Canine dominance – is it a real thing?

How does it relate to hierarchy and pack leader?

How does it apply to the canine-human interaction?

Overview

The debate over canine dominance has raged since at least the turn of the last century, with trainers advocating forceful, punishment-based dominance training techniques to counter the dog’s “wolf inherited dominance tendencies”. This especially flooded the military and police dog training worlds and then overflowed to universal pet dog training. “You have to dominate your dog to command obedience”, including the dominance down, throw chains and lifting a dog off its feet with a choke chain collar. This developed into folk law as a firm and seemingly attractive piece of verbiage to tell the dog who’s who in the zoo – who’s the BOSS. Then it was all conveniently supported (it seemed) by the “alpha male wolf” concept – the pack leader who brooks no challenge and fights for the right to lead and rule.

Confusing? Yes, because one can still buy the books by Most[1], Koehler[2] and Hearne[3], which advocate and instruct on administering this type of training - and those books were hailed as seminal in the dog training world (at the time). Even more confusing is the evidence that the methodology worked – it is just the collateral damage to the canine-human relationship, the annihilation of the ability of dogs to think for themselves and learn most effectively that are the concerns.

There now appears considerable relief in the dominance training understanding, which is becoming progressively clear and strong in an area where dominance training was fundamental - police dog training. The facility and benefits of positive reinforcement training are becoming apparent in this field[4].

Why the confusion?

Part of the confusion, particularly in reference to wolves in captivity and in the wild being labelled as exhibiting dominant behaviours, came about through the writings of Schenkel[5] and Mech[6]. There remains the issue that when Mech (as a true scientist) realised the misinterpretation of earlier work (by Schenkel and himself) – and others questioned the findings[7] - and corrected the misunderstandings, nonetheless the issue of dominance remained[8]. Some interpreters thought Mech was stating that dominance didn’t exist – an argument they felt could readily be proved to be false. But that is not what Mech stated at all, rather that the previously interpreted constant challenge and fight for dominance was a falsehood generated by the unnatural caged environment of unrelated adult wolves, not at all similar to a family group of wolves in the wild roaming over a wide domain. As stated by Bradshaw[9] [quote in italics] “simply because a hierarchical structure can be measured in a group of animals, that the animals themselves are aware of that structure, or are striving to achieve “dominance” within it”, doesn’t lead to the conclusion that dominance factors are key to the management and training of dogs. Quoting Sandoe et. al.[10], Bradshaw agrees that “… it is suggested that Dominance Theory, when applied to dog training, may serve as a self-reinforcing hypothesis: by using physical force, the owner elicits an aggressive response from the dog, which in turn is interpreted as a sign of dominance; alpha-rolls and other forms of physical confrontation may actually increase the risk of an aggressive responses from the dog”[11]. 

The side of the argument that is often missed, as stated by Bekoff[12], is that [quote] “individuals may dominate or control (1) access to various resources including food, potential and actual mates, territory, resting and sleeping areas, and the location in a group that's most protected from predators; (2) the movements of others; or (3) the attention of others. There is, therefore, an overlay of “situational, contextual or environment dominance” (paraphrasing/interpreting Bekoff, op. cit.) in that the individual’s incentive to dominate a resource or situation can vary, depending somewhat upon what is at stake (think about a perfectly gentle family pet dog, whose only sin is resource guarding – not dominance of the human, but fear of losing the resource[13]).

A counter view to the hierarchy of dominance-subordinate relationships in a group of animals was presented by Rowell[14], suggesting, in concert with the subsequent conclusions of Mech (op. cit.), that studies of captive animals present unnatural levels of interactive conflict and tension, leading to aggression which, instead of being tolerated by others in the group, is reciprocated and escalated and the order is actually based on subordination rather than dominance – because individuals find their place[15].

So, the myth that humans needed to throw a dog down in an “alpha roll” to establish their own dominance over the canine – because that is what wolves appear to do to each other in play and establishing position at that instant (emphasised because this positioning can flip even in the one game or encounter, it is not necessarily a hard won and permanently held role) is overturned – but still adhered to by many.

Why is the dominance idea adhered to by some? Fundamentally two reasons, viz., (1) it all seems to somehow make sense when one is fed purely on Disney movies and wildlife TV documentaries or YouTube dog whisperers – remember that all are constructed media; (2) dominance (punishment) based training method pundits are attracted to the idea, because one needs no other avenue of thought – “the dog is not doing what I want because he is trying to dominate me!” Simple. Slam dunk the dog and it will obey! Right? Wrong!

