the dogs are contesting, that it generalizes across situations, and that it involves the humans (where guarding is treated on its own terms). Dismissing an owner's observation is both unnecessary and a reliable way to lose the conversation, since the observation is usually the accurate part.

4.4 The Definitional Problem in One Sentence

Dominance in ethology describes a relationship between two individuals in which one consistently yields; in popular usage it describes a trait of an animal. Those are different claims, and almost every disagreement in this area comes from one side using the first and the other hearing the second.

A dog cannot be dominant in the ethological sense any more than it can be married in the abstract — the term needs a second party and a history between them.

4.5 Why the Exchange Has Not Converged

Two research groups have now published critiques and responses across more than a decade without agreement (Bradshaw et al., 2009, 2015; Schilder et al., 2014; van der Borg et al., 2015). That is unusual enough to be worth explaining.

The disagreement is largely about what the construct should be used for. One side argues it is a poor explanatory model for household behavior; the other that it is a valid descriptive tool for dog-dog relationships. Both can be right, and the exchange reads as unresolvable partly because the two are answering different questions. That is worth knowing before quoting either side as the scientific consensus, which both are regularly used for.

4.6 What a Reader Should Do With an Unresolved Debate

The temptation is to pick the side that supports the practical conclusion already held, and the practical conclusion here does not need either side. Confrontational technique is contraindicated whether or not dominance is a useful construct in ethology.

Keeping the two separate is what allows an honest account of the science without weakening the training advice.

5. Why Dominance-Based Training Harms

5.1 The Learning Mechanism

Forcing a dog into submission is aversive by construction. When the dog complies to stop the pressure, that is escape learning. Neither procedure changes the emotional state that produced the original behavior; both add an aversive event to a situation the dog may already have found difficult.

5.2 The Canine Evidence

Herron, Shofer and Reisner (2009) surveyed 140 owners at a veterinary behavior referral service about techniques they had already tried. Confrontational interventions — striking or kicking, growling at the dog, alpha rolls, staring the dog down, physically forcing items from the mouth — each drew an aggressive response from at least a quarter of the dogs on which they were used. The study is retrospective owner recall in a referral population, which limits it, and it remains the most direct data available.

Vieira de Castro et al. (2020) found aversive-trained companion dogs slower to approach ambiguous locations in a judgment bias test, indicating a more negative mood state. Casey et al. (2021) replicated the pattern with a matched-pair design and larger sample. Rooney and Cowan (2011) add a result that is rarely quoted: dogs of owners reporting more punishment performed worse on a novel learning task — the methods do not merely cost welfare, they reduce learning capacity (the full neurological picture of aversive fallout).

5.3 Misdiagnosis

A dog that guards a bowl, growls at visitors, or pulls on leash is not pursuing status. Treating these as rank challenges directs punishment at behaviors that require counterconditioning, desensitization, management, or arousal work instead (and reactive behavior in particular is a state problem, not a status problem) (arousal being the constraint that most often decides whether training is possible at all).

5.4 Suppressed Warnings

A dog punished for growling learns not to growl. The fear remains, and the sequence that made a bite predictable has been removed. Schilder and van der Borg (2004) documented the underlying process in shock-trained guard dogs, who continued to show stress-related behavior in sessions where no shock occurred, having learned that the handler predicted it.

Where control is not merely absent but consistently unavailable, the relevant framework is the revised account of learned helplessness: passivity is the default response to prolonged uncontrollable adversity, and what gets learned is the presence of control (Maier & Seligman, 2016) (which is why a compliant dog is not necessarily a settled one).

5.5 Why the Model Produces Misdiagnosis Specifically

A framework that explains every conflict as rank contest supplies an answer before the question has been asked. A dog that growls when moved off the sofa gets one explanation regardless of whether it is guarding a resource, in pain when handled, frightened of the approach, or has learned that growling works.

Those four have different treatments and different prognoses. The alpha model collapses them into one, and its prescribed response — confrontation — is contraindicated for at least three of them (how aggression is assessed by function). For the fourth, learned growling, it works in the short term by suppressing the warning, which is the outcome nobody wants.

5.6 The Cost Falls on the Dog

Where a household follows this model and the behavior worsens, the usual conclusion is that the owner was not consistent enough, which prescribes more of the same. The dogs that reach a behavior referral by this route have typically been through several escalating rounds.

That trajectory is the strongest practical argument in the article, and it does not depend on settling the theoretical question at all. By the time such a dog is seen professionally, the behavior it started with has usually been replaced by something less predictable and harder to treat.

