Behavioural changes in our dogs often take us by surprise. Everything seems fine, until one day your previously affectionate companion snaps when you reach out to stroke them. Shock, embarrassment, anger, even guilt can follow. Many owners then reach out to a dog trainer or behaviourist, hoping to have the unwanted behaviour “fixed”.

But what is causing it?

Sudden or escalating behaviour changes always raise an important question: could pain be involved? And while there could be many possible reasons for a behaviour change, pain is one of the most significant – and one of the easiest to miss.

If pain is an underlying factor, behaviour modification alone is unlikely to be effective.

Appropriate pain management doesn’t automatically erase learnt behaviours, but without it, meaningful behaviour change is often impossible. A dog cannot learn new coping strategies if they are physically uncomfortable, distressed, or constantly managing pain. This is why a vet check should always be the first step when behaviour changes appear or intensify.

How easy is it to spot signs of pain in our dogs?

Many owners expect pain to look like:

• Limping
• Reduced mobility
• Crying or yelping
• Flinching when touched

Even the example we gave at the beginning was quite “obvious”. But in reality dogs are remarkably good at masking pain and discomfort. A dog in pain may still run, jump, chase, play enthusiastically, and have zoomies. In many cases the signs are often subtle and appear long before the dog’s behaviour changes.

When more obvious physical signs are absent, pain may show up through changes in behaviour, including:

• Restlessness or difficulty settling
• Early waking or disrupted sleep
• Excessive licking and coat changes
• Reduced frustration tolerance
• Heightened reactivity or irritability
• Reduced ability to self-regulate
• Increased anxiety

Pain can also amplify existing emotional or motivational states. A dog who was already a little anxious, reactive, or sensitive may appear to “suddenly worsen” – when in reality, their capacity to cope has been compromised.

According to CAM (Canine Arthritis Management) “Dogs express pain in many subtle ways, which we often identify and associate with the disease late in its course. Please don’t delay seeking veterinary advice, waiting until your dog limps or yelps to confirm your suspicions of pain, as by then they are likely to be in significant pain. ” (4)

So what else do we often miss?

Mouthing, destruction and displacement behaviours

Some dogs show increased mouthing, chewing or destructive behaviours when in pain. These behaviours are not attempts to be “naughty” or controlling. They often function as displacement or tension-reducing behaviours – or ways of reducing internal discomfort (1; 10). The feeling of relief that follows can be reinforcing, even though the original cause (pain) remains unresolved.

Guarding spaces: comfort becomes valuable

Has your dog suddenly started guarding the sofa, bed, or specific resting spots?

Soft, supportive surfaces can become especially valuable to dogs experiencing discomfort. These areas may offer relief, warmth, or the ability to rest in a position that minimises pain.

Guarding in these contexts could be suggest underlying pain and protecting comfort, not dominance or status.

Chronic pain and emotional wellbeing

Pain, when unnoticed or left undiagnosed and untreated for long time, can become chronic. Chronic musculoskeletal pain, even when mild, can affect day to day life significantly. Over time, persistent discomfort can:

• reduce stress tolerance
• lower arousal thresholds
• increase anxiety and reactivity (8)
• lead to chronic stress (15).

Chronic pain doesn’t just affect behaviour in specific situations; it influences the dog’s overall emotional state, behavioural expression and well-being (6; 8).

Pain, handling and defensive behaviour

Pain and chronic medical conditions can make physical handling uncomfortable or painful, which could be a factor in any defensive reactions (12). This may affect stroking, lifting, grooming, claw clipping, putting harness on, etc. If snapping, growling or avoidance have previously succeeded in stopping or preventing the interaction, and therefore removing the pain (2), and providing relief (14), those behaviours are likely to be repeated, they become learned behaviours.

With chronic pain or mobility issues, grooming can be especially challenging (3; 5).

• Handling one paw even before the actual claw clipping may be uncomfortable due to joint stiffness or altered weight distribution
• Brushing over tense or sore areas may cause pain, even with gentle pressure

Over time, grooming tools — and the people holding them — can start predicting discomfort and pain (13), and what looks like “overreaction” is often a learned response based on pain history.

