Dominance in dogs as rated by owners

corresponds to ethologically valid

markers of dominance
Enikő Kubinyi and Lisa J. Wallis
Department of Ethology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

ABSTRACT
Dominance is well defined in ethology, debated in psychology, and is often unclear
among the dog owning public and in the press. However, to date, no study has examined
how owners perceive dominance in dogs, and what different behaviours and personality
types are used to describe dominant and subordinate individuals. A questionnaire
study was launched to investigate the external validity of owner-derived estimates of
dominance in dog dyads sharing the same household (N = 1,151). According to the
owners, dogs rated as dominant (87%) have priority access to resources (resting place,
food, and rewards), undertake certain tasks (defend and lead the group, bark more),
display dominance (win fights, lick the other’s mouth less, and mark over the other’s
urine), share certain personality traits (smarter, more aggressive and impulsive), and
are older than their partner dog (all p < 0.0001). An age-related hypothesis has been
suggested to explain dominance in dogs; but we found that dog age did not explain the
occurrence of dominance related behaviours over the owners’ estimate of dominance
status. Results suggest that owner-derived reports of dominance ranks of dogs living
in multi-dog households correspond to ethologically valid behavioural markers of
dominance. Size and physical condition were unrelated to the perceived dominance.
Surprisingly, in mixed-sex dyads, females were more frequently rated as dominant
than males, which might correspond to a higher proportion of neutered females in
this subgroup. For future studies that wish to allocate dominance status using owner
report, we offer a novel survey.
Submitted 21 November 2018
Accepted 24 March 2019
Published 9 May 2019
Subjects Animal Behavior
Corresponding author Keywords Dominance, Domestic dog, Animal personality, Submission, Agonistic behavior,
Enikő Kubinyi,
Ageing, Leadership
[email protected]
Academic editor
Lydia Hopper INTRODUCTION
Additional Information and The term dominant is often used by dog owners to describe dogs; however, there may be
Declarations can be found on
page 16 little agreement regarding its meaning, as dominance is defined differently in ethology,
psychology, and among the public. In ethology, dominance describes long-term dominant-
DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838
subordinate social relationships within a dyad or group (Clutton-Brock et al., 1979; Drews,
Copyright 1993). Dominant individuals usually have priority access to key resources such as food and
2019 Kubinyi and Wallis
reproductive partners, due to the consistent winning of agonistic interactions or deference,
Distributed under during which one individual consistently gives way to another (Lorenz, 1966; Smith &
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
Price, 1973). However, in psychology, dominance is often referred to as a personality trait
OPEN ACCESS (Gosling & John, 1999) and describes the disposition of an individual to assert control in

How to cite this article Kubinyi E, Wallis LJ. 2019. Dominance in dogs as rated by owners corresponds to ethologically valid markers of
dominance. PeerJ 7:e6838 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6838
 dealing with others. Finally, the word ‘‘dominance’’ is defined as having control, authority,
and power or influence over others (Westgarth, 2016), and the general public may use this
word to describe individuals who are more powerful, successful, or important than others.
When we consider these three definitions, it is not surprising it is unclear what dog owners
mean when they use the term ‘dominance’ in reference to their dogs.
In the next paragraphs we summarize the current knowledge about dominance in dogs
and then we examine how scientific findings are related to the perception of dominance in
the dog owning public. Although dominance hierarchies have previously been described in
free-ranging dogs (Bonanni et al., 2010; Cafazzo et al., 2010; Bonanni & Cafazzo, 2014), in
dogs living in packs in enclosures (Range, Ritter & Viranyi, 2015; Van Der Borg et al., 2015;
Dale et al., 2017), and in neutered pet dogs at a dog day care centre (Trisko & Smuts, 2015;
Trisko, Smuts & Sandel, 2016), the existence and validity of linear dominance hierarchies
in these animals is highly debated both by the public and some researchers, mainly because
agonistic interactions are rare and contextual (Schilder, Vinke & Van der Borg, 2014). Data
on kennelled dogs suggest that dominance is based on submission (signalled mostly by
body tail wag and low posture) rather than on aggression (Van Der Borg et al., 2015).
Therefore, it has been suggested that domestication has altered the social behaviour of
dogs compared to wolves, and submissive behaviour is used to defuse conflicts (Bradshaw,
Blackwell & Casey, 2009).
In addition, as Van Kerkhove (2004) notes, although dominance hierarchies in dogs are
often described through access to resources (or ‘‘competitive ability’’, (De Waal, 1986)),
not all individuals are equally motivated (or physically able) to obtain them. Therefore the
subjective resource value, in combination with associative learning (Bradshaw, Blackwell
& Casey, 2009; Bradshaw, Blackwell & Casey, 2016) and personality (McGreevy et al., 2012)
can explain interactions between dogs more simply than dominance theory. Moreover, if
researchers do not assume the existence of a dominance hierarchy, they seldom identify
one, thus a more dynamic approach is needed in order to understand social organizations
(Overall, 2016).
However, when a hierarchy was detected in a dog group, several parameters have been
shown to covary with dominance status, such as age, sex, and personality. Older dogs were
found to be more often dominant than young individuals (Mech, 1999; Peterson et al.,
2002; Bonanni et al., 2010; Bonanni et al., 2017; Cafazzo et al., 2010; Trisko & Smuts, 2015).
Therefore Bradshaw, Blackwell & Casey (2016) suggested that a simple rule of thumb could
help to explain formal dominance in dogs: ‘‘in order to be allowed to stay in the group,
perform affiliative behaviour towards all the members of the group older than you are’’.
However, in a group of domestic dogs, van der Borg and colleagues (2015) did not find
correlations of rank with age, and it remains unexplored whether the age related hypothesis
is a better predictor of formal dominance than dominance displays.
Concerning sex as a potential confounding factor of dominance, conflicts between
dogs living in the same household are more common between dogs of the same sex, and
female–female pairs are most often affected (Sherman et al., 1996; Wrubel et al., 2011).
Mixed-sex dyads are more likely to affiliate and less likely to show unidirectional displays
of submissiveness and aggression than same-sex pairs (Trisko & Smuts, 2015). In wolves,

