No fluff, no fairytales … just a closer look at one of the most misunderstood ideas in dog training.
For decades, dog guardians have been told that their dogs are trying to dominate them. A dog pulling on the lead, refusing a cue, growling over a resource or jumping onto the furniture has often been labelled “dominant,” “stubborn” or “trying to be the alpha.”
From this perspective, the solution appears straightforward: the human must establish control, demonstrate leadership and ensure the dog understands its place.
But what if we have been asking the wrong question?
What if a dog pulling on the lead is not trying to lead the human? What if a dog refusing a recall is not challenging authority? What if growling is not an attempt to take control, but a way of communicating discomfort?
Understanding where dominance theory came from, how it shaped traditional training and what modern behaviour science tells us is important for anyone who wants to build a safe, trusting and functional relationship with a dog.
At NugenK9 Training, the aim is not simply to make a dog perform a behaviour. It is to understand why that behaviour is happening, teach the dog what we would like to see instead, and create an environment in which both dog and handler can succeed.
How did dominance theory come about?
To understand why dominance became so influential, we need to go back to research on wolves.
During the mid-twentieth century, scientists were interested in understanding how wolves interacted, organised themselves and established social relationships. One important contributor was Swiss ethologist Rudolf Schenkel, who published research in 1947 based on observations of captive wolves.
The wolves he studied were living in captivity in an artificial social environment. They were not necessarily related, naturally formed family groups. They had been brought together and housed in conditions that could create competition, tension and conflict.
Within these circumstances, researchers observed threatening behaviour, social conflict and relationships in which some wolves appeared to have priority over others.
These observations were important, but the interpretation that followed became problematic.
The idea developed that wolves were organised into rigid hierarchies, with an “alpha” at the top, followed by subordinate animals. The popular interpretation suggested that wolves were constantly competing for rank and that the strongest or most aggressive individual would establish control over the rest of the group.
This became known as the alpha-wolf model.
The model was simple, memorable and easy to apply. It presented wolf society as a contest for power, where leadership was achieved through competition and maintained through control.
The problem was that captive wolves living together under artificial conditions did not accurately represent the social organisation of wolves living in the wild.
What later wolf research revealed
American wolf biologist L. David Mech conducted extensive research on free-ranging wolves, including long-term observations of wolves on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic.
His research helped demonstrate that typical wild wolf packs are primarily family groups. A pack commonly consists of a breeding pair and their offspring from different years.
In these family groups, the adults guide the younger wolves, coordinate activities and contribute to the survival of the pack. Social organisation is shaped by family relationships, age, experience, reproduction and cooperation.
This is very different from the popular image of unrelated wolves constantly fighting to become the leader.
In 1999, Mech published Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs, in which he explained why the term “alpha” was misleading when applied to the typical family structure of wild wolves.
The important point is not that wolves never compete or that social relationships never exist. Rather, the original captive-wolf model was too narrow and was incorrectly treated as a universal explanation of wolf behaviour.
Key research: Mech, L. David (1999), Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs, Canadian Journal of Zoology.
How did a theory about wolves become a theory about dogs?
The next step involved a major assumption:
If dogs descended from wolves, then dogs must organise their relationships in the same way as wolves.
From there, another assumption followed:
If dogs organise themselves through dominance, then a human must establish dominance over the dog.
This reasoning sounds plausible on the surface, but it overlooks several important facts.
Dogs are not simply wolves living in human homes.
Domestic dogs have undergone thousands of years of domestication and selective breeding. Different breeds have been developed for different purposes, and individual dogs have different temperaments, experiences, motivations and learning histories.
A Border Collie, a Rottweiler, a Chow Chow, a terrier and a companion-bred toy dog may have very different behavioural tendencies. Even two dogs of the same breed can respond differently to the same environment or training experience.
Their behaviour is influenced by factors such as:
- Genetics and breed-specific tendencies.
- Early development and socialisation.
- Reinforcement history.
- Emotional state and stress.
- Health and pain.
- Environmental conditions.
- Individual motivation.
- Previous experiences with people and other dogs.
The fact that dogs and wolves share an evolutionary history does not mean that every behaviour displayed by a domestic dog can be explained by a wolf-pack hierarchy.
A dog does not need to see a human as a rival wolf for learning, cooperation or effective training to take place.
