However, that mystery aside, the whole concept of “pecking order” hinges on there being a fixed, consistent, always-contested hierarchy that can only change when one animal “defeats” another and “pushes them down the ladder.” It’s not supposed to be just random conflict, but rather a systematic, ever-present, rigid structure of _absolute_ hierarchy. One animal is “top,” and there is a monotonically-decreasing line down to the “bottom” animal.

That is the form of “pecking order” that has been comprehensively debunked. In fact, your own observations echo what the avian researchers discovered: what they DID see is a sharp increase in essentially random, unpredictable violence between domestic chickens as more and more chickens were locked in smaller and smaller spaces.

Without the room to negotiate social interactions using distance – instead of violence – the chicken social systems broke down until it was basically a free-for-all. Early researchers assumed both that this was “natural” (not a result of extreme confinement) and rigidly structured – they were wrong on both counts. When Konrad Lorenz popularized the “pecking order” despite a lack of real research supporting it, the concept grew legs and took off all on its own from there (a classic example of a “cultural meme”). I suspect it resonated so well with humans because, unlike most other types of social mammals, some primate species do have somewhat more of an intrinsic hierarchical structure in their wild state (thinking of de Waal’s research with chimpanzee social structures).

Similarly, early wolf researchers mostly “studies” wolf social structures by taking a pen with a bunch of unrelated wolves locked in it and then adding a new, unknown, unrelated wolf into this unstable social mix. Sure enough, almost always there’d be a massive violent eruption when this new wolf was thrown into the storm: researchers falsely concluded this was “natural” and was related to forming a “pecking order.” It wasn’t – it’s just the sort of random violence we see in many species when too many unfamiliar individuals are locked in too small a space. Ask anyone who has done some time in prison, and they’ll understand all too well that humans react the same way.

Needless to say, taking this erroneous finding about imprisoned wolves and “applying” it to dogs is error taken to the power of error. Domesticated dogs – however dissimilar to wolves they may be – are rarely housed in unstable, shifting, highly-confined environments. Thus, assuming they will resort to systemic, merciless, within-family violence to “establish a pecking order” is utterly pathological! At best, it’s just wrong and useless. However, more often it ends up being self-fulfilling – people expect dogs to be violent to their friends and family/pack members and when a dog does that (we call it “being an a#$(*ole” in our family) they tolerate it. The way a healthy social group tolerates needless obnoxious behavior is to tell that person that NO, it’s not ok to be violent to your friends for no reason. That’s all: no. It doesn’t take violence in return, or “alpha rolls” (or tuna rolls, for that matter , or anything fancy to teach someone good manners. It takes setting an EXAMPLE of good manners, and setting high enough expectations to encourage other folks to step up, instead of sliding down.

I find it funny how much argument there is about whether “alpha-based training” is ethically acceptable, or not. That bridge need not be crossed because, in truth, it’s completely wrong-headed from the foundation up. Like arguing about whether we should paint the moon green or blue, it’s somewhat silly to engage in such circular non-progress.

It is worth remembering – again – that wild wolves do NOT have “alpha leaders,” there is not a “struggle for dominance” in wild wolf packs/families, and this entire assumption that canines have “hierarchy” has less than zero support from real, peer-reviewed ethological research.

Dr. David Mech, who was an early believer in the “alpha myth” in wild wolves, has spent decades refuting his earlier errors in assuming something when the evidence wasn’t there. (Snip) Dr. Mech explicitly acknowledging his error in spreading the “alpha wolf” myth – and calling on others to stop repeating it as if it were factual: (Snip)

Darcie gets it right, not just for domestic dogs but for pretty much every social mammal thus studied: insofar as there are “leaders” of social groups, that leadership is based on trust, respect, and competence. Not power, “alpha,” or fear. Same is true of humans, actually – the exceptions to that rule are what we remember (Tito, Franco, etc.) but in truth healthy social human groups have leaders that are trusted and respected and valued – not feared.

The best thing to do with the entire “alpha” nonsense is to actively reject it, every time you hear it repeated. It is WRONG – this isn’t an “opinion” it is proven, verified scientific fact. Even the people who first popularized it now explicitly state they were 100% wrong. Further, remember that whole “pecking order” thing with chickens? They have a pecking order, right? A hierarchy. Turns out THAT is 100% wrong as well – observer bias, long since overthrown by the actual people who actually study the ethology of domestic birds.

Learning to live in positive, effective, safe, reliable family groupings that include canines and humans isn’t easy – and realizing that “alpha dominance” is pure myth won’t magically solve all “problems” in teaching humans to interact with dogs. Still, getting rid of the known-to-be-wrong “facts” is a heck of a goof start, isn’t it?