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.