The rise of the “pack leader” approach
As dominance theory became popular, it began influencing how trainers and guardians interpreted everyday dog behaviour.
The central belief was that dogs were constantly assessing their position in relation to humans. If a dog was allowed to make decisions, access resources or disregard a cue, it was sometimes assumed that the dog was gaining status.
The human, therefore, had to maintain control.
This interpretation helped popularise practices such as:
- Alpha rolls, where a dog is forcibly placed on its back.
- Physical restraint intended to demonstrate authority.
- Leash corrections and harsh collar handling.
- Intimidation or confrontational interactions.
- Rules designed to prevent a dog from “getting its way.”
- The belief that humans must always go through doors first.
- The idea that dogs should never be allowed to win a perceived contest.
Some of these practices were presented as necessary leadership rather than punishment. But the underlying message was often the same: the dog must submit to the human.
The issue is not whether dogs need guidance, boundaries or predictable routines. They absolutely do.
The issue is why those boundaries are being taught and what methods are being used to establish them.
A dog can learn to wait at a door because waiting is reinforced and rushing outside is prevented for safety. It does not need to believe that the human is the alpha.
A dog can learn to walk beside its handler because loose-lead walking is consistently reinforced. It does not need to be physically corrected because it is attempting to lead the household.
This distinction matters because the explanation we choose often determines how we respond to the dog.
Dominance theory versus what could actually be happening
One of the most damaging aspects of dominance theory is that it can encourage us to interpret ordinary behaviour as a challenge to human authority.
Let’s look at some practical examples.
1. The dog pulling on the lead
The dominance explanation:
“Your dog is trying to lead you. He wants to be in charge of the walk.”
What could actually be happening?
The dog may be motivated by the environment. There may be interesting smells, movement, people, other dogs, birds or other opportunities that make moving forward rewarding.
Forward movement itself can reinforce pulling. If the dog pulls and reaches the tree it wants to sniff, the other dog it wants to investigate or the area it wants to explore, pulling may become more likely in similar situations.
The dog may also not have been sufficiently taught what loose-lead walking looks like, or the environment may simply be too difficult for the current level of training.
A more useful approach:
Teach the dog what position and lead tension you want, reinforce engagement and loose-lead walking, manage distance from distractions and gradually increase the difficulty.
At NugenK9, we focus on building teamwork, engagement and reliable walking skills rather than turning the walk into a contest over who is in charge.
2. The dog refusing a cue
The dominance explanation:
“Your dog is being stubborn or challenging you.”
What could actually be happening?
There are many possibilities.
The dog may not fully understand the cue. The behaviour may not have been practised sufficiently in different environments. The handler may be asking for too much too soon, or the dog may be more motivated by something in the environment.
The dog may also be tired, uncomfortable, stressed or distracted.
A cue that works perfectly in the lounge does not automatically work at the beach, in a busy shopping centre or around other dogs.
This is where the 3Ds of training become valuable:
- Duration: How long can the dog maintain the behaviour?
- Distance: How far away can the handler move while the dog continues to respond?
- Distraction: How well can the dog respond when the environment contains competing sights, sounds, smells or activities?
These elements should be developed gradually. Increasing all three at once can make a behaviour unnecessarily difficult.
A more useful approach:
Assess the environment, lower the difficulty, reinforce successful responses and build reliability over time.
The goal is not to defeat the dog’s will. The goal is to help the dog understand what is being asked and make responding worthwhile.
3. The dog growling over food or another resource
The dominance explanation:
“Your dog is trying to control you or assert its rank.”
What could actually be happening?
The dog may be protecting something it considers valuable. This is commonly referred to as resource guarding.
The resource could be food, a chew, a toy, a resting place or even proximity to a person.
The dog may be worried that the resource will be taken away. It may have learned from previous experiences that people approaching its food or possessions predict loss or conflict.
Growling is a form of communication. It can indicate that the dog is uncomfortable and wants the interaction to stop or the person to move away.
A more useful approach:
Take the warning seriously, manage the environment and avoid forcing confrontational interactions. Identify the circumstances that trigger the behaviour and seek qualified behaviour support where necessary.
Punishing a growl does not necessarily resolve the underlying concern. It may simply teach the dog that displaying the warning is unsafe, while the discomfort remains.
Safety comes first. Resource guarding should not be treated as an opportunity to prove who is in charge.