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 2/20

 separate male and female age-graded dominance hierarchies have been observed in captive
packs (Packard, 2003). Overall, male wolves were found to be more often dominant and/or
leaders of the pack (Clark, 1971; Haber, 1977; Mech, 1999). In one study on free-ranging
dogs, a sex age-graded hierarchy was found, such that males dominate females in each
age class, and adults dominate over subadults, and subadults over juveniles (Cafazzo et
al., 2010). However, sex had no clear effect on dominance in a family pack of captive
arctic wolves, although sex-separated linear hierarchies showed a stronger linearity than
female-male hierarchies (Cafazzo, Lazzaroni & Marshall-Pescini, 2016).
Personality traits might also associate with dominance status. For example, aggression
towards people and controllability was linked to dominance rank and leadership in pet
dogs according to Ákos et al. (2014). Since some dog owners describe dogs that often show
dominant behaviour towards other dogs as having a ‘‘dominant personality’’, studies
linking personality traits to dominance status would be especially useful to help clarify the
correct terminology to the public. Dog owners confusion regarding the term dominance
can be partly explained by the fact that based on a literature review on canine personality,
researchers have identified a broad dimension labelled as ‘Submissiveness’, and defined it as
the opposite of dominance (Fratkin et al., 2013). According to the authors, ‘‘Dominance can
be judged by observing which dogs bully others, and which guard food areas and feed first.
Submission can also be reflected by such behaviours as urination upon greeting people’’.
Thus, even in the scientific literature some authors define dominance as a personality trait,
and there is an ongoing debate in human, primate, and dog personality research on how
to interpret certain traits. However, according to the majority of ethologists dominance is
not a personality trait (Schilder, Vinke & Van der Borg, 2014). While personality is largely
independent of context and is stable over time (Jones & Gosling, 2005) dominance status
depends on the interacting partners.
The popular media has also played a role in influencing owners’ attitudes, by often
describing dominant dogs as those with behavioural problems or a tendency towards
aggression. A dog is often referred to as dominant when it ‘‘misbehaves’’, e.g., jumps up
on or shows aggression towards the owner. The belief that such behaviours may signify
that the dog is attempting to control the owners’ behaviour, is based on erroneous models
of wolf pack organisation, and has often been used to justify the use of abusive training
techniques (Bradshaw, Blackwell & Casey, 2016). However, negative reinforcement and
positive punishment training techniques can cause increased stress, fear and mistrust, and
are associated with increased aggression towards other dogs in the household (Casey et al.,
2013), and towards human family members (Casey et al., 2014). Positive punishment has
obvious abusive connotations too, according to these studies.
Previously, several studies have attempted to determine the dominance rank of dogs
living in multi-dog households by utilising owner questionnaires (Pongrácz et al., 2008;
Pongrácz, Bánhegyi & Miklósi, 2012; Ákos et al., 2014). Pongrácz et al. (2008) used a four
item questionnaire to measure dogs’ dominance status in dyads, and related them to
differences in social learning in response to a human or dog demonstrator. Dogs were
identified as dominant if they displayed at least three behaviours out of four (barked
more/longer, licked the other dog’s mouth less, ate first, and won fights). Dominant dogs

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 3/20

 were less likely to learn from observing other dogs, and more likely to copy a human
demonstrator. They also performed better than subordinates in a problem solving task,
but only when observing a human demonstrator (Pongrácz, Bánhegyi & Miklósi, 2012).
Subordinate dogs showed better learning in the dog demonstrator condition. Results from
both studies suggest that social rank affects performance in social learning situations,
as dominant dogs tend to follow humans while subordinate dogs follow other dogs.
Thus, owner questionnaires could be a valid method to determine the dominance rank
of individuals within dog dyads, similarly to other dog behaviour studies, particularly as
the quality of data produced by citizen scientists has proved to be satisfactory (Hecht &
Spicer Rice, 2015).
To understand how the dog-owning public use the word ‘‘dominance’’, we evaluated
what attributes they associated with dominance using a questionnaire study. We have to
note here, that, as Westgarth suggests (Westgarth, 2016), it is possible that a dominance
hierarchy is not fundamental to the structure of the dogs’ social system, but is rather
the by-product of human observation. According to this view, dominance is simply the
question of individual interpretation, and this is another reason to investigate how the
public interprets ‘‘dominance’’ in dogs. In this study, we surveyed people that owned
multiple dogs. We investigated the relationship between the dogs’ ranks, behaviour, and
demography. We were interested in finding out whether dogs that the owners have classified
as ‘‘dominant’’ display certain behaviours more or less often than their subordinate partner.
We also tested the age related hypothesis suggested by Bradshaw et al. (2016) by determining
which factor best explained behavioural and demographic differences between the dyads,
owner reported hierarchical status or age status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical statement
The procedures applied complied with national and EU legislation and institutional
guidelines (ethical approval: Government Office for Pest County PE/EA/2019-5/2017).
Participants were informed about the identity of the researchers, the aim, procedure,
and expected time commitment of filling out the survey. Owners filled out the survey
anonymously; therefore, we did not collect personal data. Participants could at any point
decline to participate (Supplemental Information S1).

Subjects
Between 25th June and 13th August 2017, 1156 owners of at least two dogs filled in a
questionnaire in Hungarian, which was advertised in a social media Dog Ethology group.
We identified the dogs using their given names, to ensure that no duplicate entries were
included in the analysis. After data cleaning and deleting of duplicate entries, 1151 responses
remained, which detailed owners’ responses for unique individual pairs of dogs. Owners
indicated the sex and reproductive status of each dog in the dyad, after allocating them
to either Dog A or Dog B (based on their own choice). We have no information on how
owners chose which dogs to compare if they had more than two dogs. Twenty three percent

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 4/20

 of the dyads consisted of males only, 28% females only, and 49% were both sexes. The
percentages of neutered individuals were 45% in males and 62% in females.

Procedure
The questionnaire consisted of 21 items (Table 1). In the case of items 1–19, owners
indicated which of the two dogs best fitted the description: Dog A, or Dog B. Owners
could also select ‘‘Similar’’ if both dogs fitted the description, or ‘‘N/A’’. When the owners
marked ‘‘N/A’’ we assumed that they could not answer the question as the dog/dogs did
not display that behaviour, or that situation did not occur (e.g., the dogs never fight with
each other or they do not go for walks together), or owners were unsure/did not fully
understand the question, or the answer was not known to them (e.g., they could not assess
which of the dogs was in better physical condition). We chose the behaviours based on
previous studies (Pongrácz et al., 2008; Pongrácz, Bánhegyi & Miklósi, 2012), and included
markers of agonistic (i.e., winner of fights) and formal dominance (i.e., licking the mouth
of the partner, usually during greeting ceremonies (signalling the acceptance of lower
social status) (Bonanni et al., 2010), as well as resource-holding potential (obtains more
food, (Vervaecke, De Vries & Van Elsacker, 2000), better resting places, etc.). In addition,
we included other factors, which have previously been proposed to be relevant when
measuring leadership and dominance, such as age, sex, size, physical condition, leadership
and specific behavioural characteristics, including intelligence, obedience, aggressiveness
and impulsiveness (Drews, 1993; Conradt & Roper, 2003; Conradt & Roper, 2005; Cafazzo
et al., 2010). Items 2–4 and 6 were the same as those used in Pongrácz et al. (2008). In the
case of items 20 and 21, the owner could also indicate ‘‘both’’ or ‘‘neither’’ dogs (Table 1).

