Dr John Bradshaw, a biologist who started the anthrozoology department at Bristol University, has published a fair bit of work on the dominance theory regarding dogs.
In 2011, his book In Defence of Dogs was published. You can glean the thrust of it from this review in the Telegraph.
In 2014, he co-wrote Dominance in domestic dogs: A response to Schilder et al. (2014). As the title indicates, it responded to Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: Useful habit and useful construct?, Schilder et al., both published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour. They set out 2 sides of the debate. Dr Bradshaw concluded that:
The relationship between dogs and their owners has been the subject of much more research recently and older texts and those that extrapolate the behaviour of wolves or wild dogs have to be treated with great caution. The jury's not out yet (as the disagreement between Drs. Bradshaw and Schilder shows) but the notion that humans need to dominate their dogs is shaky at best. Positive reinforcement and rewards-based training rather than continual vigilance to ensure that the dog is seen to submit at all times may be all that's required.
As an example, I'd never ask guests to ignore my dog for 30 minutes. The easiest way to get rid of a Samoyed is to give it some attention. Once they know they've won you over, they're off. Guests who play hard to get build up their excitement and desire for attention. Playing dominance games like this just creates a problem that doesn't need to exist. It certainly doesn't produce any long-term benefit. Of course, other breeds and individual dogs may react differently.
In 2011, his book In Defence of Dogs was published. You can glean the thrust of it from this review in the Telegraph.
In 2014, he co-wrote Dominance in domestic dogs: A response to Schilder et al. (2014). As the title indicates, it responded to Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: Useful habit and useful construct?, Schilder et al., both published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour. They set out 2 sides of the debate. Dr Bradshaw concluded that:
Quote:Similarly, although it is clear that dogs have retained many of the individual patterns of intraspecific communicative behavior from the wolf, we urge caution in extrapolating the function of these behaviors from free-ranging dogs, or indeed wolves, to the behavior of companion dogs, for 2 reasons. Not only has the significance of the various displays almost certainly been altered during the pro- cess of domestication, but also the lifetime experiences of companion dogs are very different from those of their free-ranging counterparts. We particularly urge against the extrapolation of conclusions drawn from the intraspecific behavior of free-ranging dogs to the interpretation of interspecific behavior directed by companion dogs toward humans. Put simply, we do not believe that the fact that human observers can measure consistent relationships between some pairs of dogs, and can define these as dominance relationships, should be interpreted as providing evidence for the hypothesis that “dominance” is an inherent (“personality”) characteristic of dogs, nor that their behaviors are driven by the motivation to enhance their relative “status.” Indeed, we argue that at our current state of knowledge of cognitive processes in the Carnivora, it is misleading to presume that domestic dogs have the mental capacity to conceptualize “status.”
We also consider it dangerous to use such extrapolations to support techniques used to alter the behavior of companion dogs, whether that be basic training or the resolution of behavioral disorders. The “dominance” concept has long been used to justify the application of pain and fear in dog training, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that not only are such methods potentially dangerous for the person using them, they are counterproductive in terms of behavioral outcomes, owner-pet bonds, and canine welfare (Rooney and Bradshaw, 2014; Schalke et al., 2007; Schilder and van der Borg, 2004).
The relationship between dogs and their owners has been the subject of much more research recently and older texts and those that extrapolate the behaviour of wolves or wild dogs have to be treated with great caution. The jury's not out yet (as the disagreement between Drs. Bradshaw and Schilder shows) but the notion that humans need to dominate their dogs is shaky at best. Positive reinforcement and rewards-based training rather than continual vigilance to ensure that the dog is seen to submit at all times may be all that's required.
As an example, I'd never ask guests to ignore my dog for 30 minutes. The easiest way to get rid of a Samoyed is to give it some attention. Once they know they've won you over, they're off. Guests who play hard to get build up their excitement and desire for attention. Playing dominance games like this just creates a problem that doesn't need to exist. It certainly doesn't produce any long-term benefit. Of course, other breeds and individual dogs may react differently.