As a dog behaviorist, I quite often receive letters in my inbox from worried dog owners who say that their dog dominates them and ask for help on how to show the dog that they, as humans, are the "alpha" in this pack relationship.
Dominance itself is actually a scientific concept, but it is misused when talking about dogs and their behavior and is therefore widely misunderstood. Dominance is talked about as a dog's character trait or a genetically inherited trait, even though this is not the case.
Dominance, as a scientific concept, simply means that in a situation where there are two or more dogs (or, for example, wolves), one or more of them will yield to the individual and allow the other to gain access to some necessary resource, such as food. This behavior is usually not aggressive in any way, because dogs do not want to get hurt and risk their lives, so usually this situation is resolved very peacefully. The health, age and environmental factors of the individuals are taken into account and a decision is made based on this. From the point of view of the scientific concept, the dominant party is constantly changing - it is not the case that one dog is dominant in the pack and holds that position all the time. Such exchange making and decision-making is quite flexible and considerate of each other.
But where did this dominance theory and misconception originate?
Dominance theory spread like wildfire several decades ago, when the first dog trainers conquered our television screens. The theory itself began by observing a group of wolves that lived together in a limited area of land, i.e. not in the wild. Some conclusions were drawn from their observation, which were quickly generalized to the training of dogs. A few years later, it was realized that there are quite a few mistakes in this theory and the conclusions made after the observation, and those scientists who came up with this theory have also repeatedly said in public that this theory cannot be used in this way and that their conclusions are wrong. However, this has not stopped popular dog trainers from still using and spreading this theory, which in retrospect has done a lot of damage to the human-dog relationship. If the creators of the theory itself say that it has been rejected, how can it still be used in training?
Apart from the fact that the theory itself has been disproved by scientists, it is not logical to use it in training dogs for the reason that dogs are not wolves. Just as humans are genetically the closest to apes, that does not mean we are apes.
"But isn't there such a thing as an alpha position?"
The most recent studies of wolves have shown that wolves in the wild formulate groups mainly as families. Families live in mutual understanding and aggression has no place in it. In addition, the role of the herd leader is also variable, depending on the need and the situation. The logic that is used in dog training today, that a person must be alpha and constantly confirm his position, is not what we see in the behavior of wolves, for example. This kind of behavior and imagining yourself as the alpha is not only illogical, but also breaks trust. Such alpha and dominant behavior in dog training is in many cases frightening and repulsive for the dog. In the long term, such behavior can also have quite harsh consequences, such as escalated aggressive behavior or increased fear.
In many ways, this alpha theory, which has been disproved today, also emphasized that the human must always control the dog and ensure that only the human has access to certain resources and consumes them first. It is very common, for example, to say that only a person can be in the bed and on the sofa, or that the person must eat first, otherwise the dog will think that he is now the leader. Although reading such a thing is quite funny to many, it is worth remembering that these are still very, very common recommendations, and many people to this day try to adhere to such rules precisely because they are afraid of their dog's behavior otherwise. At this point, however, it is worth thinking - do we not already control a large enough part of our dog's life today? We decide when and where they walk, when and what and how much they eat, with whom they can communicate, etc. Our dogs are completely dependent on us. Is there still a need to add a circus that has been proven to be irrelevant in one way or another? A recent worried client who asked if he really had to feed his dog kibble to ensure he was a herd leader received an answer from me that dropped a stone from his heart - feel free to leave the kibble bowl aside, you don't have to do this circus. You can be an understanding family member to your dog and you can call yourself a leader, but being a leader no longer means ruling through fear and control. A good leader is understanding, caring, considerate of needs, supportive and motivating.
Our job as a member of a dog's family is to support and understand our dog. After all, we didn't take a pet into our family to constantly put him down and ignore his needs. Forget dominance theory and the alpha role - it's time to be an understanding dog person and enjoy the trusting relationship you can build with your dog by taking the time to get to know him and meet his needs. This kind of relationship gives both you and your dog much more than constant suppression and "power struggles" would.