After reading several publications on play in canids and mammals (notably, Bekoff, M., 1974 and Bekoff, M., 1995) I have been wondering on gestures involved in play that help maintain the play sequence so that the play session does not develop into a conflict.
I have been considering gestures that might be used to provoke certain physiological / chemical reactions in order to maintain the play mood and to purposefully direct / shift its moods.
There might be methods that animals have developed in order to structure the play (on an emotional and a physiological level) so that it did not become aggressive, so that it lasted longer etc.
Namely, there could be mechanisms that allow the individuals change how they feel during the play, change how they act (inhibiting inclinations that do not promote the play mood) and that change how the playmate perceives the interactions.
Three possible mechanisms come to mind:
1. Physical motions that induce bodily changes resulting in a shift in the individual’s mood and attitude.
For example, when we stretch, it relieves muscle tension and our physical sensations (even our emotional states) are thereby altered.
If we stretch after having spent some time by the computer, we notice that this act does not merely affect our body but it also has impact on our emotional state and disposition.
We might feel more light-hearted, rejuvenated etc.
We can control when we take these actions and thereby we can control our mood and our physical state that result from these actions.
I have been wondering if perhaps some of the gestures involved in play sequences are used by canids in order to alter the mood of the play on quite physiological basis.
If the play becomes a bit tense, stretching out (e.g., play-bowing which is a significant part of any play sequence or ethogram, according to Bekoff, M., 1995 and which is used by canids to reduce tension and to announce intent or to explain some of the actions taken that might otherwise become interpreted as hostile acts) may ensure a subsequent physiological state which allows to perceive the interaction more lightly because the muscle tension is gone.
This might show in the bodily disposition and even body chemistry sending additional signals to the playmate of the relaxed and benevolent-smelling attitude of the now-apparently-relaxed play partner.
Similarly, if the canid bows before taking some action, perhaps it can help ease and control the upcoming gesture.
For example, there might be a difference in the sheer physical force and the manipulative power applied when pawing at someone or biting someone if this is done without stretching first or if this is done post-stretch.
The act of relieving muscle tension might lessen the physical impact of the following move (less force applied).
Alternatively, greater muscle coordination and control could be achieved through the act of stretching as the muscles become more flexible which allows the individual to better regulate the forced applied and the ‘attitude’ of the gesture.
With muscles more relaxed, the individual might be better able to manipulate the upcoming activity and to actively select for its magnitude of impact as well as its attitudinal impact.
This first group would relate to physical actions taken by the individual that alter the physiological state of the individual in order to induce certain neural / chemical reactions in the body which might benefit the play.
2. I have read about several gestures that the wolves use and that they have ‘inherited’ from their puphood.
For example, the licking at the other wolf’s muzzle originates from the pup’s attempt to solicit regurgitated food from the delivering adults.
Later this action is used as a bonding, appeasing, greeting etc. gesture directed at dominant individuals and performed by subordinates.
In wolf social groups, frequently, such gestures are used to provoke a certain attitude in the dominant individual or a change in the dominant individual’s attitude.
For example, a subordinate wolf might lick at the dominating wolf’s mouth or roll over exhibiting tummy in order for the dominating wolf to perceive the subordinate wolf as non-threatening, cute, forgivable, worth of attitude or resources etc. (pup-like).
This could be done to achieve something or to prevent something.
Such actions are also used in play where they are sometimes performed by the dominating individual, as well, in order to engage in role reversal.
I have not, meanwhile, encountered much information regarding the purpose of performing such actions in order to change one’s own self-perception and mood.
I have been wondering if canids might sometimes use gestures that come with the ‘puptime experiential baggage’ in order to remind themselves bodily that this is not serious, this is just a game, their status is not that important etc., that is, to self-induce subordinate, appeasing, non-serious states.
The difference between the existing theories that I am familiar with and my theory is that canids might also perform certain body actions not merely to entice desired attitudes in the partnert but also in order to recall what it felt like to be ‘helpless and cute’ and to re-experience this state.
This might be achieved through mimicking the action because the emotional attitude has been acquired in early pup-dom and is therefore deep-embedded within interconnected physiological and psychological states.
