Dominance relationships in a group of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)
In: BehaviourWe investigated the extent to which dominance relationships, as described for feral dogs and wolves, applied to a group of 24 neutered companion dogs at a dog daycare facility. Similar to other studies of dogs and wolves, we found significant linear dominance hierarchies based on highly unidirectional displays of submission and aggression. Submission was the most frequent, unidirectional and linear type of agonistic behaviour and, therefore, a better indicator of status than aggression or dominance displays. Aggression was low intensity, consisting mainly of ritualized threats with no physical contact, and conflicts involving physical contact were never injurious. Older dogs out-ranked younger dogs, but size was unrelated to dominance rank. Dominance relationships were more often expressed in same-sex dyads than between males and females. The coverage of dominance relationships in the daycare group was low compared to that reported for sexually intact dogs and wolves, which was probably a result of reduced competition due to neutering and other human influences. In many dyads dogs never exchanged agonistic behaviours, but bi-directional relationships were rare, and most dogs formed some dominance relationships with other dogs. Except for their low coverage, muzzle licks met the criteria for a formal display of submission. Our results suggest that dominance remains a robust component of domestic dog behaviour even when humans significantly reduce the potential for resource competition. The possible proximate benefits of dominance relationships for dogs are discussed.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Abrantes R. (1997). Dog language. — Wakan Tanka, Naperville, IL.
-
Altmann J. (1974). Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. — Behaviour 49: 227-267.
-
Bauer E.B., Smuts B.B. (2007). Cooperation and competition during dyadic play in domestic dogs. — Anim. Behav. 73: 489-499.
-
Beach F.A. (1970). Coital behaviour in dogs: VIII. Social affinity, dominance and sexual preference in the bitch. — Behaviour 36: 131-148.
-
Bekoff M. (1974). Social play in coyotes, wolves and dogs. — Bioscience 24: 225-230.
-
Boitani L., Ciucci P., Ortolani A. (2007). Behaviour and social ecology of free-ranging dogs. — In: The behavioral biology of dogs ( Jensen P., ed.). CAB International, Wallingford, p. 47-165.
-
Bonanni R., Cafazzo S., Valsecchi P., Natoli E. (2010). Effect of affiliative and agonistic relationships on leadership behavior in free-ranging dogs. — Anim. Behav. 79: 981-991.
-
Bradshaw J.W.S., Lea A.M. (1992). Dyadic interactions between domestic dogs. — Anthrozoos 5: 245-253.
-
Bradshaw J.W.S., Nott H.M.R. (1995). Social and communication behavior of companion dogs. — In: The domestic dog: its evolution, behavior and interactions with people ( Serpell J., ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, p. 115-130.
-
Bradshaw J.W.S., Blackwell E.J., Casey R.A. (2009). Dominance in dogs: useful construct or bad habit? — J. Vet. Behav. 3: 176-177.
-
Cafazzo S., Bonanni R., Valseechi P., Natoli E. (2014). Social variables affecting mate preferences, compulation and reproductive outcome in a pack of free-ranging dogs. — PLoS ONE 9: e98594, DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0098594.
-
Cafazzo S., Natoli E., Valsecchi P. (2012). Scent-marking behaviour in a pack of free-ranging domestic dogs. — Ethology 118: 955-966.
-
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. — Behav. Ecol. 21: 443-455.
-
Capra A., Barnard S., Valesecchi A.C. (2011). Flight, foe, fight! Aggressive interactions between dogs. — J. Vet. Behav. 6: 62.
-
Carrier L.O., Cyr A., Anderson R.E., Walsh C. (2013). Exploring the dog park: relationships between social behaviours, personality and cortisol in companion animals. — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 146: 96-106.
-
Chase I.D. (1974). Models of hierarchy formation in animal society. — Behav. Sci. 19: 374-382.
-
de Vries H. (1993). The rowwise correlation between two proximity matrices and the partial rowwise correlation. — Psychometrika 58: 53-69.