6. What Free-Ranging Dogs Show

6.1 The Strongest Objection to This Article

An article criticizing the blanket use of dominance as an explanation for dog behavior has to deal with the evidence for real dominance relationships between dogs, and there is some. The best of it comes from free-ranging dogs rather than from households or laboratories.

Leaving it out would make the case look stronger than it is, and an argument that only works while its best counter-evidence is omitted is not one worth publishing.

6.2 What Was Found

In a study of a free-ranging group, the agonistic-dominance hierarchy showed significant and substantial linearity. Agonistic rank order correlated positively and significantly with age, and there was prominent but nonexclusive male agonistic dominance within each age class (Cafazzo et al., 2010).

The relationships remained stable across different competitive contexts and across the behaviors considered, and access to food resources was predicted reasonably well by agonistic rank: high-ranking individuals had priority of access (Cafazzo et al., 2010).

6.3 Why This Matters

That is a linear, stable, age-graded hierarchy with a measurable consequence for resource access — in dogs, not in wolves, and observed rather than inferred. Any account claiming that dominance relationships do not exist in dogs has to explain it away, and none of the arguments in this article does.

The findings also contradict the older notion that free-ranging dogs are asocial animals, and agree with other work suggesting long-term social bonds within free-ranging groups (Cafazzo et al., 2010).

6.4 The Detail That Complicates It

One finding in the same study cuts the other way. Submissive-affiliative behavior met the criteria for formal submission signals, and it was not observed among all dogs — which meant it could not be used to order the dogs in a consistent linear rank (Cafazzo et al., 2010).

Formal submission is what makes a hierarchy a hierarchy in the ethological sense rather than a description of who wins fights. That it did not apply to every dog in the group is exactly the kind of partial fit the critical literature points to. The construct describes this population better than it describes household dogs, and it does not describe even this population completely.

6.5 Rank Is Not Leadership

A companion study on the same population examined leadership and found that affiliative and agonistic relationships influenced which dogs led group movements (Bonanni et al., 2010). Rank and leadership are separate quantities that happen to correlate.

The popular model runs them together, and a great deal of training advice depends on their being the same thing. In the one population where both have been measured, they are not. A dog that others follow is not necessarily the dog that others yield to, and the advice to establish oneself as pack leader assumes a construct that does not hold together even between dogs.

6.6 What Does and Does Not Transfer

These are free-ranging dogs in an established group, competing for real resources over long periods, with age classes and reproductive competition. A household of two neutered pet dogs sharing a sofa is a different social situation in almost every respect.

What transfers is that dogs are capable of forming structured relationships around resource access. What does not transfer is that such a structure is present, relevant or worth managing in a given household — and still less that a human belongs in it. No study in this literature has measured a dominance relationship between a dog and a person, which is the one relationship the popular model is entirely about.

6.7 The Honest Summary

Dominance relationships exist in dogs and have been measured. The popular alpha model is still wrong, because what it claims — a rank encompassing humans, expressed through everyday household behaviors, correctable by confrontation — is not what those studies found.

Those are two separate statements, and collapsing them in either direction is how this debate has gone wrong for twenty years. One side hears the free-ranging findings as vindication of the alpha model; the other hears any mention of hierarchy as a return to it. Neither reading survives contact with what was actually measured.

7. Hierarchy in Multi-Dog Households

7.1 What Has Actually Been Measured

Between dogs, hierarchy is real and measurable. Van der Borg et al. (2015) analyzed seven postures and twenty-four behaviors in a group of domestic dogs and identified which qualified as formal status indicators: high posture across most dyads, muzzle bite exclusively from the highest-ranking animals, and body tail wag plus low postures as the clearest submission signals.

Vékony and Pongrácz (2024) took this further, testing whether questionnaire-based rank scores predict actual behavior. They did: rank predicted which dog grabbed and kept a toy in a possession test. But the components separated — agonistic and leadership subscores mapped differently onto greeting behavior, which is what one would expect if "dominance" in dogs is several things rather than one. Vékony, Bakos and Pongrácz (2024) found rank-related differences in responses to frustration that likewise do not reduce to a dominant–subordinate binary (frustration having its own distinct mechanisms).

7.2 What It Means for Owners

The practical implications are the opposite of what the popular model prescribes. Stable hierarchies are maintained by subtle signaling, not fighting; conflict in multi-dog homes usually reflects resource competition, pain, poor management, or arousal rather than rank instability. The owner's job is not to install an alpha but to know each dog's resource priorities and arrange the environment so competition does not arise.