And from the dog’s perspective, the behaviour works.

Seasonal flare-ups and environmental stressors

Chronic pain conditions, particularly those affecting joints, often worsen in colder weather (11). Autumn and winter can bring increased stiffness, greater discomfort and seasonal pain flare-ups, making dogs more irritable, potentially increasing stress levels (8) and lowering his threshold for reactivity and aggression.

At the same time, environmental stressors such as storms, wind, fireworks, and shorter daylight hours could also lead to low mood and pessimistic bias, making any other underlying issues worse (9). Even dogs without noise sensitivities may be startled by sudden sounds like thunders or fireworks, leading to abrupt movements that trigger pain (7). This combination can lower tolerance and increase the likelihood of reactive or defensive behaviour.

The takeaway

Behaviour doesn’t happen in isolation.

When we see behavioural changes, especially sudden or escalating, pain should always be part of the conversation — not an afterthought.

Effective behaviour work starts with:

1. Veterinary assessment and appropriate pain management where needed;
2. Adjusted expectations and management strategies;
3. Behaviour modification that considers both the dog’s physical and emotional capacity.

Pain often explains behaviour. And understanding that explanation is what allows us to support our dogs more fairly, compassionately, and effectively.

REFERENCES:

(1) Arhant, Christine; Winkelmann, Rebecca; Troxler, Josef (2021) Chewing behaviour in dogs – A survey-based exploratory study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 241, 105372.

(2) Beaver, Bonnie V. (2009) Canine Behaviour, Insights and Answers, Second Edition.
St Louis, Missouri, Saunders Elsevier.

(3) Bekoff, Marc (2022) Grooming Dogs: What’s Good and Bad From Their Point of
View, Psychology Today.

(4) Canine Arthritis Management (2026) Does my dog have arthritis? https://caninearthritis.co.uk/what-is-arthritis/identifying-the-signs/

(5) Edwards, Petra T.; Hazel, Susan J.; Browne, Matthew; Serpell, James A.; McArthur,
Michelle L.; Smith, Bradley P. (2019) Investigating risk factors that predict a dog’s fear
during veterinary consultations.  PLoS ONE 14(7): e0215416.

(6) Malkani, Rachel; Paramasivam, Sharmini; Wolfensohn, Sarah (2024) How does chronic
pain impact the lives of dogs: an investigation of factors that are associated with pain using
the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 11:1374858.

(7) Meneses, Tia; Robinson, Jessica; Rose, Jessica; Vernick, Jennifer; Overall, Karen L.
(2021) Development of and pharmacological treatment options and future research
opportunities for separation anxiety in dogs Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association, 259(10), 1130-1139.

(8) Mills D S; Demontigny-Bédard I; Gruen M; Klinck M P; McPeake K J; Barcelos A M;
Hewison L; Van Haevermaet H; Denenberg S; Hauser H; Koch C; Ballantyne K;
Wilson C; Mathkari C V; Pounder J; Garcia E; Darder P; Fatjó J; Levine E; (2020)
Pain and Problem Behaviour in Cats and Dogs Animals 10(2), 318.

(9) Mills, Daniel; Dube, Maya B.; Zulch, Helen (2013) Stress and Pheromonatherapy in
Small Animal Clinical Behaviour. UK, John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

(10) O’Heare, James (2007) Dog Aggression Workbook. Ottawa, Canada, BehaveTech
Publishing.

(11) Overall, Karen L. (2013) Manual of Clinical Behavioural Medicine for Dogs and Cats,
St. Louis, MO, USA, Elsevier Mosby.

(12) Reisner, Ilana R.; Houpt, Katherine A.; Shofer, Frances S. (2005) National survey of
owner directed aggression in English Springer Spaniels Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, 227(10), 1594-1603.

(13) Rooney, Nicola J.; Clark, Corinna C.A.; Casey, Rachel A. (2016) Minimizing fear and
anxiety in working dogs: A review Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 16, 53-64.