Statistical analysis
Analyses were performed in SPSS 22.0 and R 3.3.2. Descriptive statistics were calculated
for the sample and summarised in the results section. Note that we did not have the
opportunity to use dominance rating (dominant vs subordinate) as a response variable in
a model directly, due to the design of the questionnaire, which collected information for
dyads (resulting in one line of data per dyad), and not individual dogs. Therefore individual
binomial analyses were the best way to answer our question, ‘‘Do dogs which the owners
classify as ‘‘dominant’’ show certain behaviours more or less often than their subordinate
partner?’’ and to deal with missing values.

Binomial tests using Dominance Status on the full sample

To investigate the owners’ responses for each item (1 to 21), we calculated the percentage
allocation of the dogs to each possible category: ‘‘Differ’’ (the dogs in a particular dyad
differed in that behaviour/characteristic), ‘‘Similar’’ (the dogs’ behaviour was similar) and
‘‘N/A’’ (the owner was not able to determine if the dogs differed).
In order to answer the question ‘‘do dogs that the owners classify as ‘‘dominant’’ show
certain behaviours more or less often than their subordinate partner’’, we used binomial
tests to compare the distribution of observations between the dogs for each of the replies
to items 2 to 21. We included only the dogs that were allocated a ‘‘dominant’’ or a
‘‘subordinate’’ status, based on the response of the owner to item 1 (‘‘Which of your dogs

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 5/20

 Table 1 Questionnaire items. Owners were asked to fill out the questionnaire for two of their dogs (‘A’
and ‘B’) and indicate which dog corresponds better to the description. They could also select ‘‘Similar’’ if
both dogs fitted the description or ‘‘N/A’’ if the question did not apply to the dog dyad.

Item number Item name Questions

1 status Which of the dogs is the ‘‘boss’’ (has a dominant status) to
the best of your knowledge?
2a bark When a stranger comes to the house, which dog starts to
bark first (or if they start to bark together, which dog barks
more or longer)?
3a lick mouth Which dog licks the other dog’s mouth more often?
4a eat first If the dogs get food at the same time and at the same spot,
which dog starts to eat first or eats the other dog’s food?
5 reward If they got a special reward (e.g., a marrowbone), which dog
obtains it?
6a fight If the dogs start to fight, which dog wins more frequently?
7 play ball If you play with a ball with both dogs, which one retrieves it
more frequently?
8 greet owner When you enter your home, which dog greets you first?
9 walk first Which dog goes in the front during walks?
10 resting place Which dog acquires the better resting place?
11 overmark Which dog marks over the other’s urination?
12 defend group If the dog’s group is perceived as being under attack, which
dog is in the front?
13 smart Which dog is smarter?
14 obedient Which dog is more obedient?
15 aggressive Which dog is more aggressive?
16 impulsive Which dog is more impulsive?
17 size Which dog is heavier?
18 physical condition Which dog is in a better physical condition?
19 age Which dog is older?
20 sex Which dog is male?
21 neutered Which dog is neutered?
Notes.
a
Adopted from Pongrácz et al. (2008).

is the boss/dominant). We did not consider dyads where owners indicated that their dogs
were ‘‘Similar’’ in dominance status, or where they marked ‘‘N/A’’ (N = 148). (Sample
sizes are indicated in Fig. 1 for each item). We lowered the p level to 0.0023 from 0.05 as
suggested by a Bonferroni correction for the 22 comparisons.

Binomial tests using Age Status on the full sample and comparison
with Dominance Status
We tested the age related hypothesis suggested by Bradshaw, Blackwell & Casey (2016),
by using the response of the owner to Age (item 19, ‘‘Which of your dogs is older?’’),
to assess differences between dogs allocated an ‘‘older’’ or ‘‘younger’’ status (dogs which
were ‘‘Similar’’ in age, or that were marked ‘‘N/A’’, N = 72, were excluded). Next, we
used two-sample tests for equality of proportions with continuity correction in order to

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 6/20

 100% 8 11 25 35 35 16 35 28
53

Percentage of 'Different', 'Similar' and 'N/A' responses

84 82 96 90
99 113 149 187 156 148 168 188
123 192 227
277
103 168
80% 266 347
123 174 360 404
211
95 226 218
116

60%

1059 1058 1027

1003 993
40% 943
899 887 907 829 821 795 792 769 758 757 745 738 719

20%

0%

Questionnaire item name (item number)

Figure 1 Differences between characteristics in dog dyads. Colours: orange: dogs in a dyad differ in the
characteristic, yellow: dogs are similar, green: N/A. Sample sizes are indicated on the columns, item num-
bers are in brackets. Seven items, highlighted by *, are suggested for future work based on both their sig-
nificant link with dominance status (independently from the sex of the dogs) and their occurrence (% of
’Similar’ responses were lower than 24.7 and % of ’N/A’ responses were lower than 16.1, see Descriptive
statistics).
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6838/fig-1

determine which factor (Dominance status or Age status) best explained the behavioural
and demographic differences between the dogs. This test is used to compare two observed
independent proportions. The test statistics analysed by this procedure assume that the
difference between the two proportions is zero under the null hypothesis.

Binomial tests on the mixed-sex and same-sex dyads

In order to examine any effect of the dyad composition on dominance status allocation,
we created subsets of data including mixed sex dyads (N = 491), and same-sex dyads
(N = 512), and ran additional binomial tests to inspect possible associations for items 2
–21. We again adjusted for multiple comparison using Bonferroni correction and lowered
the significance level to 0.0025.

Correlation of the items

We used the binary behavioural categories: ’’which of your dogs’ expresses the behaviour
more’’, the dominant = 1 or the subordinate = 0, of the 18 different items: bark, lick
mouth, eat first, reward, fight, play ball, greet owner, walk first, resting place, overmark,
defend group, smarter, obedient, aggressive, impulsive, size, physical condition, and age,
and correlated them using a Pearson Correlation. For this analysis we only used dyads
where we had no missing information (N = 215). Results are displayed and discussed in
the Supplemental Information.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 7/20

 Differences in the number of dominance related behaviours
expressed in dominants and subordinates
We created a ‘‘dominance score’’ by summing all the items that were significantly associated
with a ‘‘dominant’’ status for each dog in every dyad. Then we created a ‘‘difference score’’
by subtracting the subordinates’ dominance score from the ‘‘dominants’’ for each dyad. The
difference score was then used as the response variable in a general linear model to identify
the key variables associated with the difference score. All possible interactions between
dominant sex (male or female), subordinate sex (male or female), dominant neuter status
(intact or neutered), subordinate neuter status (intact or neutered) and dominant age
(older or younger) were entered into the model. We also included the main effect of the
order the dogs were entered into the questionnaire (Dog A first or second). We included
only the dyads where an asymmetry in dominance was detected by the owner (N = 931).
For more details, please see the Supplemental Information.

RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Eighty-seven percent of owners indicated that their dogs differed in social status, 10%
perceived them as similar, and 3% marked the question as ‘‘N/A’’ (Fig. 1). Some items
were unreliable for differentiating between the dogs. For example, 30.1–35.1% of the dyads
were reported to be similar in greeting the owner, smartness, and physical condition. Other
items were relatively difficult for the owners to assess; 16.2–24.3% of owners did not specify
a particular dog for the items lick mouth, fight, overmark, and aggressive, Fig. 1).

Binomial tests using Dominance Status on the full sample

We tested which items (from items 2–21) were associated with the perceived dominance
rank (item 1). Eleven different dog-dog or dog-owner oriented behaviours, five
behavioural/personality traits and five demographic factors were examined. The binomial
tests revealed that dogs rated as dominant usually (1) have priority access to certain
resources such as food, rewards, resting places; (2) are perceived as undertaking specific
tasks, such as ‘‘guard’’ the house through barking more, walk in the front during walks (i.e.,
‘‘leading’’ the group), defend the group in case of perceived danger; (3) display dominance:
win more fights, mark over the other’s urination, and more frequently accept that the
other dogs lick their mouth; (4) have characteristic personality traits: are smarter, more
aggressive and impulsive; and (5) are older than subordinates according to the owners.
Physical condition, obedience, sequence of greeting the owner and retrieving balls were
unrelated to perceived dominance (z ≥ |5.03|, p < 0.0001; see Fig. 2 and Table 2 for an
overview of the results).

Binomial tests using Age Status on the full sample and comparison
with Dominance Status
When we tested the age related hypothesis suggested by Bradshaw, Blackwell & Casey (2016)
we found that twelve items were associated with Age status. Six in the same direction as
the ‘‘dominance’’ status (bark, lick mouth, fight, resting place, defend group, and smart),

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 8/20

 Percentages with which each characteristic
87

was associated with "dominant" status

73 72 71
69 67
66 66 65
62 60
56 55 54
54 53 51
51 50
46 45

35

Questionnaire item name (item number)

Figure 2 Percentages with which each characteristic was associated with ‘‘dominant’’ status (numbers
in white at the top of each column). The * next to the item name and blue columns indicate that "dom-
inant’’ status was associated with the item after Bonferroni correction (for the Binomial tests all p val-
ues are ≤0.0022), and red columns indicate that the characteristic was not associated with the item. Item
numbers are in brackets. See Table 2 for more statistical results.
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6838/fig-2

and one in the opposite direction, owners found older dogs to be less impulsive, but
‘‘dominant’’ dogs more impulsive. Age but not dominance was associated with five items.
Older dogs bark more, play with the ball less, greet the owner less, are in worse physical
condition, are larger, and are less often intact than their younger partner dog, according
to the owners (p < 0.001). Dominance status was more strongly linked with 11 items in
comparison to age status (for statistical details see Table 2).

Binomial tests on the mixed-sex dyad sample

In mixed-sex pairs where a dominant was indicated (N = 491), 51% of males and 67%
of females were neutered. Females were more often reported as dominant over males
(57% females, binomial test z = 3.25, p < 0.001). If we compare dominant females with
dominant males in order to help determine what factors might explain why more females
are dominant than males: results indicate that 56% of dominant females were older than
their partner, in comparison to 66% of dominant males. Thus, older age does not explain
the prevalence of dominant females. When a female was rated as the dominant individual,
she was more often neutered than when the male was the ‘‘dominant’’ (female neutered
72%, male neutered 51%). ‘‘Dominant’’ males more often (90%) marked over their female
partners (while 20% of ‘‘dominant’’ females marked over submissive male partners),
defended the group in case of perceived danger, and they were often larger in size than the
female ‘‘subordinate’’. Refer to Tables 3, 4, and the Supplemental Information for more
information.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 9/20

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838

Table 2 Results of the binomial tests using (A) the owners’ allocation of the dogs to ‘‘dominant’’ or subordinate status (item 1) and (B) ‘‘older’’ or ‘‘younger’’ status
(item 19) as the predicted variables and the 21 items. Bold type indicates that status was associated with the characteristic after Bonferroni correction (for the Bino-
mial tests all p values are ≥ 0.0022). Two-proportion z-tests were used to determine whether the proportion of ‘‘dominant’’ and ‘‘older’’ dogs were equal for each item.
(C) Two-sample tests for equality of proportions with continuity correction in order to determine which factor (Dominance status or Age status) best explained the be-
havioural and demographic differences between the dogs.

A. Dominance Status B. Age Status Prop. diff C. 2-sample test for equality of
proportions
Item Count Total Prop Z P Count Total Prop Z P X2 P 95% CI
Bark 547 884 0.619 7.03 <0.0001 512 920 0.557 3.40 <0.0001 0.062 6.953 0.008 0.016 0.109
Lick mouth 259 737 0.351 −8.03 <0.0001 218 779 0.280 −12.25 <0.0001 0.071 8.669 0.003 0.024 0.120
Eat first 473 717 0.660 8.51 <0.0001 400 746 0.536 1.94 0.0261 0.124 22.662 <0.0001 0.072 0.175
Reward 497 684 0.727 11.81 <0.0001 386 714 0.541 2.13 0.0164 0.186 51.141 <0.0001 0.135 0.237
Fight 606 700 0.866 19.31 <0.0001 443 703 0.630 6.86 <0.0001 0.236 101.920 <0.0001 0.190 0.281
Play ball 404 793 0.509 0.50 0.7150 349 835 0.418 −4.71 <0.0001 0.091 13.330 <0.0001 0.042 0.141
Greet owner 352 644 0.547 2.32 0.0100 295 674 0.438 −3.20 <0.0001 0.109 15.194 <0.0001 0.054 0.164
Walk first 532 795 0.669 9.50 <0.0001 430 824 0.522 1.22 0.1114 0.147 35.819 <0.0001 0.099 0.196
Resting place 517 716 0.722 11.85 <0.0001 425 754 0.564 3.46 <0.0001 0.158 39.352 <0.0001 0.109 0.208
Pee 400 669 0.598 5.03 <0.0001 372 697 0.534 1.74 0.0407 0.064 5.465 0.019 0.010 0.118
Defend group 527 739 0.713 11.55 <0.0001 437 760 0.575 4.10 <0.0001 0.138 30.545 <0.0001 0.089 0.187
Smart 433 665 0.651 7.76 <0.0001 410 692 0.592 4.83 <0.0001 0.059 4.710 0.030 0.651 0.593
Obedient 415 838 0.495 −0.24 0.6221 477 879 0.543 2.50 0.0063 −0.048 3.679 0.055 −0.096 0.001
Aggressive 524 762 0.688 10.32 <0.0001 392 780 0.503 0.11 0.4572 0.185 53.997 <0.0001 0.136 0.235
Impulsive 512 908 0.564 3.82 <0.0001 313 952 0.329 −10.53 <0.0001 0.235 103.120 <0.0001 0.190 0.280
Size: heavier 497 929 0.535 2.10 0.0178 575 999 0.567 5.43 <0.0001 −0.032 3.051 0.081 −0.086 0.005
P Cond: Better 353 687 0.514 0.69 0.2461 209 734 0.285 −11.63 <0.0001 0.229 76.941 <0.0001 0.175 0.280
Age: Older 615 931 0.661 9.77 <0.0001
Sex: Male 427 927 0.461 −2.36 0.0090 503 990 0.508 0.48 0.3168 −0.047 4.128 0.042 −0.093 −0.002
Sex: Female 576 1078 0.534 2.22 0.0131 556 1128 0.493 −0.45 0.6936 0.041 3.621 0.057 −0.001 0.080
Neutered 580 1073 0.541 2.63 0.0043 613 1133 0.541 2.73 0.0031 0 0.000 1.000 −0.043 0.042
Intact 423 933 0.453 −2.82 0.0024 446 985 0.453 −2.93 0.0017 0 0.000 1.000 −0.045 0.046
Notes.
P Cond, Physical condition; Prop, Proportion; Prop Diff, Proportion difference; 95% CI, 95% Confidence intervals.
10/20
Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838