7.3 What the Recent Household Work Adds

The studies of cohabiting companion dogs are the closest thing to a direct test of the household question, and their finding is not that hierarchy is absent. It is that rank-related differences appear in some contexts and not others (Vékony & Pongrácz, 2024; Vékony, Bakos & Pongrácz, 2024).

Context-dependence is the recurring result across this whole literature, from free-ranging groups to living rooms, and it is what the popular model has no room for. A rank that applies at the food bowl and not at the doorway is not a rank in the sense the model requires, and it is what the measurements keep finding.

7.4 What Owners Should Do With Any of It

Nothing in the hierarchy literature yields a household intervention. Feeding one dog first does not confer status, and the studies that measured priority of access were describing what dogs did with a contested resource, not prescribing what humans should arrange.

Where two dogs conflict, the effective measures are the ordinary ones: reduce competition over the specific resource, manage the situations that produce conflict, and treat any pain or fear that lowers tolerance. Interventions aimed at the supposed rank order — feeding, greeting or petting in a particular sequence — have never been tested and rest on a mechanism nobody has demonstrated.

8. What Works Instead

8.1 What Actually Helps

Control resources without confrontation. Teach an exchange cue and pay well for it rather than taking things away to make a point. Teach a mat behavior rather than banning furniture by force.

Provide predictability. Consistent routines and contingencies lower baseline stress, and unpredictability is what the stress literature identifies as most costly.

Teach with reinforcement, including clear boundaries. Reward-based training is not the absence of structure. Negative punishment — withdrawing attention for jumping — remains available; what the evidence argues against is adding aversives (with the usual caveats about how withdrawn reinforcement behaves).

Address the actual driver. A dog growling at a stranger needs distance and a counterconditioning plan, not a correction (because behavior does not report the internal state directly).

Build the relationship deliberately. Secure attachment to the handler is associated with better stress regulation (attachment styles in dogs in detail), and handler state itself affects the dog (through mechanisms including emotional contagion).

Refer serious cases. Resource guarding, aggression, and severe fear warrant a veterinary behaviorist. Professional bodies including the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior have issued position statements favoring reward-based methods and advising against dominance-based approaches.

The AVSAB statement is specific enough to be worth quoting in substance. It holds that dominance theory should not be used as a general guide for behavior modification, that most undesirable behaviors in pets are not related to priority access to resources but to accidental reinforcement of the undesirable behavior, and that training should focus on reinforcing desirable behaviors and avoiding the reinforcement of undesirable ones. It further recommends that veterinarians not refer clients to trainers or behavior consultants who advocate dominance hierarchy theory and the confrontational training that follows from it (AVSAB, n.d.).

Whatever one concludes about the ethological debate, that is a current professional recommendation from a veterinary behavior organization — not a legal requirement, and not the only voice in the field.

8.2 Why the Alternatives Are Not a Compromise

Management, reinforcement of an alternative behavior and graduated exposure below threshold are sometimes presented as the gentler option, as though effectiveness had been traded for kindness. The canine evidence does not support that framing.

Reward-based methods are associated with better welfare indicators and are not associated with poorer obedience outcomes (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020; Rooney & Cowan, 2011). The trade-off being described is not one the data show. Where a difference in obedience outcomes has been looked for between method types, it has not reliably appeared, which removes the last argument for the harder route.

8.3 What to Do About the Specific Situations

The behaviors the alpha model targets have their own literatures and their own treatments, and each has several possible drivers rather than one. Guarding a resting place is resource guarding, which can run on learning history, on the value of that particular resource, on conflict avoidance or on uncertainty, and not every case is fear; reluctance to be handled has a medical differential before it has a behavioral one; pulling on leash is a training problem with no social meaning at all.

Every one of them is better served by the specific answer than by a general theory about status. That is the practical cost of the model that is easiest to overlook: it does not merely prescribe the wrong response, it stops the diagnostic question being asked at all.

8.4 What to Tell an Owner Who Believes the Model

Attacking the framework directly rarely works, and it is usually unnecessary. Owners arrive with an observation — the dog growled on the sofa — and an interpretation attached to it. The observation is almost always accurate.

Asking what else was happening, whether it occurs in other places, and whether the dog has been examined recently moves the conversation onto the specific case without requiring anyone to abandon a position first. Most households abandon the framework on their own once the specific explanation fits better than the general one.

9. Three Claims at a Glance

The alpha wolf model — Origin: unrelated wolves confined together in enclosures. Status: a captivity artifact. Wild packs are families led by breeding parents, with dispersal rather than rank contests (Mech, 1999). Relevance to dogs: minimal, and doubly so given domestication.