An individual might roll over or position themselves lower respective to the other canid, for example, when they feel that their dominance and aggression is taking over and disrupting the play or when they simply wish to ‘lighten up the mood’ that might be turning too serious or that might have faltered in its cheeriness reminding the individual of daily concerns – hunger, weather etc. that call for a stern attitude and that are disruptive to the play session).
If the individuals are unable to stop it with ‘willpower’ (on an exclusively mental level), they might apply certain gestures that have such significant ‘past’ rooted in their physiology and psychology.
These gestures acquired in early stages of development, upon reenactment, might immediately deliver the individual to a state which is desirable and reappropriated for the new purpose (play instead of food-soliciting).
For example, if an individual is constantly dominating and making decisions and leading etc., it might be hard for such individual to relax and to forget about more serious concerns because the dominance is embedded in their everyday mode of being.
It might be difficult for such an individual to play because recollections of their duties would bring them back to a more tense reality and this might also cause tension in the play situation.
They might thus benefit from re-enacting certain ‘pup postures’ (performed by themselves and their playmate) because they have been pups and by re-enacting these postures or seeing them re-enacted and identifying with them on an emotional and physical level, the individuals can attain the mental state of being a subordinate which can dissipate tension.
Or, quite the opposite, the individual might assume a posture that they recognize from their parents or other dominating canids as a dominant posture in order to ‘act it out’ and to learn how it feels bodily even if it is not their daily modus operandi.
Some of these gestures might be used because they physically remind the individual of some past experience which is already deeply set in the body and thus can allow to more easily assume states of emotion and attitude necessary in the play at the time (and these gestures are not necessarily used to entice the feeling and the attitude in the other wolf but in the individual himself/herself or they are used to transform the entire play setting regardless of the individuals involved – directed at the play situation rather than the play partner).
This can be helpful to apologize, to lure the playmate into another play bout, to prevent escalation of the play to a conflict, to resume a more playful disposition when the playful mood dissipated and daily concerns come back to mind (hunger, necessity to hunt, to provide etc.).
Additionally, some of these gestures might be used not in order to awaken some state which is already familiar and deeply set within one’s ‘constitution’ but rather (by mimicking body postures observed in others who are different regarding their status or usual behaviour) to learn / explore new or less frequently experienced states and expressions that are not familiar (e.g., dominating states in subordinate individuals).
I, personally, find this idea appealing because it would mean that canids do not just play in a mechanistic way ensuring a certain physical fitness benefit (learning to fight, learning to react in fast situations, improving coordination etc.).
It might mean that canids play in a manner that we associate with pretense, drama, theatre, role-playing and, indeed, imagination and learning through empathy.
Those are qualities that we associate with culture and evolved society.
When canids purposefully play out roles that do not belong with who they are on daily basis (playing subordinate while normally being dominant or vice verca), maybe this helps them to relate to others who inhabit that role more often.
For example, if a subordinate individual gets to play out the role of the dominating individual, this does not necessarily mean that the subordinate eventually builds up their dominance and ‘moves up the ladder’.
The play theory usually postulates that dominant individuals (e.g., parents) sometimes allow subordinate individuals (e.g., pups) to conquer them or to exhibit other playful but not-true-status-appropriate behaviours to promote the pups’ self-confidence.
While this might be true in pups, there might be other reasons at play when ‘improper’ attitudes are assumed by subordinate adult individuals toward dominant adults.
While wolves avoid hostility within their pack through various mitigation strategies, the dominating individuals are not likely to give up their status unless they have become old or ill.
There is, of course, a gradient of dominance where a highly dominating individual might not be as concerned to boost confidence in a highly subordinate individual because there is an entire ‘mid-section’ within the hierarchy and the low-raking individual might be likely to replace the very top-ranking individual.
However, such dominance hierarchies are mostly observed in captive or ‘artificially’ set-up packs (human introductions) that consist of no or few related individuals.
In wild wolf packs, dominance hierarchy is established more naturally through the parent – older sibling – younger sibling relations and dominance contests are not as frequent as has sometimes been assumed (Mech, L.D. et al., 1999).
In fact, in wolf play, the established hierarchies are also reflected in play (Cafazzo, S. et al., 2018) and rarely these hierarchies are reversed in order to achieve greater equity (equal number of play episodes in which the partners reverse their dominance roles) (Essler, J.L. et al., 2016).