(14) Sapolsky, Robert (2017) Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
London, UK, Vintage.

(15) Scholz, Martina; von Reinhardt, Clarissa (2007) Stress in Dogs Wenatchee, Washington,
USA, Dogwise Publishing.

For decades, dog owners were told that many problem behaviours came down to “dominance”: dogs trying to become “alpha,” challenge authority, or rise up a hierarchy within the household. This idea became so embedded in popular culture that it continues to influence training methods today, long after it was disproven.

Dominance theory simply does not reflect what we know about dogs (O’Heare, J. 2008).
Modern behavioural science, ethology, and learning theory have repeatedly shown that this interpretation is outdated, inaccurate, and often harmful.

This post summarises key findings from established researchers — because understanding where dominance theory came from, and why it was disproven, is essential to moving dog training forward.

1. Dominance is not a personality trait

Dominance, in scientific terms, refers to how two individual animals resolve resource conflicts (Drews, C. 1993) with each other. It is not a mindset, character trait, or intention. Dogs are not “dominant by nature,” and they are not trying to control humans.

A dog jumping on the sofa is choosing a comfortable spot, not challenging authority. A dog pulling on the lead is responding to environmental stimuli or insufficient training, not trying to “lead the pack”.

What this means:
Most behaviours labelled as “dominant” are actually normal, learned, or emotional responses. They are shaped by reinforcement history, emotional state, genetics, pain, or unmet needs.

Not power struggles.

2. The wolf-based origins of the dominance theory were flawed

The early research (1970s): captive wolves, not wild wolves

The idea of “alpha wolves” ruling by aggression came from studies on unrelated adult wolves kept in captivity (Mech, L. D. 1999). These wolves were forced into unnatural, highly stressful, artificial social groups, and displayed abnormally high conflict (O’Heare, J. 2008).

This model was never representative of natural wolf behaviour, and certainly not of domestic dog behaviour.

The correction (1999): wolf families, not dominance hierarchies

When researchers began studying wild wolves in natural habitats, the dominance theory collapsed. Wolf packs turned out to be family groups, with parents guiding young — not competing adults fighting for rank (Mech, L. D. 1999).

• “Alpha” wolves are simply the parents, the breeding pair
• Aggression within the pack is rare
• Dominance through force is not how wolf families operate
• Most interactions are cooperative
• Leadership is based on guidance, not force

L. David Mech, one of the world’s leading wolf biologists, publicly revised his earlier work and stated that the alpha model should no longer be used, even for wolves — and let alone dogs.

3. Modern canine research: dogs do not form dominance hierarchies with humans

Dogs have evolved alongside humans for thousands of years. They are not wolves, they are a different domesticated species with a unique social status, not pack leaders, and not aspiring to climb a social ladder above their owners.

Scientific research (Bradshaw et al. 2009; Topál et al. 1998; O’Heare, J. 2008) shows:

• Dogs do not form linear dominance hierarchies in the home.
• Dog–human relationships are based on attachment, not rank.
• Dogs rely heavily on cooperation, not competition.
• Problem behaviours are linked to learning history, reinforcement, emotion, stress, pain, or environment — not dominance.

4. Why conflict and dominance are costly for dogs

Even if the dominance theory were true (and it is not), using social dominance or conflict to control dog behaviour would still be problematic. It implies that the dog-owner relationship is a relationship between adversaries, which is both untrue and damaging (O’Heare, J. 2008). And often leads to abuse.

There is no justification for choosing dominance, intimidation and conflict when positive reinforcement is safer, more effective for changing dogs’ unwanted behaviours, and well-supported by decades of research (Beerda et al. 1998; Bradshaw et al. 2009; Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. 2009; Haverbeke et al. 2008; O’Heare, J. 2008). The cost of conflict, both physiological and behavioural, is too high for the dog:

A. Conflict increases stress and reduces learning

When dogs are subjected to intimidation, physical corrections, or any other form of aversive handling, this results in:

• Elevated cortisol
• Increased heart rate
• Reduced ability to process information
• Impaired memory and problem-solving
• Increased reactivity
• Heightened aggression

This pushes the dog into survival mode and they cannot learn effectively.