Formal dominance between dogs — Status: real, measurable, and actively debated. Formal status signals have been identified quantitatively (van der Borg et al., 2015) and rank scores predict competitive behavior (Vékony & Pongrácz, 2024), while researchers continue to disagree about how much the construct explains. Relevance: describes dog–dog relationships, not dog–human ones.

Human–dog dominance — Status: not standard scientific usage and unsupported. Dogs defer to resource-controlling humans without coercion. Derived methods provoke aggression in a substantial minority (Herron et al., 2009), worsen mood (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020; Casey et al., 2021), and reduce learning ability (Rooney & Cowan, 2011).

What most problem behavior actually is — Fear, anxiety, frustration, conflict, arousal beyond the individual threshold, pain, or reinforcement history. Each has an indicated intervention, and none of them is a rank correction.

10. Summary at a Glance

The captive-wolf model was corrected by its own author — Wild wolf packs are family groups in which the breeding pair leads because they are the parents, not because they won contests (Mech, 1999).

Dominance relationships do exist in dogs — A free-ranging group showed a linear, age-graded agonistic hierarchy that was stable across competitive contexts and predicted priority of access to food (Cafazzo et al., 2010).

Formal submission did not apply to every dog — Submissive-affiliative signals met the criteria for formal submission but were not shown by all individuals, so they could not order the group into a consistent rank (Cafazzo et al., 2010).

Rank and leadership are different things — Affiliative and agonistic relationships influenced which dogs led group movements, a separate quantity from agonistic rank (Bonanni et al., 2010).

The scientific debate is live, not settled — A published exchange between research groups continues over whether the construct is useful in domestic dogs (Bradshaw et al., 2009, 2015; Schilder et al., 2014; van der Borg et al., 2015).

Confrontational methods elicit aggression — Owner-reported responses to techniques derived from the alpha model include aggression in a substantial minority of dogs (Herron, Shofer & Reisner, 2009).

Training method is associated with welfare outcomes — Aversive-based methods are associated with poorer welfare indicators than reward-based ones (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020).

None of the canine hierarchy work includes humans — Every measurement of dominance in dogs concerns relationships between dogs.

11. Research Gaps and Critical Appraisal

11.1 Where the Evidence Runs Out

The dominance debate in dogs is not closed. Schilder et al. (2014) argue formal dominance is present and useful; Bradshaw et al. (2009, 2015) argue it is a relationship property routinely misapplied as a trait. Presenting this as settled overstates the position.

Rank assessment is largely questionnaire-based. Vékony and Pongrácz (2024) note there is no fully validated hierarchy questionnaire for cohabiting companion dogs, and that behavioral validation of survey-derived ranks has been rare — their study is a step toward closing that gap rather than the last word.

The training-methods evidence is correlational. Vieira de Castro et al. (2020) and Casey et al. (2021) establish association; owners choosing aversive methods may differ systematically, and dogs' full histories are rarely known.

Herron et al. (2009) is retrospective and selected. Owner recall in a referral population already presenting with behavior problems is the most direct evidence available and not a controlled trial.

Wolf-to-dog inference remains weak in both directions. Correcting the captive-wolf error does not license the reverse move of using wild-wolf family structure as a model for dog–human households.

Individual variation dominates. Temperament, history, and arousal baseline shape social behavior more reliably than any group-level rank description.

11.2 The Version That Survives Both Sides

Dogs form structured relationships with other dogs, those structures involve consistent asymmetries in access to resources, and they have been measured in free-ranging groups. Humans are not part of them, household conditions remove most of what produces them, and no confrontation-based technique follows from any of it.

That statement is compatible with the free-ranging findings and with the critical literature, which is what a defensible summary of a live debate should look like.

11.3 Why the Practical Conclusion Is Unaffected

The theoretical question can stay open without affecting what anyone should do. Confrontational techniques elicit aggression in a substantial minority of dogs (Herron et al., 2009) and aversive methods are associated with poorer welfare (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020), whatever turns out to be true about canine social structure.

That is the argument worth leading with, because it does not require winning the debate first. It is also the argument that survives a reader who arrives already committed to the other position, which the theoretical case does not.

The strongest hierarchy evidence comes from one free-ranging population. Linearity, age-grading and priority of access were measured in a single group (Cafazzo et al., 2010), and generalizing from it to household dogs requires assumptions the study does not supply.

Formal submission did not apply to all individuals even there. Submissive-affiliative signals met the formal criteria but were not shown by every dog, so they could not order the group consistently (Cafazzo et al., 2010).

