Reconsidering Dominance Theory...
What is dominance?
Dominance is a relative position between two or more animals of the same species. The dominant animal maintains, through aggression or intimidation, priority access to multiple resources, like food and mates. A dominant-submissive relationship doesn't exist until one individual continually defers to the other. Dominance is NOT a personality type - if you take two pigs that were each the dominant member of their herd and put them together, they won't both become dominant.
What is the alpha theory?
Alpha theory, or dominance theory, is an approach to canine behavior that states that you must establish dominance, by force or intimidation, over your dog in order for your dog to respect you as the 'alpha' of your human-dog relationship. It was developed by extrapolating data collected from captive wolves, out to wild wolves, and then to dogs. It has since been further extrapolated to be applied to pigs (huh? We certainly know pigs are not dogs, or wolves, or anything close!). While many animals, including pigs, have social hierarchies amongst themselves, there is little evidence to support that a predator (human) can establish an actual hierarchy over a prey animal (pig). Many times what is thought to be dominance behavior from a pig is actually fear-based aggression.
How does the alpha theory apply to pigs?
The alpha theory was based on studies of captive wolves and then applied to dogs. While it has since been fiercely debated and in some instances, debunked, at least we can understand that it seemed sensible and applicable because wolves and dogs are related and therefore, their behavior was assumed to be related as well. Somewhere along the way, it started being applied to pet pigs as well, though we know very well that dogs and pigs are completely different species with completely different sets of behavior! So what evidence do we have that dominance theory is correct and/or applicable in pigs? None, actually. Sure, there is some anecdotal evidence that shows being 'dominant' to your pet pig when they misbehave works. Does it actually work though? Or does it just work enough, by creating a pig that avoids you in certain situations in order to avoid being pushed around? As with dominance theory in dogs, I believe that we may just be creating a false sense of success, when in reality, we are just creating an environment of distrust, low levels of fear and a real possibility of greater problems down the road. Regardless of personal feelings of whether, anecdotally, it might seem to work with pigs, why would we assume that a (now scientifically questionable) theory about dog behavior would have any application to pigs?
Where do we go from here?
Once we consider the science of how animals learn, we can know that, across species, positive reinforcement and reward based training methods are generally most effective and are inherently more likely to create the kind of positive relationship people seek with their pets. The American Society of Veterinary Animal Behaviorists issued a position statement in 2008 against the use of dominance theory methods with pets, where they emphasized that “most undesirable behaviors in our pets are not related to priority access to resources; rather, they are due to accidental rewarding of the undesirable behavior", and that "pets subjected to threats or force may not offer submissive behaviors. Instead, they may react with aggression, not because they are trying to be dominant but because the human threatening them makes them afraid." (AVSAB Position Statement on Dominance Theory). While there is very little research into pet pigs specifically, I hope that we can start looking critically at our old methods of training pigs and start looking for new approaches that are based on scientifically sound principles of learning, and that acknowledge the specific natural history and behavior of the pig.
Dominance is a relative position between two or more animals of the same species. The dominant animal maintains, through aggression or intimidation, priority access to multiple resources, like food and mates. A dominant-submissive relationship doesn't exist until one individual continually defers to the other. Dominance is NOT a personality type - if you take two pigs that were each the dominant member of their herd and put them together, they won't both become dominant.
What is the alpha theory?
Alpha theory, or dominance theory, is an approach to canine behavior that states that you must establish dominance, by force or intimidation, over your dog in order for your dog to respect you as the 'alpha' of your human-dog relationship. It was developed by extrapolating data collected from captive wolves, out to wild wolves, and then to dogs. It has since been further extrapolated to be applied to pigs (huh? We certainly know pigs are not dogs, or wolves, or anything close!). While many animals, including pigs, have social hierarchies amongst themselves, there is little evidence to support that a predator (human) can establish an actual hierarchy over a prey animal (pig). Many times what is thought to be dominance behavior from a pig is actually fear-based aggression.
How does the alpha theory apply to pigs?
The alpha theory was based on studies of captive wolves and then applied to dogs. While it has since been fiercely debated and in some instances, debunked, at least we can understand that it seemed sensible and applicable because wolves and dogs are related and therefore, their behavior was assumed to be related as well. Somewhere along the way, it started being applied to pet pigs as well, though we know very well that dogs and pigs are completely different species with completely different sets of behavior! So what evidence do we have that dominance theory is correct and/or applicable in pigs? None, actually. Sure, there is some anecdotal evidence that shows being 'dominant' to your pet pig when they misbehave works. Does it actually work though? Or does it just work enough, by creating a pig that avoids you in certain situations in order to avoid being pushed around? As with dominance theory in dogs, I believe that we may just be creating a false sense of success, when in reality, we are just creating an environment of distrust, low levels of fear and a real possibility of greater problems down the road. Regardless of personal feelings of whether, anecdotally, it might seem to work with pigs, why would we assume that a (now scientifically questionable) theory about dog behavior would have any application to pigs?
Where do we go from here?
Once we consider the science of how animals learn, we can know that, across species, positive reinforcement and reward based training methods are generally most effective and are inherently more likely to create the kind of positive relationship people seek with their pets. The American Society of Veterinary Animal Behaviorists issued a position statement in 2008 against the use of dominance theory methods with pets, where they emphasized that “most undesirable behaviors in our pets are not related to priority access to resources; rather, they are due to accidental rewarding of the undesirable behavior", and that "pets subjected to threats or force may not offer submissive behaviors. Instead, they may react with aggression, not because they are trying to be dominant but because the human threatening them makes them afraid." (AVSAB Position Statement on Dominance Theory). While there is very little research into pet pigs specifically, I hope that we can start looking critically at our old methods of training pigs and start looking for new approaches that are based on scientifically sound principles of learning, and that acknowledge the specific natural history and behavior of the pig.
For more information, please check out our multi-part series that delves into the science of social hierarchies, dominance & porcine behavior, and why achieving positive results by using dominance theory can be so difficult.
Understanding Dominance - Part I
Understanding Dominance - Part II
Understanding Dominance - Part I
Understanding Dominance - Part II