Now, to be clear - companion dogs do need to be kept "under a level of control" to be acceptable to live alongside their human compatriots within society’s mores and rules. But does that require dominance and punishment? No - it can be achieved by setting, teaching and reinforcing boundary behaviours, without imposing an illusory hierarchy.

That brings the discussion to look further at hierarchy and pack leader concepts.

Hierarchy and pack leader

Hierarchy: a system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority. So – with wolves (and refer again to Mech, op. cit. {Footnote [6]} and Amirault, op. cit. {Footnote [7]}) the hierarchy in simple terms is the two parents – male and female obviously – who feed, manage, teach, guide and care for their offspring. As the wolf group (yes, avoiding the word “pack” for now) grows and new pups are born, indeed a generational hierarchy develops. Interestingly, in times of food shortage, the parent wolves will dictate who gets fed – so that the younger pups don’t suffer because of their older siblings being bigger – and hungry [refer again Footnote 15].

Arguments are often put that all throughout nature there are hierarchies, evidenced in all species, humans and wild animals alike. Moreover, some researchers have concluded that indeed formal dominance-based hierarchies exist in the domestic dog world and that these are, in fact, not contextually dependant[16]. So – the argument seems to want to go – there really must be dominance in hierarchies to effectively establish a ranking order of authority or importance (or just who can tell who what to do)[17] so maybe the human does have to show the dog what’s what through force, in case the dog gets the idea that it is the Chief Executive or the Major General of this household?[18] The human parallels are rarely helpful in the dog debate - it is wildly convoluted to argue that humans have heads of corporations, governments, churches, etc. and so should dogs, as well as dogs in relationships with humans[19]. It just doesn’t work. Hierarchies are quite normal to establish functionality in conspecific cohorts, for survival, continuation of the species and just "getting stuff done according to role allocation", without the need for violence.

As to animal species other than canines and wolves being quoted as evidence of hierarchies in nature, that is also complicated, despite the apparent attraction and “stickiness” of this model of behavioural ecology. Here we must recognise that a large contribution to the hierarchy concept in animal behaviour came about through the work of the Norwegian Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe in 1935, based on his childhood study of barn-yard chickens, which he observed formed a “pecking order”, a term that has remained in popular use to describe hierarchical structures in conspecifics [Schjelderup-Ebbe’s works can be found at Schjelderup-Ebbe T. (1935) Social behavior of birds. In A handbook of social psychology (ed. Murchison C), pp. 947-972. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press; @ Google Scholar and summarised (with extensive amplification and references) by Straus, E. D. (2022) et al.; URL https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0432]. Important to note is that, firstly, hierarchies established in conspecifics, through primarily agonistic displays and behaviours, do not translate to inter-species behaviours and, secondly (in Schjelderup-Ebbe’s own conclusions at p.947; op. cit.) each member of a species is an individual, a separate personality, so figuring how that relates or behaviourally translates to another species is a serious challenge. Hence using the “pecking order" studies as a pathway of comparative psychology (in particular between canines and humans) is at best superficial and at worst seriously flawed, as it is further overlaid by the constraints of domestication and desire to live in some predetermined harmony for the benefit of both parties (not what the chickens had in mind, one might assume – the dominant and dominated chickens never become companions, which is fundamental to what the human-canine relationship is built on).

For example, wild horses stick together with guidance from a leader mare (not an alpha male) - not tougher or bigger than the other horses, but with experience about survival and environmental savvy the other herd members trust. The young males go off and form “bachelor herds” (commonly so directed by that leader mare when the young lads are getting a bit naughty) and the stallion visits the mares when he feels the urge – and the mares are in an accepting “frame of mind”. Sure, two stallions might then contest the “rights of service” and a stallion may need to defend his rights of access to his “harem”, but these are a temporary conflict based on an obvious and compelling drive, not an ongoing battle to prove "leadership by dominance". Between these events, the stallions are not fighting to establish who’s the boss[20].

