[ ♪ INTRO ] There are some cute, well-trained dogs out
there. You know, the ones that can high five or walk
on their hind legs. But the methods people use to /train/ their
dogs can be much less adorable. In dog training, the term “alpha” is thrown
around a lot, and this idea of the “alpha dog” has been popular for years. According to so-called “alpha pack theory”,
dogs live in social hierarchies where the top dog — or alpha — decides who gets
to mate, eat, and do basically anything else. And /every/ dog wants to be the alpha. So to train or even live with your animal,
you have to get them to think /you’re/ the “alpha” by exhibiting behaviors that — according
to this theory — /dogs/ use to let other dogs know they’re on top. Things like staring your dog down, always
going first through a doorway, or rolling them onto their back to show them who’s
boss. But, here’s the thing: Alpha pack theory
isn’t true. It comes from a misunderstanding of both wolves
/and/ dogs. And there are much better ways to interact
with animals. This theory had its roots in a study done
in the 1940s, when a scientist did behavioral tests on a pack of /wolves/ that had been
caught in the wild. He placed ten wolves from different packs
in a small enclosure and noticed that they formed a social hierarchy. Some animals seemed to control the distribution
of resources, and resources were passed down to other wolves based on their rank in the
group. The researcher named these ranks after the
letters of the Greek alphabet. So, the alpha wolves got the first pick of
food, the betas, just below them, got the second pick, and then came the omega or omegas:
the most submissive. Based on this, he proposed that the bigger,
bossier wolves used aggression and hostile behavior to establish that they were in charge. And then… everyone took this idea and ran
with it. See, the domestic dogs we see today, from
the smallest poodle to the largest Great Dane, are all descended from a common ancestor shared
with wolves. And although dogs have been comfortably living
with us for at least 15,000 years, their relationship with their wild cousins often leads us to
believe the animals act in similar ways. Which is how the public’s understanding
of wolf pack research from the mid-1900s led to the idea of alpha /dogs/. Today, dog owners are often instructed to
take the role of the “alpha” and show their animals that they’re in control of
all resources, and therefore must be obeyed. But… wolves don’t actually act like that. Since the ‘40s, many scientists and naturalists have observed wolf packs both in enclosures
and in the wild. Including one hugely influential one named
David Mech, who spent /thirteen summers/ in the late ‘80s and ‘90s observing wolf
packs in their natural habitats! Mech found that wolves in the wild live in
large, family-style groups where two parents will sire and raise a couple litters of pups. He also noticed that wild wolf packs /don’t/
exhibit the intense aggression and competition that were seen in the captured wolves. In fact, they work together as a family to
raise young and keep each other safe. Although some of the animals are natural leaders
of the pack, they didn’t grow into this because of competition and aggression, but
rather because of personality, seniority, and mentoring their younger siblings. So, how was that study from the 1940s so off? Well, /turns out/, if you put a bunch of unrelated
animals from different regions in an enclosure with few resources, they’re going to act
differently. That experiment got rid of the only social
structure those wolves knew, so they had to come up with something else. Also, these experiments were founded on an
incorrect idea that wolf packs start fresh each winter, with new wolves joining and some
leaving. It wasn’t until Mech’s research that scientists
realized this error. So, that’s two strikes against this alpha
dog thing. And strike three? Despite the common ancestor, dogs aren’t
wolves. Studies show that thanks to domestication,
dogs respond differently to humans than wolves do: For instance, they show more attachment
to their humans than wolves in captivity, and some studies suggest they’re better
at picking up on our cues. That’s not to say that all dogs live in
harmony: When they live together, they can still have conflict over resources. But it’s /not/ because of some ingrained,
linear social hierarchy. Today, the consensus among researchers is
that alpha pack theory is ineffective when training dogs and actually detrimental to
their welfare. Punishment as a training method isn’t pleasant
for a dog, and it can lead to aggressive behavior where they wouldn’t normally be combative. Also, even though this theory was based on
behaviors dogs use to communicate... we’re not dogs. And they seem to know that. They’ve actually evolved unique ways of
communicating with us, so trying to mimic their behavior through, say, physical correction,
isn’t an effective way to get a message across. Instead, the most effective way to train a
dog is to encourage their behavior using positive reinforcement — things like giving them
a treat when they sit or saying “Good boy!” when they wait for their food bowl. Rewarding them with something /they/ like
for doing something /you/ like. This has been shown to not only work, but
to work /better/ than other forms of training. Because not only is it less potentially-confusing,
but it’s /motivating/: Dogs learn that it’s worthwhile to keep doing some behavior. So, in short, dogs aren’t wolves, and captive
wolves aren’t wild wolves, either. It’s all based on misunderstandings and
unintentional problems with study design. But now that we know that, we can treat animals
better. If you want to learn more about how dogs became
our best friends, we recommend checking out an episode from one of our sister channels,
PBS Eons. They recently came out with an episode about
dog domestication, and like everything from the PBS Eons team, it’s a delight. As always, thanks for watching this episode
of SciShow, and we’ll be back tomorrow with more cool science. [ ♪ OUTRO ]
I'll always love how much people latch onto this myth when the author of the original article spent the REST OF HIS CAREER TRYING TO DEBUNK IT.
This video deconstructs the "alpha dog" myth, with scientific facts.
Another explanation from a scientist: https://youtu.be/tNtFgdwTsbU
The myth of the "alpha" is often at the root of the belief in social hierarchy and domination/submission.
Also, other good reads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Legitimizing_myths_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation
Using a flawed understanding of canines as excuses to oppress other humans. lol humans are so fucked up.
It's always fascinated me how eager people are to project hierarchies onto animals.
Many social species do in fact have fascinatingly complex group dynamics, but they don't really resemble human ideas of authority and dominance at all (with the possible exception of some primate species, which makes sense as they are our closest relatives).
This goes hand in hand with social darwinism.
this is good info. although nothing pisses me off more than people with huge powerful dogs with no control over them. the idea that your dog needs to see you as "Alpha" just means it needs to know your the boss and respect your wishes. this study might be wrong but it has helped many people including myself, to raise dogs propeely. i dont advocate for beating your pets but shunning is necessary. positive reinforcement is not enough when your raising an animal like a kengal. when your level of dominance over your pet can result in a danger to yourself and society or the kindest sweetest dog you've ever seen its important to not pretend like hierarchy is non existant. if im wrong i would love to be more informed. i would love to clarify i dont believe in the whole alpha beta thing for humans or even wolves and dogs. i just think saying dogs can understand humans well enough that you dont need to communicate a certain way with them is a dangerous concept. ive raised a kengal and it could physically kill me with no effort but never would. and thats only because i raised him to be a good respectful and gentle boy. positive reinforcement would never have been enough. especially while raising a force of nature whose job it is to protect baby goats from predators. meaning a balance between being gentle and intimidating.
edit : as a side note, the goats are matriarchal and constantly duel for dominance. and the current matriarch eats first and her kids eat first. which seems very alpha beta to me. and this is goats who grew up together with no shortage of resources. its just ingrained in them.
If this video is longer than 10 minutes, please add a 3 to 5 sentence comment outlining positions taken in the video and the reason you posted it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The simple response is "we're not dogs"