4. The dog jumping onto the furniture
The dominance explanation:
“Your dog is trying to elevate itself above you and take control of the household.”
What could actually be happening?
The furniture may be comfortable, warm, soft or positioned close to the people the dog enjoys being around.
The dog may have learned that getting onto the sofa provides access to comfort or attention. It may also simply prefer that particular resting place.
There is no need to assume a status competition.
A more useful approach:
If the dog is not permitted on the furniture, provide a comfortable alternative and reinforce the behaviour you would like to see. Teach the dog to settle on its own bed, mat or designated resting area.
Rules can be clear and consistent without being rooted in a dominance narrative.
5. The dog ignoring a recall
The dominance explanation:
“Your dog knows you are calling but is choosing to disobey because it does not respect you.”
What could actually be happening?
Recall is one of the most challenging behaviours to teach because the dog is often being asked to disengage from something highly rewarding.
The dog may be sniffing, exploring, chasing movement, interacting with the environment or simply enjoying freedom.
If the dog has repeatedly been called and then experienced something unpleasant, such as the end of a walk, a scolding or being immediately restrained, the recall cue may have lost value.
Repeatedly calling a dog that is unlikely to respond can also weaken the reliability of the cue.
A more useful approach:
Build recall through rewarding games, appropriate levels of distraction, long-line practice and carefully managed opportunities for success.
A recall is not a test of rank. It is a behaviour that must be taught, reinforced and maintained.
A reliable recall can save a dog’s life. It deserves thoughtful training, not a power struggle.
Does dominance exist at all?
This is where we need to be precise.
It would be incorrect to claim that dominance has no place in animal behaviour science.
Dominance can be used as a technical term to describe a relationship between animals involving priority access to resources in particular circumstances. For example, two animals may develop a relationship in which one consistently gains priority access to food or another resource.
However, dominance is not the same as a personality trait.
A dog is not automatically “a dominant dog” simply because it pulls on a lead, jumps up, guards food or refuses a cue.
Nor does dominance provide a universal explanation for unwanted behaviour.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) explains that many behaviours traditionally labelled as dominance are better understood through learning, reinforcement, fear, anxiety, resource competition or other contextual factors.
The distinction is important:
Dominance describes certain social relationships. It does not explain every behaviour, and it does not justify the use of force in dog training.
What modern behaviour science tells us
Modern dog training is increasingly informed by learning theory, applied behaviour analysis, welfare science and a better understanding of canine communication.
Rather than asking, “How do I show my dog who is boss?” we can ask:
- What happened immediately before the behaviour?
- What is the dog gaining or avoiding?
- What has the dog learned from previous experiences?
- Is the behaviour being reinforced?
- Is the environment too difficult?
- Is the dog fearful, stressed, frustrated or uncomfortable?
- What behaviour would we like to reinforce instead?
- How can we set the dog up for success?
This approach is more practical because it helps us identify the function of behaviour.
For example, if a dog jumps up and receives attention, the jumping may be reinforced. If a dog pulls and reaches an interesting smell, pulling may be reinforced. If a dog avoids a cue because the task is difficult, increasing pressure may not improve understanding.
The solution is not always simply “give more treats.” Effective reward-based training involves thoughtful reinforcement, appropriate timing, management, clear communication and gradually increasing the difficulty of the task.
It also requires us to consider the dog’s emotional state.
A dog that is frightened or overwhelmed may not be in a position to learn effectively. Reducing pressure, increasing distance from a trigger and changing the emotional association with the environment may be necessary before reliable behaviour can develop.
What the research says about aversive training
The AVSAB recommends reward-based training for all dog training and behaviour modification. Its position is grounded in evidence concerning learning, welfare and the human-animal relationship.
Research reviews have found associations between aversive-based training and indicators of compromised welfare, including stress-related behaviours and, in some studies, fear or aggression-related problems. The evidence base has limitations, and not every study measures the same methods or populations. However, the overall direction of professional guidance is clear: aversive methods carry welfare risks and are not necessary as a foundation for effective training.
A 2020 study by Vieira de Castro and colleagues, published in PLOS ONE, found that dogs trained with more aversive methods showed indicators consistent with poorer welfare compared with dogs trained using more reward-based methods.
The findings support an important principle: training should not be built around fear, pain or intimidation when effective, humane alternatives are available.
Key source: Vieira de Castro et al. (2020), Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare, PLOS ONE.