As another example, elephant herds stick together as matriarchal groups caring for the young, while the bulls go their own way – either as groups of young or as older single gentlemen – until required, if ever.  In a brief study of elephant behaviours[21], mature bull elephants were observed to move alone through the bush – when their path was about to cross that of another elephant (or even a vehicle) they would pause and wait, perhaps poorly concealed by a tree or bush, to see that the other elephant (or vehicle) would adhere to the proper protocol of allowing the first to arrive at the “intersection” – or possibly the more senior bull - to proceed first. This “politeness and respect” avoided confrontation. Equally, if a bull elephant was approached inappropriately (head on, too fast or too close) it would usually display warning threatening behaviour – trumpeting, stamping, shaking its great head so its ears made flapping noises, even knocking down a nearby tree or tossing a fallen log, seemingly to display its power (“back-off – you really don’t want to tangle with me – see how strong I am!”) to make the intruder move away – again avoiding a full charge or violent confrontation. These are definitely body language signals one should observe in the African bush! A baby elephant in a matriarchal herd was observed practising this same display, holding a small tree branch in its trunk and shaking it threateningly at the approaching vehicle from in front of the herd, adding small steps forward and backward (whilst remaining quite close to the herd).

And so on – many other examples can be found, all with their own complex blend of “elected autocracy and cooperatives" - none of which (to the disappointment of those seeking evidence of dominance hierarchies in nature) is really illustrative of canine dominance-based hierarchies for modern dogs integrated into human society and contributes nothing to the discussion of how best to interact with our canine companions.

Pack Leader: a fashionable phrase that originated from the study of captive wolves. It is an antiquated, yet widely used phrase that attempts to describe the hierarchy in these social mammals. The implication is that within a wolf pack there is a single, dominant figure who leads the pack[22] - and constantly fights to retain that leadership/dominant position. Every time I hear that “Pack Leader” phrase, I have the accompanying rock music[23] and roar of Marlon Brando’s motor bike[24] playing in my head. Again, not helpful in the canine debates, exactly because of the associations the phrase conjures up of fighting for leadership, dominance over a society or cohort and control by a single (usually male) figure, for which the only sensible action seems to be force and punishment to invert the status.

Do we need a better word than dominance?

Well yes, that would be good, as well as avoiding the words and connotations of hierarchies and pack leadership, which seem to go hand-in-hand with dominance – all appealing to the dominance-punishment based dog trainers. Those terms continue to cause confusion and every time they are uttered seem to cement the journey back to the old way of thinking about canine-human relations and training methodologies. The dichotomy in the dominance argument was succinctly summarized by Westgarth[25] as a definitional semantic dilemma, the argument being the double interpretation of the word dominance - [quote] “one concerning the construction of dominance hierarchies by scientists as a tool for explaining animal behavior and the other the everyday use of the word by dog owners”.  

As it seems unlikely that the dog training world will agree on an alternative word, such as “supremacy; superiority; ascendancy; pre-eminence; mastery; power; authority; control; leverage; influence; puissance; paramountcy”[26]; not least because none of them perfectly fit the bill and all are subject to the same mixed interpretations, we are stuck with “dominance”. But we do need to understand the context and, yes, the semantics.

We are left with the plea to think about dog behaviour and training not in terms of who has the upper hand and who is the boss, but rather in terms of dog welfare and building/maintaining the human-canine bond – the very reason we have dogs in society from the beginning. So, what does that all look like in terms of common dog management and training strategies – where “dominance” has sometimes been interpreted as the issue to be overcome?

Which dog traits are commonly called dominance – are they really the dog trying to be dominant and what is the management or training strategy?

Listening to the arguments put forward by certain balanced and compulsive trainers, it does seem that they are very keen to maintain that dominance in the canine world is not just alive and well, but very significant. One cannot but see the sliding past the semantics for the purpose of justifying certain linear training logic – and getting likes on social media. Unkind and harsh judgement? Perhaps. So, let’s find another description for certain dog behaviours other than dominance and perhaps then we might see past this hurdle that should not exist.

One often reads that the signs a dog is trying to dominate the guardian are linked to common (harmless) actions or behaviours a dog displays, interpreted as trying to “be dominant/be the leader”. Are there alternate explanations and even simple ways to alter such behaviours if they concern the guardian?

Let’s start with some dog reprogramming and training advice – that is, basic management and training strategies.