Table 3 Results of the binomial tests using the owners’ allocation of the dogs to ‘‘dominant’’ or ‘‘subordinate’’ status (Item 1) as the predicted variable and the 20
items in (A) mixed-sex and (B) same-sex dyads. Bold type indicates that status was associated with the characteristic after Bonferroni correction (for the Binomial tests
all p values are ≥ 0.0022). Two-proportion z-tests were used to determine whether the proportion of ‘‘dominant’’ dogs in mixed-sex and same-sex groups were equal for
each item. (C) We compared the ‘‘dominants’’ proportion of each item of each group using a z score calculation with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.
Dominant individuals in same-sex dyads mark over subordinate urinations more often than dominants from mixed-sex dyads (same-sex 69% and mixed-sex 51%). Dom-
inant individuals were more often neutered in mixed-sex dyads in comparison to same-sex dyads (mixed-sex 63%, same-sex 53%).

A. Mixed-sex Dyad B. Same-sex Dyad C. Proportion comparison

Item Count Total Prop Z P Count Total Prop Z P Prop. Diff Z P
Bark 268 424 0.63 5.39 <0.0001* 279 460 0.61 4.52 <0.0001 0.03 0.7815 0.4354
Lick mouth 227 356 0.64 5.14 <0.0001* 251 381 0.66 6.15 <0.0001 −0.02 −0.6011 0.5485
Eat first 214 348 0.61 4.23 <0.0001* 259 369 0.70 7.70 <0.0001 −0.09 −2.456 0.0139
Reward 234 329 0.71 7.61 <0.0001* 263 355 0.74 9.02 <0.0001 −0.03 −0.8678 0.3843
Fight 289 338 0.86 13.00 <0.0001* 317 362 0.88 14.24 <0.0001 −0.02 −0.8011 0.4237
Play ball 192 383 0.50 0.00 0.5000 212 410 0.52 0.64 0.2605 −0.02 −0.4438 0.6599
Greet owner 182 314 0.58 2.77 0.0028 170 330 0.52 0.50 0.3102 0.06 1.6426 0.1010
Walk first 253 375 0.67 6.71 <0.0001* 279 420 0.66 6.68 <0.0001 0.01 0.3105 0.7566
Resting place 246 340 0.72 8.19 <0.0001* 271 376 0.72 8.51 <0.0001 0.00 0.0831 0.9362
Overmark 177 346 0.51 0.38 0.6857 223 323 0.69 6.79 <0.0001 −0.18 −4.7143 <0.0001
Defend group 255 362 0.70 7.73 <0.0001* 272 377 0.72 8.55 <0.0001 −0.02 −0.5127 0.6101
Smart 205 321 0.64 4.91 <0.0001* 228 344 0.66 5.98 <0.0001 −0.02 −0.6532 0.5157
Obedient 202 404 0.50 0.00 0.5198 213 434 0.49 −0.34 0.6671 0.01 0.2666 0.7872
Aggressive 240 359 0.67 6.33 <0.0001* 284 403 0.70 8.17 <0.0001 −0.04 −1.076 0.2801
Impulsive 252 435 0.58 3.26 0.0005* 260 473 0.55 2.12 0.0172 0.03 0.8994 0.3681
Size: Heavier 234 450 0.52 0.80 0.2115 263 479 0.55 2.10 0.0177 −0.03 −0.6973 0.4839
P Cond: Better 168 325 0.52 0.55 0.7471 185 362 0.51 0.37 0.6819 0.01 0.1538 0.8808
Age: Older 296 455 0.65 6.38 <0.0001* 319 476 0.67 7.38 <0.0001 −0.02 −0.6319 0.5287
Neutered 310 491 0.63 1.97 0.0488 270 512 0.53 1.86 0.0629 0.10 3.3347 0.0009
Sex: Female 282 491 0.57 3.25 0.0006* 294 512 0.57 3.31 0.0004 0.00 0.0038 1.0000
Notes.
P Cond, Physical condition; Prop, Proportion; Prop Diff, Proportion difference.
11/20
 Table 4 Comparison of male and female ‘‘dominants’’ in mixed-sex dyads. In order to determine whether there were differences between the
dominant males and females in each item measured, we compared the dominants proportion of each group (dominant male and dominant female
in mixed-sex group) using a z score calculation. Results are displayed for mixed-sex dyads by the sex of the dominant. Bold type indicates that social
status was associated with the characteristic after Bonferroni correction (for the Binomial tests all p values are ≥ 0.0026).

