TERM PAPER

Physical Contact with Dogs
(An analysis on Touch using Expectancy Violations Theory)

There are certainly a lot of things that are common with us humans and animals. According to Mancuso, dogs have individual personalities just like people do (74). As social beings, dogs communicate in a lot of ways, and through which, we become connected with them. There are a lot of communication signals that we exchange with them such like calling them with their names, calling their attention using hand gestures, caressing them, cuddling them and etcetera and they in turn respond. One communication act we send them is touch which is commonly our expression of love, care, making them feel secure and to comfort them. I observe that communicating and understanding animals is a certain and special ability that humans have.

Touch is a universal language (Waggener 85). Touching can communicate strong messages about attitudes, developmental needs, body contact needs, status, images about the relationship with the person touched (Wilson 168). Same applies to animals as they too are communicating beings. I observe this in Sophie (our one year and six month-old dog) every time my sister goes home and opens the door, she promptly runs near the door and wiggles her tail. My sister rubs Sophie’s head, kisses her, hugs her and talks to the little canine. To further illustrate the situation and the potency of physical contact, the sequence is depicted below:

Ruby: (hugging Sophie) Kamusta na man ni akong baby uy. Nag-behave ikaw diri?
Hmmmmmp! (hugs her tightly). Good girl man ni akong baby uy. Nag-eat ka na
nak?
My sister’s boyfriend enters. Sophie jumps out of my sister’s grasp and licks Kuya
Keith’s face.
Keith: Hmmmmmm! (shaking Sophie’s head) Naa mi pasalubong sa imo.
Ruby: Pen oh!
Keith: Kaon ka ani? (Sophie wiggles her tail and goes around Kuya Keith) Ali atong
abrihan.
Ruby: (interrupts) kulit jud kaayo oh.
Keith: (gives the Popsicle to Sophie, then Sophie licks it)
Ruby: Hay! Favorite jud kaayo na nimo nak no? Chipipay man ka na bata uy. Mao na jud
intawon na imong kalipay.
Keith: Gikaon niya ang French fries kagabi-i?
Ruby: Oo. Pero ‘tong gibutngan na nako’g catsup wala na gikaon. Arte kaayo.
Keith: (caressing Sophie’s back and holding the Popsicle while Sophie’s busy licking the
treat)
Sophie gets angry an makes an “angry voice” showing hew fangs.
Ruby: Ayaw samuka dad (drawing near to Sophie’s face). Nag-concentrate gani ang baby
no? Si daddy jud uy.

Since the case shows an interpersonal communication, then we could use Expectancy Violations Theory to analyze that particular situation. The proponent believes that this theory does not only fit for humans but to dogs as well. This theory sees communication as the exchange of information wherein a person can violate another person’s expectations, and can be viewed positively or negatively depending on their relative status and liking. This theory was actually modified by the author from Nonverbal Expectancy Violations to Expectancy Violations Theory through expanding its scope from mere proxemics to a wide range of variables like eye contact, touch, posture and so on.
Back in the situation, there are three cues which are seen that violated Sophie’s expectations. The table below will show the divisions:

1st Cue: 2nd Cue: 3rd Cue:
Ruby was hugging Sophie, when she saw Keith, she immediately jumps out of Ruby’s embrace. When Keith entered, he shook Sophie’s head. Sophie was just sitting, raising her head to get more. Sophie was licking the popsicle, then Keith caresses her back.

When Ruby hugged Sophie tightly and she saw Keith, she immediately jumps out of Ruby’s grasp and greeted Keith. That motion showed ambiguity. According to the theory, some expectancy violations are ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations (Griffin 90). Either the act simply shows that Sophie just wanted to greet Keith, just like any dog would do. Or it depicts one of the core concepts—expectancy, violation, and communication reward valence—to which Expectancy Violations Theory tells. The motion of jumping out of Ruby’s grasp fell under the concept of expectancy where it showed that Sophie likes to be with Keith. As what Judee Burgoon states in this theory, expectancy pertains to what is predicted to occur rather than what is desired.

