The Struggle for Dominance: Fact or Fiction?
A Bird’s Eye View
© S.G. Friedman. All Rights Reserved
S.G. FRIEDMAN, PHD, UTAH, AND BOBBI BRINKER, OHIO
Published in Original Flying Machine, Issue 6:May/June 2001
In the
field of psychology, an important distinction is made between behaviors and
constructs. In this context, a behavior describes what a bird is doing and is
defined as something that can be observed and measured. We can see and count
the number of times a bird flies off a perch, and we can hear and clock how
long a bird screams. Alternatively, a construct is an idea or theory about the
mental processes inside an individual that explains why or how they behave as
they do. As such, a construct cannot be observed or measured directly. These
explanatory theories are "constructed,” that is, inferred from the outward
behaviors we can observe and measure with our senses. You can’t touch or
measure a bird’s dominance, per se, but you can measure how often he bites you
when you try to get him off the top of his cage. Height dominance, cage
dominance, food dominance, and flock dominance are all examples of many
commonly discussed constructs assumed to explain companion parrot behavior.
Admittedly,
specialized lingo like "constructs” can be a major turnoff, but sometimes
these concepts are so clarifying that it’s worth the effort to ponder them. The
distinction between behaviors and constructs is part of a larger framework for
understanding behavior that is relevant to those of us living with companion
parrots. Of course, our goal is always the same: To better interpret why our
birds behave the way they do and identify what can be done to decrease the
problems they encounter living with us.
Can’t Live
With `Em or Without `Em
Constructs
are useful. When we observe what appears to be a related set or class of
behaviors, it is both efficient and compelling to synthesize them according to
some unifying process. For example, it is much more succinct to say that a bird
is exhibiting "nesting behaviors” than it is to describe each of the
behaviors that comprise this construct. It could take hours to describe the specific
individual behaviors of Irene Pepperberg’s amazing bird Alex, when what we
really want to convey is that this bird is very "intelligent.” Birds are
loving, fearful, athletic, zany, all constructs that allow us to convey
important information to one another with single words.
But for
all their apparent usefulness, constructs present serious obstacles to the
pursuit of understanding behavior (human and parrot alike). The first problem is
with the very choice of a label that, like a picture, can convey a thousand
words- and emotions. Labels evoke powerful impressions about the value of what
they describe. These impressions predispose us - no, prejudice us - to
interpret behavior in very positive or negative ways. For example, some people
describe cockatoo behavior as deliciously cuddly, while others describe the
same behavior as overly needy. Are greys cold or independent? Are these good or
bad things? Should we try to change or accept them?
The second
problem with thinking in terms of constructs rather than observable behaviors
is verifiability. Since they describe intangible mental processes that are
neither directly observable nor quantifiable it’s hard to know, for any given
construct, if we are dealing with an explanatory truth or an explanatory
fiction. For example, when a bird bites you from the top of his cage, is he
exhibiting height dominance, fear, or simple annoyance at being removed or
interrupted? How can you tell? As you can see, it is a huge and precarious leap
of logic, not science, to jump from observable behaviors to interpreted
constructs and there is no surefire way to control the accuracy of the landing.
Finally,
the third problem with constructs is that they are tightly bound by our own
genetic, cultural, and personal perspective: The Human Perspective. For most of
us, thinking outside the proverbial "box” to truly understand a child,
spouse, or friend is tough enough. Thinking outside ones own taxonomic class, from
Homo sapiens to Aves, is an extraordinary challenge. Trying to increase our
understanding of birds by drawing constructs from the well of human experience
is fraught with problems. On the one hand, parrots need all the humanity we can
muster in order to thrive in our homes. On the other hand, our uniquely human
perspective too often leads us to respond and intervene in inappropriate or
even harmful ways. For example, it is not uncommon for new parrot owners to
punish their bird for biting when he was merely leading with his beak.