Misinterpreted dominance behaviour examples are:

Rushing first through a doorway or gate – Really not a big deal and certainly not dominance. The dog is excited to go for a walk – or just needs to get out to the back lawn quickly for a toilet break. Train the dog to “Wait” before opening the door – no harsh words, no hitting, no leash required; just open the door slowly – if the dog moves repeat “Wait” and pause; then say “OK” and open the door. A sit before passing through the door is optional. Do this at every single door or gate (going out and coming in) – never miss an opportunity (or you are letting the dog know that sometimes it’s OK to burst through).

Counter surfing (stealing food) – Dogs do tend to be opportunists – especially where food is concerned. This has nothing to do with dominance. Don’t leave food where the dog can access it, if it shouldn’t take it – it’s like leaving candy for a kid – why wouldn’t they take it – you clearly meant them to? If the dog jumps on a bench or table to just check for food, then (a) it will be disappointed and learn there never is any or (b) if caught in the act then just a “Down” or “Off” cue delivered firmly without violence each time will teach the lesson (avoid immediately rewarding the dog for getting down, as that would set up a "behaviour chain" of 1. jump on bench; 2. get told Down; 3. get reward").

Staring at the guardian when they sit down to eat – Break this habit or don’t even let it start. Have the dog away (another room or in its bed) when humans are sitting down to eat. Ensure no family member “cheats” and gives the dog a scrap – one “treat” out of misplaced sympathy or fun will set this training back months. When the humans have finished dinner, do not scrape the plates straight into the dog’s bowl and feed it to the dog – dogs are terrific at linking these chains and will very quickly anticipate the sequence from the humans sitting at the table to the dog’s food bowl at the conclusion. Nothing to do with dominance, just thoughtless guardian management.

Mouthing the guardian’s hand – If this is just puppy biting – which all puppies do as they explore the whole world with their mouth – then moderate the puppy behaviour by (a) offering an alternative thing to chew other than the finger and (b) say “Ouch” and move the pup away if it bites. This latter is not using aversives – it is simply replicating what the pup’s siblings or mother would do if it does not moderate its mouthing – pups need to learn this. If an adult dog is doing this, then make a judgement about the circumstances. It is most likely relating to a request for attention. So, act accordingly – which may be a “Not now – go to your bed” or it may be a game or a pat. The message the dog is sending really is wanting to get the guardian’s attention (maybe it needs a toilet break or is just bored) not trying to dominate them.

Pulling on the lead or walking ahead of the guardian – As covered in another article on this site (“Common Dog Training Challenges – Pulling on the Lead and Unwanted Behaviours”) and a video[27], the dog is excited to go on the walk – not trying to be the pack leader (don’t develop an inferiority complex just because you have an excited and exuberant dog). Simply practice the leash walk management practices and train the dog to act according to the loose leash protocols, which involve stalling the walk with an auditory cue such as “Steady/Wait” then proceeding and/or changing directions when the leash slackens and the cue “OK – let’s go” is delivered. No yanking, no sharp tugs or “pops” on the leash, no prongs or shocks required.

Vying for attention/patting – Is it really interpreted to be a dominance thing that your dog wants your attention and affection? Just pat the dog, and when you’ve had enough (before the dog has) give the cue “Enough – no, off the furniture/lie down/whatever”. Be clear and consistent - sad day if the dog no longer seeks your attention.

Barking to be let in or out of the house – Seems reasonable – how else can the dog let you know it needs to go out to toilet or the water bowl is outside and it’s thirsty, or it has been outside and now it needs to come in because its hot, cold, the water bowl is empty, or it just wants to be with you. If the barking worries you, then try to wait for a brief pause in the barking, go to the door, open it a fraction, cue a “Sit” then reward with “Good dog – OK – come inside” (again, being cautious of creating a behaviour chain).

Staring at the guardian to demand feeding – Check the time – have you been reading, chatting on the phone or watching TV? Dogs are excellent “watch-dogs” – they have their own watch and can tell the time of day for meals really well. Say “OK – do you want dinner? Let’s do that” and feed them – or simply “Nope – it’s too early – go back to bed/come and have a cuddle/whatever – dinner time is in one hour from now”.

Discussion and conclusions – some advice

The message is this: don’t look for problems that don’t exist and do train the dog in these little niceties of “good manners” discussed above that just make your human-canine relationship smoother.