Dominant female Dominant male Proportion comparison

Item Count Total Prop Count Total Prop Prop Diff Z P
Bark 162 248 0.65 106 176 0.60 0.05 1.07 0.2846
Lick mouth 125 201 0.62 102 155 0.66 −0.04 −0.70 0.4839
Eat first 128 201 0.64 86 147 0.59 0.05 0.98 0.3271
Reward 137 187 0.73 97 142 0.68 0.05 0.98 0.3271
Fight 177 205 0.86 112 133 0.84 0.02 0.54 0.5892
Play ball 111 220 0.50 81 163 0.50 0.01 0.15 0.8808
Greet owner 96 175 0.55 86 139 0.62 −0.07 −1.25 0.2113
Walk first 137 222 0.62 116 153 0.76 −0.14 −2.87 0.0041
Resting place 154 197 0.78 92 143 0.64 0.14 2.82 0.0048
Overmark 39 193 0.20 138 153 0.90 −0.70 −12.93 <0.0001
Defend group 127 212 0.60 128 150 0.85 −0.25 −5.22 <0.0001
Smart 118 183 0.64 87 138 0.63 0.01 0.27 0.7872
Obedient 114 228 0.50 88 176 0.50 0.00 0 1.0000
Aggressive 126 206 0.61 114 153 0.75 −0.13 −2.66 0.0078
Impulsive 158 255 0.62 94 180 0.52 0.10 2.03 0.0424
Size: heavier 106 257 0.41 128 193 0.66 −0.25 −5.27 <0.0001
Physical Condition 89 184 0.48 79 141 0.56 −0.08 −1.37 0.1707
Age: Older 159 258 0.62 137 197 0.70 −0.08 −1.75 0.0801
Neutered 203 282 0.72 107 210 0.51 0.21 4.78 <0.0001
Notes.
Prop, Proportion; Prop Diff, Proportion difference.

Binomial tests on the same-sex dyad sample

In same-sex pairs (N = 512, 48.5% neutered) there was no significant difference between
the number of neutered and intact ‘‘dominant’’ animals (z = 1.86, p = 0.063). ‘‘Dominant’’
individuals were again more often older than ‘‘subordinates’’ (N = 319 dyads, 67% older,
binomial test z = 7.38 p < 0.001).
The items that best described owner reported dominant individuals in the full sample
remained significant in the same-sex pairs subsample, apart from the item impulsive, which
did not differ between subjects rated as dominant and subordinate. Owners reported that
73% of ‘‘dominant’’ females and 64% of ‘‘dominant’’ males marked over their ‘‘submissive’’
same-sex partners. More results can be found in Table 2.

Difference in the number of dominance related behaviours expressed

in dominants and subordinates
The dyad that showed the greatest relationship difference (difference score) between the
‘‘dominant’’ and ‘‘subordinate’’ individual (and therefore the clearest status difference)
was in a mixed sex dyad when an intact male was considered as dominant over an intact
female. For more results see the Supplemental Information.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 12/20

 DISCUSSION
Our aim was to understand how owners interpret dominance in dog dyads living in
their households and to determine whether our psychometric tool measures dominance
as defined in ethology. We found that the majority (87%) of owners labelled one of
their two dogs as dominant. Perceived dominance status was characterised by fighting
ability, submission, competitive ability, subjective resource value, personality, specific
roles, and older age. Only thirteen percent of owners were unable to determine a clear
rank order between their dogs. This may be because: (1) the dogs have a non-interactive
relationship (the partners co-exist without social interactions, i.e., they avoid each other),
or an ‘egalitarian’ relationship (the partners affiliate regularly, e.g., play with each other,
without agonistic behaviour or exhibiting dominance; Trisko, Smuts & Sandel, 2016);
(2) the dogs may not have lived together long enough to form a clear rank order; (3)
the owner might actively work against the dogs displaying dominance behaviour (e.g.,
chasing away the dominant dog from the better resting place, not allowing the dominant
to feed first, preventing fights, and favouring the loser dog, etc.); (4) the owner does not
accept/understand the concept of dominance; and finally, (5) the survey design encourages
that the owner makes a selection.
We found that the results from the questionnaire show external validity. Items associated
with the perceived dominance corresponded to behavioural markers of dominance
identified by Pongrácz et al. (2008), such as fighting, barking, eating first and receiving
mouth licking, and markers related to priority of access to resources such as food, rewards
and resting places (Schjelderup-Ebbe, 1922). However, items that examined control over a
ball and the owner (greeting) did not differ between ‘‘dominant’’ and ‘‘subordinate’’ dogs,
which suggests that the subjective resource value (Van Kerkhove, 2004; Bradshaw, Blackwell
& Casey, 2009) has probably a greater effect than the perceived rank. Owners also indicated
that dogs higher in status overmark lower ranking dogs, similarly to the findings of Lisberg
& Snowdon (2011). In the current study ‘‘dominants’’ marked over same-sexed dogs more
often than different-sexed dogs, suggesting higher intra- than inter-sexual competition.
Dominance was also associated with items theoretically concerning behaviours viewed
by humans as responsibilities, such as defending and leading the group. Similarly, Ákos
et al. (2014) found that during off-leash walks, dogs rated as dominant by the owners
are more often followed by their group-mates that were rated as submissive. Finally, our
results confirmed that some personality traits (aggression, impulsivity, and smartness) are
associated with reported dominance, as was suggested by Ákos et al. (2014), who found that
aggression towards people and controllability was linked to dominance rank and leadership
in pet dogs.
According to the literature, dominance ranks are influenced by several confounding
factors, such as age and sex. As predicted, older individuals were more often allocated a
higher status by owners in the full sample, and in both mixed and same-sex pairs. However,
in contrast to the age related hypothesis, which suggests that age better explains the social
structure in dog groups (Bradshaw, Blackwell & Casey, 2016), we found that dominance
status, as perceived by the owner, was more strongly associated to 11 of the items than age

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 13/20

 status. Thus, dog age did not explain the occurrence of dominance related behaviours over
and above the owners’ estimate of dominance status. Sex was also linked to dominance;
in mixed-sex dog dyads, females were perceived by owners as dominant more often than
males, even though in 59% of the dyads they were smaller in size than their male partner.
This could be related to the fact that dominant females were more often neutered than
dominant males. Previous studies have determined that hormonal activity influences
inter-dog aggression (Sherman et al., 1996) and aggression has been found to be more
frequent in neutered females compared to intact females and neutered males (Wright &
Nesselrote, 1987; Scandurra et al., 2018).
Our study has several limitations: (1) We did not measure the dominant behaviour of
the dogs, only the dominance perceived by the owner. Therefore, we have no information
about convergent validity, whether the ratings of dominance and behaviour reflect actual
rates of behaviour. (2) Only relationships between single dyads were examined. Previous
work has determined that individuals can and do establish different types of relationships
including ‘‘friendships’’, when paired with different individuals, and these relationships
can also change over time, suggesting high social complexity in dogs (Trisko, Smuts &
Sandel, 2016). Future studies should examine how individuals’ relationships differ within
multi-dog households. (3) We also did not include items on affiliative behaviour in the
questionnaire, so it was not possible to classify the dominance relationships further into
formal (affiliation and dominance) and egalitarian (affiliated with no dominance) types
(Trisko, Smuts & Sandel, 2016). (4) We were not able to examine breed differences in
dominance relationships. Dog breeds and breed groups differ greatly in morphology and
typical behaviour (Turcsán, Kubinyi & Miklósi, 2011; McGreevy et al., 2012; Starling et al.,
2013), therefore the types of relationships between dogs may also be highly dependent on
the breed composition of the group (Van Der Borg et al., 2015). (5) Due to time constraints,
we applied single item statements to describe personality traits. (6) We investigated the
interpretation of dominance only in Hungary, although there could be significant cultural
differences (Wan et al., 2009). (7) We asked owners to compare two dogs to each other,
which was difficult for some owners as reflected in a large amount of missing values
in the dataset. Future studies should aim to collect data for subordinate and dominant
dogs separately using for instance Likert scales, which would allow the use of statistical
modelling. (8) Finally, future studies should also investigate inter-observer reliability, thus
multiple people should rate the dogs in order to reduce the chance that the answers are
reflective of one individual’s views and biases.
Whether dominance as perceived by owners is just a by-product of human observation
remains to be answered. However, if we assume that our questionnaire measured actual
dominance relationships within the dyads, our results show that the age, sex and neuter
status of the dyad influences the relationship between the subjects, which has broader
implications for the management of dogs within households. Since humans are ultimately
responsible for choosing the social partners (human and conspecific) of their dogs, they
have a duty to try to ensure that social relationships are as amicable as possible, in order
to keep chronic stress levels, and therefore welfare at an acceptable level. For example, in
mixed sex dyads, neutered females were often seen as dominant, and showed behaviours