Origins of
the Dominance Theory
Within the
companion parrot community, it is a commonly held belief that our birds behave
from an inherent need to dominate their human flock, that is, to be king of the
tree. Many people have described pet parrots as control freaks with authority
complexes that are looking for our submissive reactions in order to win the
struggle for dominance. It is the glib repetition of this idea, not research,
which has given it status as the most proffered explanation for our birds’
noncompliant behaviors.
Strangely,
this interpretation of the dominance construct persists in spite of the lack of
corroborating evidence from ornithologists, field biologists and wild bird
behaviorists who are studying wild parrots. Apparently, in their natural
habitat there are no alpha parrots or straight-line hierarchies. Contention
between parrots appears to be relatively uncommon and brief with unpredictable
outcomes that change with the wind. Life in the wild is simply not as neat as
we in the companion world would have it. It is also worth noting that, just
like the rest of us, biologists must discipline themselves to resist the allure
of going beyond observable behaviors into the realm of explanatory fictions.
The history of science is strewn with such errors of interpretation in all
fields of study.
It seems that the main
basis of the dominance construct applied to companion parrots is the projection
of our own domineering behavior. We are, after all, proficient controllers, and
the dominance construct is a strikingly human interpretation of what our birds
are thinking when they simply decline to step up. It is not without a certain
logic; it has a certain utility, but does it lead to the best practices with
our companion birds?
Clearly,
simple logic and utility is not enough. To advance our understanding of our
birds we will need to bring on board the multidisciplinary knowledge of many
different fields of study. This was not easily accomplished in the past.
However, such a strategy is more possible now than ever before.
So What?
Given that
constructs are merely theories about what underlies behavior, it is reasonable
to wonder what all this fuss is about. However, the way in which we respond to
our birds is strongly influenced by our assumptions about what makes them tick.
Interpreting our birds’ noncompliant behavior as a struggle for dominance leads
us to naturally respond by picking up the gauntlet, clamping down and meeting
the challenge with counter-dominance. How would our responses differ if we
interpreted our birds’ refusal to our requests as fear or bird-appropriate
self-centeredness or annoyance at our frequent imposition? Misunderstanding
what motivates behavior results in missed teaching opportunities and decreases
the likelihood that we will respond with appropriate, effective or humane
interventions. Perhaps this point can be made clearer with this silly story
from our own more familiar human turf:
We know
some poor parents whose 3-year old daughter refused to brush her teeth. Every
night, when told it was time to go to bed, she ran up the ladder and hid in the
farthest corner of the top bunk bed. One night, when her mother stretched up to
grab her, the girl bit her! Well, that was the final straw. The parents could
not reward such a challenge or show submission to this willful child who had
apparently assumed that her height advantage on the top bunk bed made her the
dominant person in the house! So, they took back control assertively and busted
her to a futon in the basement. She would never be higher than her parents
again. The girl still refuses to brush her teeth but she bites less often now …
Consider
this: When you want to move your bird from his play top to his cage, are you
trying to dominate him or do you simply have a different location for him in
mind? How is this different than your bird’s intention when he declines the
offer?
The Point
The point
of this article is not to suggest that parrots should be allowed to bite,
scream, flee from our hands, or interact with only one person in the family. To
be a successful companion, a bird should exhibit none of these behaviors, most
of time. Neither is the point to suggest that dominant behavior is completely
absent in our captive parrots. At issue here is how best to achieve a
repertoire of good companion behavior with our pet birds.
Over the
years, there have been many recommended strategies to decrease assumed
dominance in pet parrots. For example, to control height dominance, lower your
bird’s perches to no higher than eye level of the shortest person in the house;
to break cage dominance, don’t pull your finger away when your bird is biting
it; and, to nip flock dominance in the bud, never hold your bird higher than
your heart. All of these strategies may have an effect on a bird’s behavior but
they are neither necessary nor desirable for the long run. More importantly,
they do not represent best practices, regardless of what motivates our birds.