For professional guidance, see the .
Why the dominance theory still persists
If the scientific understanding has changed, why do we still hear about alpha dogs and pack leaders?
There are several reasons.
It is an easy explanation
Dog behaviour can be complicated. A single behaviour may have multiple contributing factors. “The dog is trying to dominate you” offers a simple explanation that appears to make sense of everything.
But a simple explanation is not necessarily an accurate one.
It gives people a sense of control
When a dog displays challenging behaviour, guardians may feel frustrated, embarrassed or unsafe. The idea that the problem can be solved by taking control can be reassuring.
It offers a clear action: become the leader.
However, a sense of control is not the same as understanding. The dog may stop displaying a behaviour because it is frightened or has learned that certain responses lead to punishment. That does not necessarily mean the underlying problem has been resolved.
It has been reinforced by tradition and popular media
Training methods are often passed from one generation of trainers to the next. Books, television programmes and popular personalities have helped keep the alpha-dog narrative alive.
When a dramatic training demonstration appears to work, it can be tempting to accept the explanation that accompanies it.
But a behaviour changing after an intervention does not automatically prove that the explanation behind the intervention was correct.
A dog may stop jumping because it has been physically corrected. That does not prove that the dog was trying to dominate the handler. It may simply mean that the consequence suppressed the behaviour.
It confuses compliance with understanding
A dog that stops moving, becomes quiet or avoids an interaction may appear obedient. But outward compliance does not necessarily tell us how the dog feels or what it has learned.
Effective training should consider both the behaviour we see and the welfare of the dog experiencing the training.
Leadership without dominance
Rejecting dominance theory does not mean rejecting leadership.
Dogs benefit from humans who are consistent, predictable, clear and capable of managing the environment. They need guidance, boundaries, safety and opportunities to learn.
But leadership can be built through cooperation rather than confrontation.
A good handler:
- Understands the dog’s body language.
- Recognises when a task is too difficult.
- Reinforces desired behaviours.
- Manages the environment to prevent unsafe outcomes.
- Teaches alternative behaviours.
- Uses clear and consistent cues.
- Builds trust through predictable interactions.
- Advocates for the dog when the environment becomes overwhelming.
This is especially important when working around distractions.
The dog that can respond to a cue in a quiet room may still need significant practice before it can respond reliably at a busy beach, in a shopping centre or around other dogs.
Training is not about proving that the dog must submit. It is about building the skills and relationship needed for the real world.
The NugenK9 Training perspective: Work from the “why”
At NugenK9 Training, we work from the WHY.
Before deciding how to change a behaviour, we need to understand what may be driving it.
A dog is not a problem to be defeated. It is an individual whose behaviour provides information.
That does not mean every behaviour should be permitted. Safety matters. Boundaries matter. Appropriate behaviour matters.
But how we teach those boundaries matters just as much.
We can teach a dog to wait at a door without intimidation. We can teach loose-lead walking without turning the walk into a battle. We can teach recall without repeatedly punishing the dog for returning late. We can address resource guarding without forcing a confrontation.
We can also recognise that dogs make mistakes, that learning takes time and that the environment plays a significant role in behaviour.
The more we understand, the less we need to rely on labels.
My final thoughts
Dominance theory became influential because it offered a simple explanation for complex behaviour. It drew heavily on interpretations of captive-wolf research and was later applied to domestic dogs through the assumption that dogs must be competing with humans for rank.
Research on wild wolves, particularly the work of L. David Mech, helped correct the popular alpha-wolf narrative. Modern dog behaviour science has also shown that many behaviours previously labelled as dominance are better understood through learning, motivation, emotional state, reinforcement and environmental context.
Dominance remains a valid scientific concept when used carefully to describe particular social relationships. What is not supported is the idea that domestic dogs are constantly trying to dominate humans, or that force and intimidation are necessary to establish effective leadership.
The question we should be asking is not:
“How do I show my dog who is in charge?”
It is:
“What is my dog communicating, what has my dog learned, and how can I teach the behaviour I want in a way that is safe, clear and effective?”
That shift changes everything.
It moves training away from conflict and towards understanding. It replaces intimidation with education, and it allows the human-dog relationship to develop through trust, communication and cooperation.
Because effective dog training is not about winning a power struggle.
It is about helping a dog succeed in the world we share.