BUT - I don’t wish to dominate my dog, but I do want it to respond to my cues.

How does the guardian’s desire for a level of control fit with all this, i.e., guardian to canine - “do what I tell you!” Simple. It’s once again not about dominance and nothing to do with the pack leadership/hierarchy myth, it is simply about training and teaching the dog how we live together in this household.

In brief, during training, after the puppy initiation stages, quickly move to delivering a cue (such as the simple “sit” just once – not “sit, sit, sit, sit, sit ….. oh, goooood sit”). That is, plan on the structure of “cue” followed by “action”, then mark (“click” or verbal marker such as “yes”) and reward. Done and release. Follow this rigor throughout all training – expect and anticipate that the dog will respond because it has been well and patiently trained. Once a dog knows what is required and doesn’t respond accordingly, then a redirection/reset (or repeat) may be required, but that is a longer topic[28]. Again – not responding to a known cue is not dominating nor challenging you for pack leadership – put aside any inferiority complex or ego and get that silly idea out of your mind from the start - look instead to your training methodology.

References

[1] Most, K (Colonel) (reprint 2001) Training Dogs: A Manual; original 1910, translated to English from the German 1954; Dogwise Publ.; 214pp.

[2] Koehler, W. R. (1962) The Koehler Method of Dog Training: Howell; republ. 1996 Hall & Co. USA: 378pp (Koehler trained a number of dogs for Disney movie roles).

[3] Hearne, V (1986) Adam’s Task: Calling the Animals by Name; NY; A. A. Knopf (reprint 2007; Skyhorse Publ.; 288pp).

[4] Palman, D. Not Using Force in Police Dog Training; Maine Warden Service; United States Police Canine Association; https://uspcak9.memberclicks.net › assets › Resource [PDF] 18pp; and see Promoting Positive Training Methods - Anything you can teach a dog to do – including barking and biting – can be trained with positive reinforcement methods. Article about police dog trainer Steve White: URL https://www.uspcak9.com/k9-training-articles  (PDF)

[5] Schenkel, R (1946/1948) Expression Studies of Wolves: Captivity Observations; Basle Zoo and Zoological Institute of the University of Basle; Translated from German; 58pp: (1947) Behaviour; 1 pp. 81-129.

[6] Mech, L. D. (1970) The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species. Natural History Press (Doubleday Publishing Co., N.Y.) 389 pp. (Reprinted in paperback by University of Minnesota Press, May 1981): (1999) Alpha status, dominance, and division of labour in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1196-1203: (2000) Leadership in Wolf, Canis lupus, packs. Canadian Field Naturalist; 114(2):259-263.  

[7] Amirault, J. (2018) Alpha Wolf: A Discredited Theory? Woodland Woman; Nov. 19 2018; URL https://woodlandwoman.ca/alpha-wolf/ 

[8] Discussion by Gadbois S (2015) 51 Shades of Grey: Misuse, Misunderstanding and Misinformation of the Concepts of “Dominance” and “Punishment”; Do you believe in dog? April 2015; URL https://www.doyoubelieveindog.com/2015/04/ 

[9] Bradshaw, J. (2016) “Dominance” in Dogs—Again: Misunderstandings about dominance continue to abound in canine science; Psychology Today, Mar 24 2016; https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/pets-and-their-people/201603/dominance-in-dogs-again

[10] Sandoe, P. et.al (2015) Companion Animal Ethics; Wiley-Blackwell; 288pp. 

[11] Also referred to as the self-fulfilling prophecy in other branches of psychological study, e.g. Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57(11), 839–849: URL https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.11.839 and Jason Weaver , Jennifer Filson Moses, Mark Snyder  (2016) Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Ability Settings; J Soc Psychol; 2016;156(2):179-89; National Library of Medicine: URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26214717/: [Note - Epub 2015 Jul 27).

[12] Bekoff, M. (2012) Social Dominance Is Not a Myth: Wolves, Dogs, and Social dominance is real but has been widely misunderstood and misused; Psychology Today; Feb 15 2012; URL https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/animal-emotions/201202/social-dominance-is-not-a-myth-wolves-dogs-and

[13] Eaton, B. (2011) Dominance in Dogs: Fact or Fiction? Dogwise Publishing; 88pp.