When expectancies are violated, it can either be positive or negative. Whether it is positive or negative it will still influence future interactions. There are two ways from which we base our expectations. First is based from Predictive Expectancies, which is based from our previous experiences. Sophie showed signs of defense drive when Keith caresses her back, it obviously produced a negative reaction. This was based from her previous experience when Keith plays games with her. He would pull the icepop and act as if he was eating it. Other would be based from the rules that we follow, which is called Prescriptive Expectancies. On this view, Sophie was used on greeting people who enters the door. She would most expect Ruby and Keith to greet her that way. It is also based from the Prescriptive Expectancy because, since it has been regularly practiced and everyone was used to it. When Sophie greets you, in return, you also have to greet her.
Moving beside the point of view, I think we also have to consider that Sophie has been with Keith for the past weekdays, that’s why she acted so. Plus when she’s with Keith, she gets what she wants. Hence, we could say that her relationship with Keith is closer than with Ruby. The theory considers relationships—as to the level of liking and closeness, as an important factor in evaluating the violations.
“Touching behavior is generally a matter of choice. We usually choose to touch or to withhold touch. We can choose to respond positively when touched or to withdraw from touching. Our choices have a very powerful effect on ourselves and the others in our relationships.” (Wilson 168). We could tell from the situation that the statement was true. Even dogs had the choice to touch or be touched. Withdrawing from Ruby’s arms signals the dog’s freedom thus letting go of Sophie could be inferred as a positive response. But if that situation was in different context there could be a negative response from the person who initiated the touch. For example, Ruby was tightly hugging Sophie then that little dog sees a chick, which she likes to chase. Ruby’s immediate response might be to let Sophie stay in her grasp to stop her or make a hand gesture signaling “I’ll pat you if you won’t behave”. In Sophie’s place she might perceived that as restricting her freedom and killing her happiness.
When Keith was shaking Sophie’s head, Sophie was just sitting and raising her head to get more. This motion explains Sophie’s expectancy to get her head shaken when her dad (Keith) arrives. In analyzing the situation, the communicator characteristic affected the positive evaluation of the dog to Keith. “Communicator characteristics include all of the age, sex, place of birth, demographic facts asked for on application forms, but they also include personal features that may affect expectation even more—physical appearance, personality and communication style.” In the given situation, Keith’s smile increased Sophie’s positive reaction to him. For this, Sophie may have interpreted that action as a response to her greeting. She may have been used to it or she just felt comfortable being shaken. This just goes to guarantee that she and Keith have a positive relationship.
“When a behavior has a socially recognized meaning, communicators can easily figure out whether to go beyond what others expect. If valence is negative, do less than what is expected. If the valence is positive, go further.” (Griffin 90). This applies to the third signal to which Sophie felt her personal space has been violated. She produces an “angry voice” to tell that she do not like being touched at that moment. She felt threatened because Keith might grab the Popsicle. Keith, on the other hand, touches Sophie just to give comfort. This tells us that he doesn’t have any intention to annoy the little dog. As viewed in the Expectancy Violations Theory, “Once we deal with someone who acts outside the range of unexpected behavior, we switch into an evaluation mode.” (Griffin 90).
Richard Heslin regards that cue as an antisocial touching (as cited by Griffin, 2006). Which he defines as violating the person’s sense of propriety. Even though Keith do not have any intention of taking away Sophie’s food, the dog sees that action as a violation on her personal space. Heslin also categorizes touching behaviors as Functional/Professional touching, Social/Polite touching, Friendship/Warmth touching, Love/Intimacy touching and Sexual/Arousal touching (Wilson 170). Ruby hugging Sophie, Keith shaking Sophie’s head and rubbing her back falls in the category of warmth touching that signals mutual acceptance and positive regard, but excluding love or sexual touching (Wilson 170). Those touches were done to express love, longing, greeting and comfort to Sophie who they consider as their child.
“Dogs are so attuned to us that even without speech they are totally capable of understanding us and, in return, of making themselves understood.” (169)
On the third core concept of Expectancy Violations Theory (which is communicator reward valence), it is defined as “sum of the positive and negative attributes that the person brings to the encounter plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future.” (Griffin 91).
After perplexing spatial violations, here is an illustration of communicator characteristics:
Ruby missed Sophie (since she was away for a couple of days), she got excited to see her. She also feels like she was Sophie’s mother so it was just normal for her to act that way. Sophie on the other hand, jumps out of Ruby’s grasp was her usual way of saying, “its enough mom, I need to greet dad.” Sophie would do the same if Ruby won’t let Sophie greet her ‘dad’ first.
Keith also needs to greet Sophie as a ‘dog parent’ to reciprocate the feeling. Sophie would probably feel more loved if Keith would continue doing it.
This just simply reflects what Waggener stated, “You simply cannot be a dog parent unless you greet your dog profusely every time you come home… or come back in from taking out the trash… or get out of the bathroom when she’s been waiting patiently outside the door, then she wags her tail in relief…An appropriate greeting for your dog depends on the level of enthusiasm your dog shows you’ve been gone. But the important thing is to give as good as you get. Be willing to go overboard to give your dog effusive greeting.”
“Touching is the first form of communication that an infant knows and is an important aspect of communication throughout life.” (Wilson169).