B. Conflict damages trust and attachment

Dogs rely on humans for safety. Confrontation with the person they depend on can:

• Undermine trust
• Erode safety
• Reduce cooperation
• Create fear around handling

This makes training slower, less reliable, and often less safe.

C. Aversive methods may increase aggression

Force-based methods commonly lead to:

• Suppression of the problem behaviour, not resolution
• Increased avoidance behaviours
• Defensive aggression becomes more likely
• Learned helplessness (the dog may shut down completely and stop offering behaviours altogether to avoid punishment)

D. Aggression is costly in nature

Even in wild species:

• Aggression is a last resort
• Most disputes are resolved through subtle communication or avoidance
• Serious conflict risks injury
• Injury threatens survival

Domestic dogs follow the same principle. They are evolutionarily predisposed to avoid conflict because the costs outweigh the benefits. Which directly contradicts the idea that dogs are constantly attempting to “challenge” humans.

5. Why does the dominance theory persist despite being disproven decades ago

Despite overwhelming evidence, dominance theory remains widespread. Here is why:

1. It’s simple, and simple explanations spread easily

“Your dog is trying to be the boss” is a quick, catchy narrative than:
Your dog is experiencing a complex interaction of reinforcement history, stress, arousal, environmental triggers, etc.

And from there, it’s easy to twist the interpretation of your dog’s natural behaviours to fit that narrative.

2. Misinterpretation of normal dog behaviour

Behaviours such as jumping, lead pulling, guarding, or ignoring cues can look like defiance to the untrained eye, but are actually driven by emotion, motivation, learning.

Dominance becomes a convenient — but incorrect — label.

3. It offers a false sense of control

When behaviours escalate, and owners feel overwhelmed or frustrated, “Be the alpha” appeals and feels like a simple solution, regardless of the cost.

4. Media influence

TV and social media thrive on drama. Confrontational techniques make compelling entertainment — not because they are accurate or ethical, but because they are flashy. In a society where 3 seconds is all you get before the next swipe, an image of an aggressive dog with a message “Your dog is trying to be the boss” stick. A 3-second clip is enough to reinforce outdated ideas, but not to explain the complexity of our dogs’ emotions and behaviour.

5. Outdated information continues to circulate

Some trainers still rely on what they were taught 20-30 years ago, most of them without CPD or engagement with current research. For those unsure how to explain and address behaviour, “Your dog is trying to be the boss” becomes a go-to explanation that masks knowledge and confidence gaps.

And the argument “it works-why change it” is common – but intimidation, chronic stress, fear and often abuse are just not acceptable, and it’s time to move on with the science.

Conclusion

Dominance theory is not supported by modern science. It was based on outdated wolf research, disproven by later wolf studies, and thoroughly rejected by decades of canine behavioural science.

Understanding dogs as emotional, social learners — not status-seeking competitors — allows us to train them more humanely and more effectively, offering lasting results.

And most importantly, it builds the stable, trusting relationships our dogs need in order to thrive.

References:

Beerda, B., Schilder, M.B.H., Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., De Vries, H.W., Mol,
J. A. (1998) Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58 (3–4), 365-381.

Bradshaw, J. W. S., Blackwell, E., & Casey, R. (2009) Dominance in domestic dogs—Useful construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4(3), 135–144.

Drews, C. (1993) The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour, 125(3–4), 283–313.

Haverbeke, A., Laporte, B., Depiereux, E., Giffroy, J.-M., Diederich, C. (2008) Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on behavioural responses of dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (1–3), 110-122 .

Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. (2009) Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117 (1–2), 47-54.

Mech, L. D. (1999) Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1196–1203.

O’Heare, J. (2008) Dominance Theory and Dogs. An In-depth Examination of Social Dominance and its Insidious Consequences … and an Alternative. 2nd Edition. DogPsych Publishing, Ottawa, Canada.

Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., & Dóka, A. (1998) Attachment behaviour in dogs: A new application of Ainsworth’s (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(3), 219–229.