Dominance is often imagined as a permanent position held by an “alpha” that controls every other member of a group. Animal societies are more varied than that picture suggests. Dominance remains a useful scientific concept when clearly defined, but it should not be treated as an explanation for every interaction or a fixed personality trait.
How the concept developed
In 1922, Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe described the pecking order in domestic chickens. Repeated interactions could reveal consistent differences in which animal yielded to another. The idea influenced subsequent work on many social species.
Rudolf Schenkel’s observations of captive wolves in the 1940s helped establish the familiar image of a strict hierarchy headed by an alpha. These captive groups included animals brought together under conditions different from those of most wild packs. Mech’s later field observations emphasised that a typical wild pack is a family, with the parents guiding group activities and dividing responsibilities. This corrects a misleading picture of unrelated adults constantly fighting for leadership; it does not mean that dominance and submission never occur.
Different social systems
Primates
Chimpanzee status can involve alliances and conflict management as well as physical ability. Female cooperation is particularly important in bonobo society, and females may dominate males. Baboon social relationships also depend on the species and population: age, condition, coalitions and kinship can matter, and female rank may be associated with the maternal line. These examples illustrate variation rather than a single rule that all primates follow.
Birds, cattle and rodents
The chicken pecking order remains a classic example of repeated asymmetries in social encounters. In domestic cattle, familiarity and recognition can help animals avoid repeated physical conflict. Rodents also show diverse patterns: aggressive encounters, yielding, access to food and nesting sites may all be relevant, depending on species, sex and conditions. It would be misleading to assign all males a violent form of dominance and all females a subtle one.
Dogs and the “alpha wolf” analogy
Applying a simplified wolf model to domestic dogs has encouraged inappropriate assumptions about submission and training. Bradshaw and colleagues questioned the use of dominance as a personality trait or a general motive for aggression. Other researchers have documented structured dominance relationships in particular dog groups. The evidence therefore does not support the blanket claim that dominance has been disproved in dogs. Relationships, learning, resources and context require examination; a hierarchy label does not justify coercive handling.
What dominance can—and cannot—describe
In a widely used definition, dominance concerns the repeated relationship between two individuals when one consistently yields to the other. Rank describes a position within a particular group. Neither is an immutable property that explains every act. Resource value, health, age, reproductive state, experience and group composition can affect interactions.
Captivity may change opportunities to disperse, retreat or choose partners. Restricted space and concentrated resources can therefore alter the pattern and severity of conflict. However, captive observations are not automatically invalid, and wild groups are not necessarily free of aggression.
Established relationships may reduce the need for repeated fights by making responses more predictable. Posture, vocalisations, yielding and affiliative contact can all help regulate interactions. Their meaning must be established for the species and situation; grooming, for example, is not a universal signal of submission.
Dominance and social life in degus
Group organisation
Degus are social Chilean rodents that may share burrow systems and rear young communally. Group size, sex composition and membership vary between populations and over time. Wild descriptions of one or two males with several females are not a formula for captive care. Read the article on degus in the wild for the wider ecological context.
Interpreting interactions
Urine marking, bathing sites, postures, vocalisations and grooming all contribute to degu social communication. Experiments on dust bathing show responses to scent left by unfamiliar males. That does not mean every animal that marks is the dominant one, or that scent transfer guarantees acceptance.
A degu occupying a high position may be observing its surroundings or choosing a resting place; height alone does not establish rank. Mounting or climbing over another animal also needs context. Short disputes may settle, but repeated pursuit, restricted access to food, injury or a persistently withdrawn animal must not be dismissed as harmless hierarchy.
Changing relationships
Relationships may change with maturation, health, reproduction and group composition. Females can share nests and care of young, but communal rearing does not imply an absence of competition. Likewise, male interactions are not invariably ritualised or safe: serious injury can occur in captivity.
Compatible same-sex pairs or groups can provide companionship without unplanned breeding. Mixed-sex housing requires reliable reproductive management and individual advice. Do not assemble one or two intact males with five or six females merely to reproduce a reported wild ratio. Introduce unfamiliar animals gradually, using the introduction guide, and avoid unnecessary changes to a stable group. Familiar sand or bedding may be one part of a plan, but cannot replace safety measures and observation.
Social welfare in captivity
Provide sufficient space, several accessible hides, suitable enrichment and enough feeding and drinking points to reduce competition. Watch the whole pattern: excessive marking, repeated fighting or social isolation may accompany a problem, although none diagnoses its cause alone. Positive interaction and mutual grooming are valuable observations alongside any agonistic behaviour.
If conflict occurs, assess health, resources, territory and compatibility. Consult the guide to fighting and conflict and intervene to protect an animal that is being injured or persistently excluded. Calling it “subordinate” does not make its distress acceptable.
Dominance describes some social relationships; it is not a universal account of animal society. Careful observation preserves the complexity of degu social life and helps owners make decisions that protect each animal’s welfare.
Sources
Drews, C. (1993). The Concept and Definition of Dominance in Animal Behaviour. Behaviour, 125(3–4), 283–313. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853993X00290
Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77, 1196–1203. https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf
Bradshaw, J. W. S., Blackwell, E. J., & Casey, R. A. (2009). Dominance in domestic dogs—useful construct or bad habit?. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4(3), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2008.08.004
van der Borg, J. A. M., Schilder, M. B. H., Vinke, C. M., & de Vries, H. (2015). Dominance in Domestic Dogs: A Quantitative Analysis of Its Behavioural Measures. PLOS ONE, 10(8), e0133978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133978
Ebensperger, L. A., & Cofré, H. (2001). On the evolution of group-living in the New World cursorial hystricognath rodents. Behavioral Ecology, 12(2), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/12.2.227
Ebensperger, L. A., et al. (2012). Ecological drivers of group living in two populations of the communally rearing rodent, Octodon degus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1274-3
Ebensperger, L. A. (2000). Dustbathing and intra-sexual communication of social degus, Octodon degus (Rodentia: Octodontidae). Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 73(2). https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-078X2000000200011