As has been realized, touching can mean a lot, depending on the person’s expectancies thus, it can be interpreted as positive or negative. Observing distance is a big factor that affects communication either in humans or animals. The situation also showed that the theory somehow links with behavioral adjustments. Which means that in order to understand communication signals, we need to consider how a person behaves.
The context of the situation was mainly about sending signals and making it understood for an effective communication. Basically, it is necessary to observe proxemics and identify who you are communicating with in context with your relationship. In return, people or animals respond to touching behavior appropriately.
The theory was useful in understanding how animals are like people. As it tells us, they too observe and follow proxemics, appreciate and withhold touch.

peripheral and central route

persuading is quite a difficult task. little do we notice, we are being convinced or should i say, somehow persuaded and supposed to be persuaded on our everyday lives. how? i say, through tv and radio commercials. and the ability of those advertisements essentially depend on hoe our cognitive skills process those ads. there are two processes. first is through "central route" wherein we figure out whether the idea is true and worth accepted for. like for example, the advertisement for Myra E lotion which was endorsed by isabelle oli. basically, it persuades us to use that vitamin E lotion but our mind would probably question, "does it really result to whiter and healthier skin?". this kind of wondering already falls on objective elaboration that makes us question or let the product speak for itself. on the other hand, a bias elaboration would probably process in our minds in knowing that this lotion should probably be effective for the skin, simply because of the fact that it functions as a lotion. now, did the advertisement persuaded me? honestly, yes and i even bought that product about some weeks ago but then a friend told me just recently that vitamin E capsules or that vitamin E beads found in the lotion doesn't work directly on the skin. i mean, for 100%, its effect would probably be about 20% only. she even added that it would be better to inject vit. E directly than apply these products. so yes, in was persuaded but the fact just spoke for itself.
on the other hand, there are these commercials that pass by our minds and whether we deny it or not, we're still persuaded in most times and these commercials are processed through "peripheral route". this process simply tells us that we make quick decisions and active thinking on messages w/c are not relevant or have less attributes. such like the advertisement for Pizza hut value meals. it tells the viewers that we can now eat at their store paying only P99. for me, it processed on the peripheral route because the ad does not suggest or show that viewers should have to further elaborate the message. since people normally eat, their cognitive abiliuty immediately processed to be persuaded by the message or reject the message.

yesterday was the blessing party of my mom's office and i was obliged to cook for some food. i was quite annoyed honestly because i wasn't in the mood for cooking and damn i have to have it done quickly. but then, i have no choice. i cooked two different pastas for that party--lasagna and tuna carbonara.
i arrived late for the party then my mom told me there were a lot of guests who appreciated both of the pasta. ooOooh laLa! (bukad atay ni ate). i haven't been expecting that. in fact, some of the guests asked me if i was studying culinary arts. ha3Ü deceiving pala luto koh???(char) then another guest asked me if she could order carbonara from me, i just threw her a smile and kept smiling because at the first place, i don't know what to answer and to somehow tell her i don't want to cook more. heheheÜ. i've realized that aside from the usual purpose, smiling can also be expressed to show emptiness, i mean it's another way of telling "i don't know". i'm now starting to find some bits of what could be the more possible meaning of smile. Ü