-
de Vries H. (1995). An improved test of linearity in dominance hierarchies containing unknown or tied relationships. — Anim. Behav. 50: 1375-1389.
-
de Vries H. (1998). Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review. — Anim. Behav. 55: 827-843.
-
de Vries H., Stevens J.M.G., Vervaecke H. (2006). Measuring and testing the steepness of dominance hierarchies. — Anim. Behav. 71: 585-592.
-
de Waal F.B.M. (1986). The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. — Q. Rev. Biol. 61: 459-479.
-
de Waal F.B.M., Luttrell L. (1985). The formal hierarchy of rhesus monkeys: an investigation of the bared-teeth display. — Am. J. Primatol. 9: 73-85.
-
Derix R., van Hooff J., de Vries H., Wensing J. (1993). Male and female mating competition in wolves: female suppression vs. male intervention. — Behaviour 127: 141-174.
-
Drews C. (1993). The concept and definition of dominance. — Anim. Behav. 125: 283-313.
-
East M.L., Hofer H., Wickler W. (1993). The erect ‘penis’ is a flag of submission in a female-dominated society: greetings in Serengeti spotted hyenas. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33: 355-370.
-
Eaton B. (2002). Dominance: fact or fiction? — Dogwise, Wanatchee, WA.
-
Fedderson-Peterson D. (1991). The ontogeny of social play and agonistic behavior in selected canine species. — Bonner Zool. Beitr. 42: 97-114.
-
Fedderson-Peterson D. (2004). Hundepsychologie: Sozialverhalten und Wesen, Emotionen und Individualität. — Kosmos, Stuttgart.
-
Flack J.C., de Waal F.B.M. (2007). Context modulates signal meaning in primate communication. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 1581-1586.
-
Frank H., Frank M.G. (1982). On the effects of domestication on the development of canine social-development and behavior. — Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8: 507-525.
-
Gammell M.P., de Vries H., Jennings D.J., Carlin C.M., Hayden T.J. (2003). David’s score: a more appropriate dominance ranking method than Clutton-Brock et al.’s index. — Anim. Behav. 66: 601-605.
-
Goddard M.E., Beilharz R.G. (1985). Individual variation in agonistic behavior in dogs. — Anim. Behav. 125: 283-313.
-
Goodman P.A., Klinghammer E., Willard J. (2002). Wolf ethogram. — Eckhard H. Hess Institute of Ethology, Battle Ground, IN.
-
Goodwin D., Bradshaw J.W.S., Wickens S.M. (1997). Paedomorphosis affects agonistic visual signals of domestic dogs. — Anim. Behav. 53: 297-304.
-
Hand J.L. (1986). Resolution of social conflicts: dominance, egalitarianism, spheres of dominance, and game theory. — Q. Rev. Biol. 61: 201-220.
-
Handleman B. (2008). Canine behavior: a photo illustrated handbook. — Dogwise, Wanatchee, WA.
-
Hemelrijk C.K. (1990). Models of, and tests for, reciprocity, unidirectionality and other social interaction patterns at a group level. — Anim. Behav. 39: 1013-1029.
-
Hinde R. (1974). The biological basis of human social behavior. — McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
-
Jenks S.M. (2011). A longitudinal study of the sociosexual dynamics in a captive family group of wolves: The University of Connecticut wolf project. — Behav. Genet. 41: 810-829.
-
Jones A.C., Gosling S.D. (2005). Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): a review and evaluation of past research. — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 95: 1-53.
-
Klass K., Cords M. (2011). Effect of unknown relationships on linearity, steepness and rank ordering of dominance hierarchies: simulation studies based on data from wild monkeys. — Behav. Proc. 88: 168-176.
-
Landau H.G. (1951). On dominance relations and the structure of animal society. — Bull. Math. Biol. 13: 1-19.
