Alpha theory disproved - dogs don't need a human pack leader
There are numerous approaches to dog training - one of which is the alpha theory. What does it say and does dominance behavior between humans and dogs actually exist?
The dog, Canis lupus familiaris, has lived with humans for longer than any other animal. Domestication of the dog began at least 14,000 years ago when wolves began to join human settlements and feed on human food scraps. Over time, humans began to tame these wolves and use them for hunting, guarding and companionship. This is how the close bond between four-legged and two-legged creatures came about.
Today, it is impossible to imagine human life without dogs. If their owners have their way, their domesticated descendants should have as little in common as possible with their wild ancestors. Humans have very high expectations of dogs. No other animal is subject to such expectations. No other animal is subject to so many false assumptions. Dogs should not bark, should not roll around in the dirt, should not be overly happy or upset about other dogs or people, yet should always be friendly and be able to stay alone for hours. But many of these things are simply part of their character. Because dogs are one thing above all: social creatures.
The alpha theory: a false conclusion persists
In the 1970s, the alpha theory was brought to life by the behavioral scientist David Mech when he observed wolves in an enclosure. The unrelated wolves observed had been thrown together by humans and therefore did not correspond to the reality of a pack living in the wild. In this constellation, there were more and more fights between the unfamiliar animals. From this, the US researcher concluded that wolves fight for an alpha position.
In the wild, however, wolves live together differently: A wolf pack consists of a pair of parents and their young, who have not yet formed their own family. This pack is led by the parent animals, so the "alpha animals" are the father and mother, just like in a human family. There are no fights over this hierarchy in wild wolves; instead, the animals (just like dogs) try to avoid social fights and conflicts.
From the first false conclusion, Mech developed the alpha theory, which was also applied to dogs. According to the theory, dogs constantly try to dominate their humans. In practice, humans should therefore always take firm action and "show the dog who is the leader".
The false conclusion: Since a human is not the biological producer of a dog, the hierarchy in cohabitation becomes superfluous. The alpha theory does not apply to either dogs or wolves. The scientist Mech also recognized his false conclusion - his book "The Wolf - Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species" has been considered outdated since the 1990s.
Wrong conclusion alpha animal? Secure community instead of constantly defending status
Wolves and dogs do not constantly defend their status among themselves; in the case of street dogs, it can even be seen that even unrelated animals form a community in which they are safe. There is no sign of dominance and rank battles. First of all, it is important to understand that dominance is not a character trait. The statement "My dog is dominant" is therefore simply wrong.
When dogs react dominantly to each other, it always depends on the situation. The same dog shows dominant behavior in one situation, but is submissive in the next. To base the entire ideology and training method on a non-existent, disproven dominance as a personality trait is therefore a dramatic misconception.
Why dogs don't have a dominant character and humans love hierarchies
But what does dominant training mean in terms of the alpha theory and what effects can it have on a human-dog team? Until a few years ago, the dog was pressed to the ground with one hand to learn to "sit". Even though this method is no longer widely used, coercion and pressure remain constant in training approaches. Unfortunately, the alpha theory is still propagated, even by renowned dog schools, but in a changing form. Then the concepts are called "space management", "body language leadership", "species-appropriate dog training", and old methods are sold with a new coat of paint."
By space management, the trainers mean blocking the dog with a threatening posture or the body in order to restrict its range of movement. Dominant human behavior is justified by the body language of two dogs. But dogs know very well that we are not dogs. We can never imitate the delicate and subtle language that two dogs share with each other. The body language that a human shows their dog is therefore always far too rough and cannot be understood as friendly communication due to its harshness.
Scientists and behaviorists emphasize that interactions between humans and dogs should be based on mutual respect, trust and positive reinforcement rather than authoritarian and misunderstood dominance. To build a healthy relationship between humans and dogs, positive reinforcement and, above all, understanding and goodwill should be prioritized.
The same applies to assumptions such as "The dog may only eat after the human" or "It may only enter the home after the human", which persist. An equally big misconception is that dogs are not allowed on the couch or bed, as this would change the balance of power between them and humans. Instead, it is purely a matter of taste. It is human nature to actually like hierarchies. They are simple: one leads, one follows! We like to impose this on other living beings.
If a dog is constantly reprimanded, is not allowed to sniff or only run after, is pushed and shoved away, a lot of frustration arises. Most dogs put up with a lot and are simply broken over time. They function because they are extremely inhibited, have little confidence and no longer make independent decisions (learned helplessness). They just try not to make a mistake. Of course, there are also many dogs that "literally explode" due to pent-up frustration - they don't necessarily do this towards the owner, but - "completely unexpectedly" - by having to react in everyday situations.
In any case, dominant behavior causes lasting damage to a person's relationship with their dog. A basis of trust is not possible if you work through threats, arbitrary regulation and punishment. Reliability and predictability are essential pillars of a good relationship. Ultimately, it is the enormous good nature of dogs that prevents situations between dogs and humans from escalating due to stress or fear.
Dogs strive for positive feelings - just like humans
Humans are similar to dogs in many situations: they are looking for good and positive feelings, while they want to avoid bad ones. This is one of the basic psychological needs of a mammal. Understanding a dog is not that complicated: High-quality food, attention, attentiveness, love and goodwill from the caregiver, a varied daily routine and comfortable places to lie down are simply a good thing! There is no need for an idealistic superstructure with false dominance theories. It is quite normal behavior that a dog strives for. The dog wants to be on the couch with his human because he enjoys being close to him, not because he wants to dominate him.
It is our duty to guide the dog so that it understands what we want it to do.
When communicating with a dog, it is the human's "duty to guide him so that he understands what you want him to do." A dog needs a safe environment in which it can move as freely as possible. Just as we humans need the same. The top priority is that the dog does not harm itself or other living creatures. This can be achieved with loving consistency, foresighted, responsible behavior and smart training - without any side effects on the human-dog relationship. Dogs are clever and understand quickly. The prerequisite for alpha theory-free training, however, is that the caregiver is aware of the dog's needs and physical and mental development and can read its body language. For a functioning relationship, the human is therefore primarily required as a friend, caregiver and companion and not as an authoritarian dominator.
