Lionhound : I don't want to cloud the issue here talking about SE. I will just say one thing in support of my belief in SE : like him, I think of my dogs as domesticated "wolves", and various techniques he has suggested to help with Tai (which I won't go into here, you will have to go onto Cry-Wolf if you want to know), have worked in a quite extraordinarily immediate way.

I have repeatedly said why I think this research is flawed. I have discussed this with my husband, who is a medical scientist (although working in the field of human medical diagnostics, his speciality was actually Mammalian Physiology and Zoology, subjects in which he has an Honours Degree, as well as Biochem) and he agrees with me. Your subject matter MUST be totally representative ... in this case ... of the general dog population as a whole. I am sorry, but he is completely in agreement that dogs in a Rescue Home are not representative of the general dog population. I can't say any more than that !

I do accept your point though about reading the full paper. At one time, hubby would have been able to get a copy of this free of charge, but he is now retired from the medical field and his subscriptions and access passwords etc. will no longer work. I am unemployed at the moment, and just don't want to spend money on reading the paper. I will ask hubby if he can get an ex colleague maybe to get hold of it, but you are right, it is a bit unfair of me to say the research is flawed when I haven't read the full paper.

I am open minded, I really am, I promise !! But if God himself told me that using dogs in a rescue home to represent the dog population as a whole was sound science, I would not believe him until I had read the facts for myself ... that's the way I am. I used to believe anything I read, was totally gullible, still am in life, but hubby has taught me NEVER to believe anything until I have the full facts, to always doubt and question, thats what he does the whole time in such situations as we have here.

What !! Sorry, I have just been out for an hour or so to cut the grass !! Didn't know I was ignoring you. Have I missed something?

"Hopefully the last word(s) on Dominance"

Apparently not .

All I can say is that I hope people take notice of this research but unless it gets shouted out about from the rooftops I doubt anyone will take much notice, especially when there are idiots on the telly telling everyone that the problems with their dogs is all about dominance.

It's such a shame. Having had the experince of the pack reduction/dominance theory go completely wrong, it sends a shudder through me whenever I hear or see people applying these "ideas".

(JMO)

Janie there is now lots of evidence against the dominance theory and has been for a long time, this new paper just adds to it.
You will never convince some people particularly those who want to believe in dominance that the theory is all wrong .
For the rest of us it is good to have even more confirmation of a recognised truth .

Nope! The research clearly states, and my own experience confirms it, that dogs DO NOT have a pack structure, they are, I suppose, a loose coalition of different dogs that 'get along' (in most instances).
Having a 'leader' implies a conscious decision on the part of an animal to achieve it, it's what all dogs allegedly asprire or try to be when quite simply it isn't. It's misinterpretation of a dogs behaviour. Which is opportunistic.
Becky

Dominance in domestic dogs—useful construct or bad habit?
Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages 135-144
J. Bradshaw, E. Blackwell, R. Casey

Abstract

The term “dominance” is widely used in the academic and popular literature on the behavior of domestic dogs, especially in the context of aggression. Although dominance is correctly a property of relationships, it has been erroneously used to describe a supposed trait of individual dogs, even though there is little evidence that such a trait exists. When used correctly to describe a relationship between 2 individuals, it tends to be misapplied as a motivation for social interactions, rather than simply a quality of that relationship. Hence, it is commonly suggested that a desire ‘to be dominant’ actually drives behavior, especially aggression, in the domestic dog. By contrast, many recent studies of wolf packs have questioned whether there is any direct correspondence between dominance within a relationship and agonistic behavior, and in contrast to wolves, hierarchical social structures have little relationship with reproductive behavior in feral dog packs. Nor do the exchanges of aggressive and submissive behavior in feral dogs, originally published by S. K. Pal and coworkers, fit the pattern predicted from wolf behavior, especially the submissive behavior observed between members of different packs. In the present study of a freely interacting group of neutered male domestic dogs, pairwise relationships were evident, but no overall hierarchy could be detected. Since there seems to be little empirical basis for wolf-type dominance hierarchies in dogs, the authors have examined alternative constructs. Parker's Resource Holding Potential (RHP) appears to be less useful when applied to domestic dogs than to other species, although it has the advantage of incorporating the concept of subjective resource value (V) as a factor influencing whether or not conflicts are escalated. The authors propose that associative learning, combined with V, can provide more parsimonious explanations for agonistic behavior in dogs than can the traditional concept of dominance.

Gnasher suffers from confirmation bias. The only study she would accept is one that confirmed everything she already believed to be true. Even if she has to cherry pick points of valid studies or misinterpret what is written.

I've mentioned that I am a member where Evo/Creo is debated and the creos suffer from the same condition. The creationist position is an emotional one, one that feels good to and provides comfort. No amount of facts and reason could ever persuade them otherwise because she didn't come to their position by reason.

I think she has been presented with dozens of studies from real wolf biologists, ethologists, etc and she prefers the "wisdom" of a dog groomer who is on TV and a guy who has wolves in an enclosure. So while she objects about certain aspects of this study - which in her opinion make it unscientific - she has no problem ignoring the same conditions from her heroes and blindly accepting what they claim.

She only finds methodological flaws when it is convenient.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I have a subscription to that journal through my University so if anyone would like me to email them a PDF copy I'd be happy to.

Spot on

This is a very good point. TBH research is only really anygood if it's been critiqued by someone and then verified as viable. Anyone can do a research study, but if the methods used to carry it out are flawed then the results themselves will be flawed. If only dogs with kennel stress were used then the findings will be skewed and reflect this in the results.

For example, if I did a research study on the credit crunch and did a questionnaire, but only asked questions outside of Poundstretcher, then the results of the questionnaire would be skewed as it would only reflect the opinons of the type of people that shop in Poundstretcher. To make sure the study was fair I'd have to make sure I asked the questions in a variety of places to ensure my population for the study varied enough.

But I doubt anyone will pay attention to this post as I'm guessing you're all too busy arguing about CM and SE!