[14] Rowell, T. E. (1974) The Concept of Social Dominance; Behav. Biol; 11: pp. 131-154

[15] Note that Calhoun, J. B. (1962) Population Density and Social Pathology; Sci. Am. 206: pp. 139-148 and (1963) The Ecology and Sociology of the Norway Rat; DHHS Publ. 1008 Washington DC; US Govt. Print.: appears to contradict Rowell (op. cit.) and suggests social dominance actually plays a role in social structure and territorial order impacting health and reproductive fitness: the question is, are these views really diametrically opposed - or just two sides of the same coin - and can they be reconciled on the basis of a need for members of a group to “stay in their lane and seek social harmony” for the continuation of the species, that is, tolerance in both dominance and submission plays a key role. Either way, the analyses still do not support a need for dominance in animal husbandry nor training outcomes.

[16] Schilder, M. B. H., Vinke, C. M., & van der Borg, J. A. M. (2014). Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: Useful habit and useful construct? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 9(4), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.04.005

[17] Leerburg; Ed Frawley addressing question re police K9, describes “Rank Drive – socially dominant dogs”; “dogs which will never accept a position in a pack structure but always wants to be top dog in a relationship”; the assumption that dogs view humans as equal contestants in their “wolf pack” continues – is this really a sensible analysis, assuming the dog really thinks humans are dogs – or that these “rank dogs” just want to dominate every living thing, including their guardian and provider?; URL https://youtu.be/zmL3vlUt5tE?si=DWMi14c8ywjbb2jC [Incidentally – the advice Mr. Frawley delivers in this video is really sensible – we are just concerned with the terminology, classification of dog behaviours and assumptions leading to selected conclusions - or in this case, possible issues].

[18] Leerburg; The Groundwork to Establishing Pack Structure with Adult Dogs; Ed Frawley;

 URL https://leerburg.com/groundwork.htm?srsltid=AfmBOooaVZNUv7BTDju3m8gb9luedEExxtjWZ-ifqgDGJRdf7KAf-Vfm; this webpage delivers really sound advice, which can easily be read without the “Leader of the Pack” words and assumption – which is based on the discredited “Lupomorph Theory” [for more on this see Vette, M. (2017) Dog Zen; Everything You Need to Know to Transform Your Dog; Penguin Random House NZ;399pp; esp. at pp. 29-31; as well as many other authors, including Mech (op. cit.)].

[19] As Gadbois (2015 op.cit.) notes, dominance hierarchies work to avoid conflict and aggression and may define (at least in the human species, but also observable in wild animals) a cooperative division of labour (seemingly more related to the successful organisational management, hunting or protection outcome than “who’s the boss”). See also Footnote [15].

[20] A most instructive narrative and lesson in the application of aversives compared to the gentle positive approach using the right “language” with horses, as well as the “leader mare” example, can be found in “Monty Roberts: A Real Horse Whisperer” available on YouTube at https://youtu.be/H8NEekz1Ij4?si=TD1cjJV_pKwE1wwQ 

[21] Various sojourns and safaris when living in Africa from 1998-2001.

[22] Quote from “Three-dimensional dog” (2019); URL https://www.threedimensionaldog.com

[23] Written by George "Shadow" Morton, Jeff Barry, and Ellie Greenwich. It was a number one pop hit in 1964 for the American girl group the Shangri-Las; Wikipedia URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Pack

[24] The Wild One is a 1953 American crime film directed by László Benedek and produced by Stanley Kramer. The picture is most noted for the character of Johnny Strabler, portrayed by Marlon Brando, whose persona became a cultural icon of the 1950s; Wikipedia URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_One 

[25] Westgarth, C. (2016) Why nobody will ever agree about dominance in dogs; Journal of Veterinary Behavior Volume 11; pp. 99-101; URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S155878781500026X

[26] Selection from Oxford Languages; URL https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/  

[27] Puppy Training Tips #1 - Stop Pulling on the Leash in 15 Minutes?!; YouTube https://youtu.be/p7ehpDpJ3hk

[28] In brief, if the dog does not follow a cue that you are absolutely certain it knows well, then have cognizance of the environment (has the dog become fluent and also generalized the cue to any environment and level of distraction?) and then step in (no fuss) and reposition the dog by having it “heel” or “come” to a new spot a meter away then reissue the cue. No yelling, smacking or pushing the dog required. Rinse and repeat, remembering the marker and reward.