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 14/20

 that might increase conflict (reflected in the reduced difference score), regardless of age
or body size. Competition in the dyad could be reduced, and any possible increase in
dominance motivation in females (caused by neutering) would be avoided, if females could
be kept intact and the male neutered if necessary (to prevent breeding). Previous research
has indicated that a sex/age graded hierarchy is present in dogs (Cafazzo et al., 2010), and as
such, owners could reinforce the position of older individuals in the hierarchy in order to
reduce competition in the household. Additionally, to prevent conflicts, owners should try
to avoid keeping multiple dogs of the same sex and age. Finally, future studies are necessary
to determine how owners perceive their own relationships with their dogs. For example,
whether owners have different types of relationships with the dogs within their household,
and how this might influence the intraspecific relationships between their dogs; a topic
which is currently hotly debated. For instance, one study has determined that dogs form
similar relationships with both humans and dogs, and that the quality of the bond varies
more with the individual partner than between dog vs. human partners; indicating that
relationships cannot be entirely attributed to an individual’s personality (Cimarelli et al.,
2019).

CONCLUSION
Owner estimates of dominance rank corresponded to previously established behavioural
markers of dominance displays, which supports that dominance relationships are robust
and well-perceivable components of companion dog behaviour and owner-derived reports
about dominance ranks have external validity (in pre-schoolers see Hawley, 2002 for similar
results). However, the results lack convergent validity, because no simultaneous measure
of behaviours were taken, and the data represents only one culture.
We conclude that owners of multiple dogs interpret dominance based on specific
behaviours, obtaining resources and certain personality traits. We suggest that future
studies that wish to allocate dominance status using owner reports should include the
following seven items: which dog starts to bark first, eats first, obtains the reward, walks
at the front, acquires the better resting place, defends the group, and is more aggressive.
Asking which dog wins fights or which dog licks the mouth of the other might also be
useful, as both were highly predictive of owner perceived social status if they did occur, in
approximately 70% of cases.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Borbála Turcsán for her contribution to the design of the questionnaires, and
for her helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Ivaylo B. Iotchev helped
with the literature search and discussions during the manuscript writing. Three anonymous
reviewers provided constructive comments.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 15/20

 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS

Funding
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant Agreement
No. 680040), from the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, and from the Bolyai+ ÚNKP-18-4 New National Excellence Program of the
Ministry of Human Capacities. The funders had no role in study design, data collection
and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Grant Disclosures
The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation program: Grant Agreement No. 680040.
Bolyai+ ÚNKP-18-4 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human
Capacities.

Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions
• Enikő Kubinyi conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments,
analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or
tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
• Lisa J. Wallis analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed
drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Animal Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body
and any reference numbers):
The procedures applied complied with national and EU legislation and institutional
guidelines. Participants were informed about the identity of the researchers, the aim,
procedure, and expected time commitment of filling out the survey. Owners filled out the
survey anonymously; therefore, we did not collect personal data. Participants could at any
point decline to participate (See Supplemental Information S1).

Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data are available in the Supplemental Files.

Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.6838#supplemental-information.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 16/20

 REFERENCES
Ákos Z, Beck R, Nagy M, Vicsek T, Kubinyi E. 2014. Leadership and path characteristics
during walks are linked to dominance order and individual traits in dogs. PLOS
Computational Biology 10(1):e1003446 DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003446.
Bonanni R, Cafazzo S. 2014. The social organisation of a population of free-ranging
dogs in a suburban area of Rome. In: The social dog. New York: Elsevier, 65–104
DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-407818-5.00003-6.
Bonanni R, Cafazzo S, Abis A, Barillari E, Valsecchi P, Natoli E. 2017. Age-graded
dominance hierarchies and social tolerance in packs of free-ranging dogs. Behavioral
Ecology 28:1004–1020 DOI 10.1093/beheco/arx059.
Bonanni R, Cafazzo S, Valsecchi P, Natoli E. 2010. Effect of affiliative and agonistic
relationships on leadership behaviour in free-ranging dogs. Animal Behaviour
79:981–991 DOI 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.021.
Bradshaw JWS, Blackwell EJ, Casey RA. 2009. Dominance in domestic dogs—useful
construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and
Research 4:135–144 DOI 10.1016/j.jveb.2008.08.004.
Bradshaw JWS, Blackwell E, Casey RA. 2016. Dominance in domestic dogs—a response
to Schilder et al. (2014). Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and
Research 11:102–108 DOI 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.11.008.
Cafazzo S, Lazzaroni M, Marshall-Pescini S. 2016. Dominance relationships in a family
pack of captive arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos): the influence of competition for
food, age and sex. PeerJ 4:e2707 DOI 10.7717/peerj.2707.
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. Behavioral
Ecology 21:443–455 DOI 10.1093/beheco/arq001.
Casey RA, Loftus B, Bolster C, Richards GJ, Blackwell EJ. 2013. Inter-dog aggression in
a UK owner survey: prevalence, co-occurrence in different contexts and risk factors.
Veterinary Record 172:127 DOI 10.1136/vr.100997.
Casey RA, Loftus B, Bolster C, Richards GJ, Blackwell EJ. 2014. Human di-
rected aggression in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): occurrence in differ-
ent contexts and risk factors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 152:52–63
DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.003.
Cimarelli G, Marshall-Pescini S, Range F, Virányi Z. 2019. Pet dogs’ relationships vary
rather individually than according to partner’s species. Scientific Reports 9:3437
DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-40164-x.
Clark KRF. 1971. Food habits and behavior of the tundra wolf on central Baffin Island.
PhD Thesis, University of Toronto. Toronto, Canada. Available from: National
Library of Canada, Ottawa.
Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE. 1979. The logical stag: adaptive
aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Animal Behaviour 27:211–225
DOI 10.1016/0003-3472(79)90141-6.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 17/20