No study has measured a dominance relationship between a dog and a human. Every canine hierarchy measurement concerns dog-dog relationships, which is the specific claim the popular model makes and the one with no supporting data.

The debate is unresolved in the literature itself. Two research groups have exchanged published critiques without converging (Bradshaw et al., 2009, 2015; Schilder et al., 2014), and presenting either side as settled misrepresents the field.

12. Conclusion

12.1 What to Take Away

The popular alpha model is a historical artifact kept alive by media and tradition rather than by evidence. It began with unrelated wolves in enclosures, was corrected by the same researcher who popularized it, and was carried across to dogs without accounting for domestication, learning history, or the difference between within-species and between-species relationships. What survives scrutiny is narrower and more interesting than either camp's slogan: formal dominance is a genuine feature of dog–dog relationships and remains under active scientific discussion, while the claim that humans must occupy an alpha role is neither standard usage nor supported, and the methods built on it provoke aggression, worsen mood, and measurably impair learning. The model persists because it offers a simple answer and a feeling of control. The cost is a dog that has been taught to stop signaling without being helped with what it was signaling about. The useful question was never who is in charge. It is what this dog is actually experiencing, and whether it can learn without being afraid.

Key Insights (Takeaways)

• The alpha model describes captivity, not wolves. Wild packs are family units in which the breeding parents lead and offspring disperse rather than compete for rank (Mech, 1999) — and the researcher who popularized the term spent decades correcting it.

• Dogs are not small wolves. Domestication shifted the adaptive strategy toward cooperation with humans, and dogs defer to resource-controlling humans readily without any need for physical enforcement.

• Dominance is a property of relationships, not a trait of individuals. It is defined by priority access and the direction of formal status signals, it is context-dependent, and applying it between species is not standard scientific usage.

• Between dogs, hierarchy is real — and still debated. Formal status indicators have been identified quantitatively (van der Borg et al., 2015) and rank predicts competitive behavior (Vékony & Pongrácz, 2024), while researchers continue to disagree about how much the construct explains (Schilder et al., 2014; Bradshaw et al., 2015).

• Dominance-based methods carry measurable costs. Confrontational techniques drew aggressive responses from at least a quarter of dogs on which they were used (Herron et al., 2009), aversive-trained dogs show a more pessimistic judgment bias (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020; Casey et al., 2021), and punishment-exposed dogs performed worse on a novel learning task (Rooney & Cowan, 2011).

References

American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (n.d.). Position statement on the use of dominance theory in behavior modification of animals. https://avsab.org/resources/position-statements/

Bonanni, R., Cafazzo, S., Valsecchi, P., & Natoli, E. (2010). Effect of affiliative and agonistic relationships on leadership behaviour in free-ranging dogs. Animal Behaviour, 79(5), 981–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.021

Bradshaw, J. W. S., Blackwell, E. J., & Casey, R. A. (2009). Dominance in domestic dogs — Useful construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4(3), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2008.08.004

Bradshaw, J. W. S., Blackwell, E. J., & Casey, R. A. (2015). Dominance in domestic dogs — A response to Schilder et al. (2014). Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 11, 102–108.

Cafazzo, S., Valsecchi, P., Bonanni, R., & Natoli, E. (2010). Dominance in relation to age, sex, and competitive contexts in a group of free-ranging domestic dogs. Behavioral Ecology, 21(3), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq001

Casey, R. A., Naj-Oleari, M., Campbell, S., Mendl, M., & Blackwell, E. J. (2021). Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 19023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97743-0

Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & 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(1–2), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011

Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Learned helplessness at fifty: Insights from neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000033

Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1196–1203. https://doi.org/10.1139/z99-099

Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(3–4), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.007

Schilder, M. B. H., & 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(3–4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004

Schilder, M. B. H., Vinke, C. M., & van der Borg, J. A. M. (2014). Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: Useful habit and useful construct? Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 9(4), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.04.005

van der Borg, J. A. M., Schilder, M. B. H., Vinke, C. M., & de Vries, H. (2015). Dominance in domestic dogs: A quantitative analysis of its behavioural measures. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0133978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133978

Vékony, K., Bakos, V., & Pongrácz, P. (2024). Rank-related differences in dogs' behaviours in frustrating situations. Animals, 14(23), 3411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14233411

Vékony, K., & Pongrácz, P. (2024). Many faces of dominance: The manifestation of cohabiting companion dogs' rank in competitive and non-competitive scenarios. Animal Cognition, 27(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-024-01842-0

Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & 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(12), e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023