Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnzeppi  According to Stacy at Body Language in Dogs: how to read what your dog is saying, from Stacy's Wag'N'Train
"Submissive body postures include: lowered head and body; allowing other dogs to stand over them or hook their heads over their shoulders; licking at other dogs' lips and mouth corners; looking away from the other dog; rolling on back and craning head away from other dog, while covering tucking their tail."
Although, often times these explanations are simplified, and I don't doubt that for some dogs, the one that is usually dominant might lick a submissive one to give it confidence. With my dogs, this only goes one way! 
As far as the compulsive behaviors goes, I found this site most helpful: Compulsive Behavior in Dogs
A clear definition of "compulsive behavior" (vs. a dog that just licks way too much, for example) is not provided, but requires professional evaluation. My sister in law's mixed breed lab has terrible anxiety and licks itself so much that its paws bleed, which has to be considered "compulsive", but I would imagine that the definition of "compulsive behavior" is somewhat subjective. |
She is using out dated terms for you all to understand but submissive and dominate in dog training is considered inaccurate as it does not describe the action but the reaction of you the person watching.
It clouds what is really going on which is rude behavior or behavior to stop an action.
Dogs are not dominate nor submissive it just behavior and should be treated as such.
Want good work on dog speak try .. Brenda Aloffs book or work done by Truid Rugrass or Pat McConnells book other end of the leash.
Dogs do not work in a hierarchy which is dominate or submissive they are not chickens which do and are the base of all hierarchy stuff.
Dogs live as social beings and therefore the structure is not set in stone but in flux all the time.
Top ten myths
http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/pets/d...s/e/behaviour-
training/dogsincanada/61/fairy-tales/1
Fairy tales
Provided by: Jean Donaldson, Dogs in Canada
The Top 10 dog behaviour myths
There are a lot of myths about dog behaviour so I whittled it down to
ones that were pervasive and that made myth criteria, which are:
a) there is no (zero) scientific evidence supporting the contention;
b) there is scientific evidence against the contention and/or
scientific evidence supporting alternatives.
1) Dogs are naturally pack animals with a clear social order. This
one busts coming out of the gate as free-ranging dogs (pariahs, semi-
feral populations, dingoes, etc.) don't form packs. As someone who
spent years solemnly repeating that dogs were pack animals, it was
sobering to find out that dogs form loose, amorphous, transitory
associations with other dogs.
2) If you let dogs exit doorways ahead of you, you're letting them be
dominant. There is not only no evidence for this, there is no
evidence that the behaviour of going through a doorway has any social
significance whatsoever. In order to lend this idea any plausibility,
it would need to be ruled out that rapid doorway exit is not simply a
function of their motivation to get to whatever is on the other side
combined with their higher ambulation speed.
3) In multi-dog households, "support the hierarchy" by giving
presumed dominant animals patting, treats, etc., first, before giving
the same attention to presumed subordinate animals. There is no
evidence that this has any impact on inter-dog relations, or any type
of aggression. In fact, if one dog were roughing up another, the laws
governing Pavlovian conditioning would dictate an opposite tack:
Teach aggressive dogs that other dogs receiving scarce resources
predicts that they are about to receive some. If so practised, the
tough dog develops a happy emotional response to other dogs getting
stuff – a helpful piece of training, indeed. No valuable conditioning
effects are achieved by giving the presumed higher-ranking dog
goodies first.
4) Dogs have an innate desire to please. This concept has never been
operationally defined, let alone tested. A vast preponderance of
evidence, however, suggests that dogs, like all properly functioning
animals, are motivated by food, water, sex, and like many animals, by
play and access to bonded relationships, especially after an absence.
They're also, like all animals, motivated by fear and pain, and these
are the inevitable tools of those who eschew the use of food, play,
etc., however much they cloak their coercion and collar-tightening in
desire to please rhetoric.
5) Rewards are bribes and thus compromise relationships. Related to
4), the idea that behaviour should just, in the words of Susan
Friedman, Ph.D., "flow like a fountain" without need of consequences,
is opposed by more than 60 years of unequivocal evidence that
behaviour is, again to quote Friedman, "a tool to produce
consequences." Another problem is that bribes are given before
behaviour, and rewards are given after. And, a mountain of evidence
from decades of research in pure and applied settings has
demonstrated over and over that positive reinforcement – i.e.,
rewards – make relationships better, never worse.
6) If you pat your dog when he's afraid, you're rewarding the fear.
Fear is an emotional state – a reaction to the presence or
anticipation of something highly aversive. It is not an attempt at
manipulation. If terrorists enter a bank and order everybody down on
the floor, the people will exhibit fearful behaviour. If I then give
a bank customer on the floor a compliment, 20 bucks or chocolates, is
this going to make them more afraid of terrorists next time? It's
stunningly narcissistic to imagine that a dog's fearful behaviour is
somehow directed at us (along with his enthusiastic door-dashing).
7) Punish dogs for growling or else they'll become aggressive. Ian
Dunbar calls this "removing the ticker from the time bomb." Dogs
growl because something upsetting them is too close. If you punish
them for informing us of this, they are still upset but now not
letting us know, thus allowing scary things to get closer and
possibly end up bitten. Much better to make the dog comfortable
around what he's growling at so he's not motivated to make it go away.
8) Playing tug makes dogs aggressive. There is no evidence that this
is so. The only study ever done, by Borchelt and Goodloe, found no
correlation between playing tug and the incidence of aggression
directed at either family members or strangers. Tug is, in fact, a
cooperative behaviour directed at simulated prey: the toy.
9) If you give dogs chew toys, they'll learn to chew everything. This
is a Pandora's box type of argument that, once again, has zero
evidence to support it. Dogs are excellent discriminators and readily
learn with minimal training to distinguish their toys from forbidden
items. The argument is also logically flawed as chewing is
a `hydraulic' behaviour that waxes and wanes, depending on
satiation/deprivation, as does drinking, eating and sex. Dogs without
chew objects are like zoo animals in barren cages. Unless there is
good compensation with other enrichment activities, there is a
welfare issue here.
10) You can't modify "genetic" behaviour. All behaviour – and I mean
all – is a product of a complex interplay between genes and the
environment. And while some behaviours require less learning than
others, or no learning at all, their modifiability varies as much as
does the modifiability of behaviours that are primarily learned.
_________________