 Conradt L, Roper TJ. 2003. Group decision-making in animals. Nature 421:155–158
DOI 10.1038/nature01294.
Conradt L, Roper TJ. 2005. Consensus decision making in animals. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 20:449–456 DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.008.
Dale R, Range F, Stott L, Kotrschal K, Marshall-Pescini S. 2017. The influence of
social relationship on food tolerance in wolves and dogs. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 71(7):107 DOI 10.1007/s00265-017-2339-8.
De Waal FB. 1986. The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. The
Quarterly Review of Biology 61(4):459–479 DOI 10.1086/415144.
Drews C. 1993. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behavior. Behavior
125(3):283–313 DOI 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Fratkin JL, Sinn DL, Patall EA, Gosling SD. 2013. Personality consistency in dogs: a
meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 8:e54907 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0054907.
Gosling SD, John OP. 1999. Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 8:69–75 DOI 10.1111/1467-8721.00017.
Haber GC. 1977. Socio-ecological dynamics of wolves and prey in a subarctic ecosystem.
Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Hawley PH. 2002. Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of resource
control in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development 26:167–176
DOI 10.1080/01650250042000726.
Hecht J, Spicer Rice E. 2015. Citizen science: a new direction in canine behavior research.
Behavioural Processes 110:125–132 DOI 10.1016/J.BEPROC.2014.10.014.
Jones AC, Gosling SD. 2005. Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): a
review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 95:1–53
DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.008.
Lisberg AE, Snowdon CT. 2011. Effects of sex, social status and gonadectomy on
countermarking by domestic dogs, Canis familiaris. Animal Behaviour 81:757–764
DOI 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.01.006.
Lorenz K. 1966. On aggression. London: Methuen.
McGreevy PD, Starling M, Branson NJ, Cobb ML, Calnon D. 2012. An overview of the
dog-human dyad and ethograms within it. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical
Applications and Research 7:103–117 DOI 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.06.001.
Mech LD. 1999. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 77:1196–1203 DOI 10.1139/z99-099.
Overall KL. 2016. Special issue: the dominance debate and improved behavioral
measures—Articles from the 2014 CSF/FSF. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical
Applications and Research 11:1–6 DOI 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.12.004.
Packard JM. 2003. Wolf behaviour: reproductive, social and intelligent. In: Mech LD,
Boitani L, eds. Wolves: behavior, ecology and conservation. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 35–65.
Peterson RO, Jacobs AK, Drummer TD, Mech LD, Smith DW. 2002. Leadership
behavior in relation to dominance and reproductive status in gray wolves. Wildlife
Research 1412:1405–1412 DOI 10.1139/Z02-124.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 18/20

 Pongrácz P, Bánhegyi P, Miklósi Á. 2012. When rank counts—dominant dogs learn
better from a human demonstrator in a two-action test. Behaviour 149:111–132
DOI 10.1163/156853912X629148.
Pongrácz P, Vida V, Bánhegyi P, Miklósi Á. 2008. How does dominance rank status
affect individual and social learning performance in the dog (Canis familiaris)?
Animal Cognition 11:75–82 DOI 10.1007/s10071-007-0090-7.
Range F, Ritter C, Viranyi Z. 2015. Testing the myth: tolerant dogs and aggressive
wolves. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282:2015.0220
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2015.0220.
Scandurra A, Alterisio A, Di Cosmo A, D’Aniello B. 2018. Behavioral and per-
ceptual differences between sexes in dogs: an overview. Animals 8(9):151
DOI 10.3390/ani8090151.
Schilder MBH, Vinke CM, Van der Borg JAM. 2014. Dominance in domestic dogs re-
visited: useful habit and useful construct? Journal of Veterinary Behavior 9:184–191
DOI 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.04.005.
Schjelderup-Ebbe T. 1922. Beiträge zur Sozialpsychologie des Haushuhns. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane. Abt. 1 Zeitschrift für Psychologie.
Sherman CKC, Reisner IRIIR, Taliaferro LA, Houpt KA. 1996. Characteristics,
treatment, and outcome of 99 cases of aggression between dogs. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 47:91–108 DOI 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01013-0.
Smith JM, Price GR. 1973. The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18
DOI 10.1038/246015a0.
Starling MJ, Branson N, Thomson PC, McGreevy PD. 2013. Age, sex and repro-
ductive status affect boldness in dogs. The Veterinary Journal 197:868–872
DOI 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.05.019.
Trisko RK, Smuts BB. 2015. Dominance relationships in a group of domestic dogs
(Canis lupus familiaris). Behaviour 152:677–704 DOI 10.1163/1568539X-00003249.
Trisko RK, Smuts B, Sandel AA. 2016. Affiliation, dominance and friendship among
companion dogs. Behaviour 153:693–725 DOI 10.1163/1568539X-00003352.
Turcsán B, Kubinyi E, Miklósi Á. 2011. Trainability and boldness traits differ between
dog breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic relatedness.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132:61–70 DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.006.
Van Der Borg JAM, Schilder MBH, Vinke CM, De Vries H, Petit O. 2015. Dominance
in domestic dogs: a quantitative analysis of its behavioural measures. PLOS ONE
10(8):e0133978 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0133978.
Van Kerkhove W. 2004. A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal
dog social behavior. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7:279–285
DOI 10.1207/s15327604jaws0704_7.
Vervaecke H, De Vries H, Van Elsacker L. 2000. Dominance and its behavioral measures
in a captive group of Bonobos (Pan paniscus). International Journal of Primatology
21:47–68 DOI 10.1023/A:1005471512788.
Wan M, Kubinyi E, Miklósi Á, Champagne F, Miklósi A, Champagne F. 2009. A
cross-cultural comparison of reports by German Shepherd owners in hungary

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 19/20

 and the United States of America. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121:206–213
DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.015.
Westgarth C. 2016. Why nobody will ever agree about dominance in dogs. Jour-
nal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 11:99–101
DOI 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.02.004.
Wright JC, Nesselrote MS. 1987. Classification of behavior problems in dogs: distribu-
tions of age, breed, sex and reproductive status. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
19:169–178 DOI 10.1016/0168-1591(87)90213-9.
Wrubel KM, Moon-Fanelli AA, Maranda LS, Dodman NH. 2011. Interdog household
aggression: 38 cases (2006–2007). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association 238:731–740 DOI 10.2460/javma.238.6.731.

Kubinyi and Wallis (2019), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.6838 20/20