Counting
both the authors’ pet flocks combined, we own nine pet parrots ranging in age
from 1 to 13 years old. Represented in these two flocks are Congo and Timneh
greys, Psittacus erithacus erithacus and P.e. timenh, a Severe Macaw, Ara
severa, an Alexandrine Parakeet, Psittacula eupatria, an Umbrella Cockatoo, Cacatura
alba, a Budgie, Melopsittacus undaulatus, and a lovebird, Agopornis. None of
them refuse to come down off their cage tops and all of them can be nuzzled and
kissed on tiptoe by all family members including two children. We continue to
work with some of the younger birds to better express their dissatisfaction
with their voices and not their beaks, and we continue to expand their
confidence to interact pleasantly with all friends and strangers. None of this
was accomplished overnight; all of this was accomplished in the complete
absence of domination and force.
Insights
and Strategies
The act
and art of great teaching is largely the result of great observation and
communication skills. With every interaction, both you and your bird are
communicating to one another your personal wants, needs and boundaries. The
goal is to use this communication to get the desired behavior by controlling
the teaching sequences, not the bird. Consider changing your attitude from
demanding compliance to being "blown away” by their willingness to
cooperate! Don’t lose the feeling of awe that brought you to parrot ownership
in the first place.
To devise
specific strategies, focus on specific behaviors more than constructs. Insights
about the inner workings of our parrots’ minds are a luxury, not a necessity,
for successful teaching. Analyze the antecedents, that is, the events that
occur right before your bird misbehaves and consider how they might be changed
to facilitate cooperation. Carefully consider the consequences that follow each
specific behavior and arrange them to reward the desired actions not the
undesirable ones.
Let’s
follow one example. Many of us have been frustrated by our bird’s refusal to
step onto our hands from high perches or cage tops. We expect that a bird
should comply because from our point of view there is nothing to fear and
nothing to avoid. As with our friends’ daughter aloft on the top bunk, there
are lots of good reasons why your bird should come down but apparently he
doesn’t think so. Ask yourself, what is the goal: getting him off his cage at
any cost or being the person he wants to come to? Depending on your goal, you
will devise different strategies. Of course, we suggest that the goal should
always be to avoid force, and facilitate and reward cooperation.
One
mistake bird owners frequently make is asking for too much too soon. Don’t lose
sight of the fact that stepping up when you "reeeeally” don’t want to is
asking a lot of anyone. Arrange a teaching environment such that your bird is given
frequent opportunities to practice complying with your request. Reward each and
every act of cooperation. Ask him to step up often just to say "Hello good
bird!” and set him down again to continue whatever he was doing. In this way he
will look forward to stepping onto your hand as it signals attention without a
cost. If the immediate consequence for stepping up is always being returned to
his cage, your bird will be less willing to step up in the future. This is a
way to inadvertently punish your bird for complying. When you do need to put
your bird in his cage, allow sufficient time in your schedule to first reward
him with a minute or two of attention or a treat for stepping onto your hand.
Program
success by facilitating good behavior, that is, pave the way for cooperation.
For example, make sure that you make requests at reasonable times, not while
he’s deeply engaged in playing or eating. Ensure that being inside his cage is
a desirable place to be by providing adequate space, toys and sufficient out of
cage time. With thoughtful attention to these antecedents and positive
consequences your bird will soon choose to be on your hand, and stepping up at
your request will become a habit. This is the time to expect your bird to step
up from cage tops and high perches, even though he may have other things in
mind.
Conclusion
We may never know what
mental processes underlie our parrots’ observable behaviors. From the human
perspective, any resistance is easily misinterpreted as a struggle for
dominance. Depending on our understanding about what motivates birds to behave
in particular ways, one naturally chooses some strategies and ignores others.
We believe that the quest for dominance is rarely an accurate description of
what motivates a companion parrot’s negative behavior. Regardless, the
intervention strategies typically associated with this interpretation are
themselves so domineering as to be senselessly damaging to the relationship you
wish to have with your bird. Too often, the processes thought to underlie
behavior are solely in the eye of the beholder. When this is the case, we move
farther away from facilitating our parrots’ companionability when we should be
moving closer to a bird’s eye view.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Martha Hatch Balph, Ph.D., and Steve Martin for generously sharing their insights about bird behavior.