-
Lindsey S. (2001). Handbook of applied dog behavior and training. — Iowa University Press, Ames, IO.
-
Lockwood R. (1979). Dominance in wolves: useful construct or bad habit? — In: The behavior and ecology of wolves ( Klinghammer E., ed.). Garland STPM Press, New York, NY, p. 225-245.
-
Lu A., Koenig A., Borries C. (2008). Formal submission, tolerance and socioecological models: a test with female Hanuman langurs. — Anim. Behav. 76: 415-428.
-
MacNulty D.R., Smith D.W., Mech L.D., Vucetich J.A., Packer C. (2011). Nonlinear effects of group size on the success of wolves hunting elk. — Behav. Ecol. 23: 75-82.
-
Mech L.D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. — Can. J. Zool. 77: 1196-1203.
-
Mech L.D., Boitani L. (2003). Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. — The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
-
Miklosi A. (2007). Dog behavior, evolution and cognition. — Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
-
O’Heare J.J. (2007). Social dominance: useful construct or quagmire? — J. Comp. Anim. Behav. 1: 56-83.
-
Packard J.M. (2003). Wolf behavior: reproductive, social and intelligent. — In: Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation ( Mech L.D., Boitani L., eds). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p. 35-65.
-
Pal S.K. (2003). Reproductive behavior of free-ranging rural dogs (Canis familiaris) in relations to mating strategy, season, and litter production. — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 59: 331-348.
-
Pal S.K., Ghosh B., Roy S. (1998). Agonistic behavior of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in relation to season, sex and age. — Acta Theriol. 48: 271-281.
-
Perry S., Manson J.H. (2008). Manipulative monkeys: the capuchins of Lomas Barbudal. — Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
-
Peterson R.O., Jacobs A.K., Drummer T.D., Mech L.D., Smith D.W. (2002). Leadership behavior in relation to dominance and reproductive status in gray wolves, Canis lupus. — Can. J. Zool. 80: 1405-1412.
-
Preuschoft S. (1999). Are primates behaviorists? Formal dominance, cognition and free-floating rationales. — J. Comp. Psychol. 113: 91-95.
-
Preuschoft S., Paul A., Kuester J. (1998). Dominance styles of female and male barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). — Behaviour 135: 731-755.
-
Ritter C., Viryáni Z., Range F. (2012). Who is more tolerant? Cofeeding in pairs of pack-living dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus). — Paper presented at the 3rd Canine Science Forum Barcelona, Spain. Available online at http://dogspies.com/Dog_Spies/Science!_files/CSF%202012%20Abstracts.pdf.
-
Rowell T.E. (1974). Concept of social dominance. — Behav. Biol. 11: 131-154.
-
Sands J., Creel S. (2004). Social dominance, aggression and faecal glucocorticoid levels in a wild population of wolves, Canis lupus. — Anim. Behav. 67: 387-396.
-
Schenkel R. (1967). Submission: its features and functions in wolf and dog. — Am. Zool. 7: 319-329.
-
Schilder M.B.H., Vinke C.M., van der Borg J.A.M. (2014). Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: useful habit and useful construct? — J. Vet. Behav. 9: 184-191.
-
Scott J.P., Fuller J.L. (1965). Genetics and the social behavior of the dog. — University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
-
Shepherd K. (2002). Development of behaviour, social behaviour and communication in dogs. — In: BSAVA manual of canine and feline behavioural medicine ( Horwitz D.F., Mills D.S., Heath S., eds). British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), Gloucester, p. 8-20.
-
Shyan M.R., Fortune K.A., King C. (2003). “Bark Parks.” A study of interdog aggression in a limited-control environment. — J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 6: 25-32.
-
Smuts B.B. (2010). Domestic dogs. — In: Encyclopedia of animal behavior ( Breed M.D., Moore J., eds). Elsevier, New York, p. 562-567.