SMILE

people's need for intimacy and relationship increases as we grow old and thus the help of communication automatically takes place. smiling as a form of non-verbal communicator is so far, the basic ingredient for starting relationships--friendship. people who are motivated to seek warm, close relationships with others will have more such relationships. these relationships are likely to give social support and so buffer the effects of bad events, stress and problems. but then, smiling does not have a universal meaning, according to some references, smiling could be expressed as a form of happiness, gladness, concealment for a feeling and etc.

to sir nino

sir, i decided to change the communication act i'm gonna study and my final choice is to study 'smiles'.

krRrrreEeenng!

It was a little cold last night, I was sitting on one of the corners of the veranda. The stars were all at glow and it seemed like they were happy, as well as the moon which was kinda picturesque. I was unconsciously closing my eyes, laid back and my mind was about to float in the land of dreams when a ring suddenly disturbed my forlorn and dozy soul. A big “Hello! And a happy new year!” greeted me. A long time high school friend called me. She missed me (daw) that’s why she called me. On that 3-hour call, we exchanged stories, experiences, information, ‘chismis’ and babble much about how our lives have been. But behind those, I’ve realized that there really had been a lot of changes since we graduated from high school—she reduced a lot of weight, found a new boyfriend, messed up with some guys, had new set of friends and so, so much. Her story about her boyfriend just tickles my mind. She told me they just had a fight about some days ago because she hoaxed him that she was actually a lesbian, that’s why she’d often go with her best friend than go out with him. Her boyfriend’s immediate reaction was to get shocked and told her he’d do everything to send her to a psychologist just to bring back the femininity in her. We both laughed and ribbed at him. Anyhow, because of that call, I felt even though we can’t communicate as often as we wanted, at least we still do and although there had been a lot of changes, the comfort and closeness somehow wasn’t affected. (or I just thought so).

>>The situation above depicts a dyadic interpersonal communication, which makes use of a phone as a channel. Social Penetration theory can be applied on this situation because after some time, they re-opened again the intimacy like before. On the other hand, we can also apply the theory entitled Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) because it realistically suggests that all of us use communication to coordinate our actions with the behavior of others to make sense of the interaction. Although, the speakers don’t see each other, through their conversation they were able to catch up on each other’s lives and were rebuild social realities.

happiness i've earned

We often miss to appreciate a lot of interactions we make everyday. But little do we care that those small conversations and silly laughs make each of our days different from yesterday. We remember the conversations only with special people or with big shot persons. What struck me most about today was my ‘salon spree’. I was there for a hair treatment. While remedying my hair, the attendant chats with me. She advices me on how to manage my hair properly, natural substitutes for hair treatments and maintenance that I should do to care for my hair and some other simple things like where I study, what year level I am in, the price of hair treatments and just anything. I was sitting there for four hours or more. I got my hair wet, blowdried, ironed, treated, washed, blowdried again, ironed and when I got done, I thanked her and showed her a big smile. There were few employees who attended on me but only Ate Nita conversed that long with me.
I came to value that conversation maybe because of some interesting tidbits that we shared or maybe it was just her kind voice and caring gestures. It’s not everyday that I remember and appreciate interactions and small talks with other people whom especially I don’t have any connections with. There was such joy that she contributed to me. For that fours hours, I guess it’s also her job to exchange good conversations with customers.

>>the communication act delineated by the situation above was interpersonal. Which has the responder and initiator. On this communication act, we could apply the axioms 1 and 3 of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, which were verbal communication (axiom 1) and Information seeking (axiom 3). Wherein for axiom 1 it says that the high level of uncertainty present at the onset of the entry phase, as the amount of verbal communication between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty for each interactant in the relationship will decrease. And also the communication can be depicted by axiom no. 3 which tells us that high levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior. It is evident on that situation that uncertainty was reduced because both of us continues to respond with each other while accompanying some questions that will somehow reveal who the speaker is and further relaxes each other’s impression.