-
Smuts B.B. (2014). Social behavior in companion dogs with an emphasis on play. — In: The social dog: behavior and cogcition ( Kaminski J., Marshall-Pescini S., eds). Elsevier, New York, NY, p. 105-130.
-
Smuts B.B., Watanabe J.M. (1990). Social relationships and ritualized greetings in adult male baboons (Papio cynocephalus anubis). — Int. J. Primatol. 11: 147-172.
-
Topál J., Miklósi A., Gácsi M., Dóka A., Pongracz P., Kubinyi E., Viryáni Z., Csányi V. (2009). The dog as a model for understanding human social behavior. — Adv. Stud. Behav. 39: 71-116.
-
van der Borg J.A.M., Schilder M.B.H., Vinke C. (2012). Dominance and its behavioural measures in a pack of domestic dogs. — Paper presented at the 3rd Canine Science Forum Barcelona, Spain. Available online at http://dogspies.com/Dog_Spies/Science!_files/CSF%202012%20Abstracts.pdf.
-
van Hooff J.A.R.A.M., Wensing J.A.B. (1987). Dominance and its behavioral measures in a captive wolf pack. — In: Man and wolf: advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research ( Frank H., ed.). Dr. W. Junk, Dordrecht, p. 219-252.
-
van Kerkhove W. (2004). A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal dog social behavior. — J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 7: 279-285.
-
Vervaecke H., de Vries H., van Elsacker L. (2000). Dominance and its behavioral measures in a captive group of bonobos (Pan paniscus). — Int. J. Primatol. 21: 47-68.
-
Viryáni Z., Range F. (2014). On the way to a better understanding of dog domestication: aggression and cooperativeness in dogs and wolves. — In: The social dog: behaviour and cognition ( Kaminski J., Marshall-Pescini S., eds). Elsevier, New York, NY, p. 35-62.
-
Vonholdt B.M., Stahler D.R., Smith D.W., Earl D.A., Pollinger J.P., Wayne R.K. (2008). The geneology and genetic viability of reintroduced Yellowstone grey wolves. — Mol. Ecol. 17: 252-274.
-
Ward C., Bauer E.B., Smuts B.B. (2008). Partner preferences and asymmetries in social play among domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, littermates. — Anim. Behav. 76: 1187-1199.
-
Zahavi A. (1977). The testing of a bond. — Anim. Behav. 25: 246-247.
-
Zimen E. (1978). The wolf. — Delacorte Press, New York, NY.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1978 | 399 | 24 |
| Full Text Views | 411 | 43 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 278 | 79 | 6 |
Dominance relationships in a group of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)
In: BehaviourWe investigated the extent to which dominance relationships, as described for feral dogs and wolves, applied to a group of 24 neutered companion dogs at a dog daycare facility. Similar to other studies of dogs and wolves, we found significant linear dominance hierarchies based on highly unidirectional displays of submission and aggression. Submission was the most frequent, unidirectional and linear type of agonistic behaviour and, therefore, a better indicator of status than aggression or dominance displays. Aggression was low intensity, consisting mainly of ritualized threats with no physical contact, and conflicts involving physical contact were never injurious. Older dogs out-ranked younger dogs, but size was unrelated to dominance rank. Dominance relationships were more often expressed in same-sex dyads than between males and females. The coverage of dominance relationships in the daycare group was low compared to that reported for sexually intact dogs and wolves, which was probably a result of reduced competition due to neutering and other human influences. In many dyads dogs never exchanged agonistic behaviours, but bi-directional relationships were rare, and most dogs formed some dominance relationships with other dogs. Except for their low coverage, muzzle licks met the criteria for a formal display of submission. Our results suggest that dominance remains a robust component of domestic dog behaviour even when humans significantly reduce the potential for resource competition. The possible proximate benefits of dominance relationships for dogs are discussed.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1978 | 399 | 24 |
| Full Text Views | 411 | 43 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 278 | 79 | 6 |