This means that it is not that frequent for dominant individuals to exchange roles even during play, however, it happens to a certain degree and some scientists have observed efforts by more dominant wolves to play equally or to reverse roles with highly surbordinate wolves (e.g., accounts of ‘the omega’ Lakota in Sawtooth Pack by J. & J. Dutchers).
While I do not believe that these role reversals are aimed at actually changing the subordinate’s status through giving them more confidence, I think that the reason behind dominant individuals acting submissive toward subordinates during play or allowing to be dominated has other reasons and one of such reasons might be to provide the subordinate individual with an experience of what it means to be dominant.
In some cases individuals might be overly submissive, anxious or unable to find their place in the pack hierarchy.
Experience of dominance behaviour might help the individual understand how it feels, physically and psychologically, to be dominant and thereby to identify with the dominant individual and to lose some of the fear or excessive humility/confusion.
While it is hardly beneficial for wolves to ‘mess up’ pack hierarchies due to the instability it causes and the respective effects in their cooperative efforts (wolves depend on pack hierarchies to survive, i.e., to be able to organize hunting, reproductive activities, territory patrols and territorial defense), any individuals that are too frightful, defensive, confounded etc. can be as disadvantageous because such individuals are likely less apt to follow commands, to take initiative (which is often important in wolf packs where the breeders are not always the leaders in hunt, defense etc.), to provide for themselves (during periods when the pack is less cohesive, e.g., during pup-rearing season), to fit in the group not causing tension.
Role playing might not be aimed at giving a confidence boost as such but rather at providing experience of what it means to lead which allows for the individual to be more proactive and to understand the intent and the behaviour of the more dominant pack members.
It could be compared to TV sitcoms where parents reverse roles with their children and the children learn the valuable lesson of why parents sometimes boss them around and make up strange rules (the children are not supposed to take on the parents’ roles on a permanent basis but to learn the motivation behind parents’ behaviours and to perhaps assume greater responsibility and to better fit in the family order).
Perhaps such brief role reversals during play help the subordinate understand what it means to be a dominating individual, what it entitles.
To appreciate it more, to understand why respect and support is needed or to lose unnecessary anxiety.
It can alleviate tension which stems in the difficulty to identify with someone whose social role is different than ours.
Similarly, more dominating individuals might entertain the role-playing experience of being subordinate and this might also help them understand their pack mates better.
This could lead to an improved social order not just due to bonding through play or due to determining social status without acts of aggression or checking out what the potential social status in others might be someday soon – but also due to a better understanding of the different roles in the specific canid group and having the experience of what it means to ‘be the other’.
It might be interesting to observe whether after play in which subordinate canid gets to play out the dominating role, they manage social dominance situations in real-life in a different, more efficient, more relaxed manner.
3. I have been watching my dog playing and also some of the Wolf Conservation Centre wolf pup – dog play videos and I have been wondering if sometimes animals helped one another to get over anxieties and to improve performance in stress situations.
For example, if a canid bows or performs some other action right before ‘striking’, the ‘attacked’ individual is advised what is about to happen.
It might still be somewhat scary to know that an act of ‘attack’ will follow but the ‘attacked’ individual would also have greater control over the situation and they could learn to anticipate the move and to react to it in a deliberate manner.
It would be very beneficial as a hunting performance improvement strategy outside of actual hunting setting and it might also be the reason why roles are not reversed to equity in play among wolf pack individuals (maintaining equity in play might not be as beneficial as improving stress response in the less experienced or weaker pack members so that they coped better in real life stress situation).
In high-stress situations those individuals perform better who can make quick decisions and who are not overtaken by anxiety, who do not get ‘lost’ in the dynamics.
Having that moment where you know you are going to be ‘attacked’ and then accepting it and having enough time to make decision regarding how to respond might build up the individual’s overall resilience that later proves beneficial in anxious, stressful situations (hunt, defense etc.).
Perhaps the dominance reflected in play and the relative lack of effort to ‘play nice’ (not in terms of true aggression but in terms of always observing equal share in who dominates the play situation) is not demonstrative of the wolves’ unwillingness to give a chance to subordinate individuals but rather it points at the role of play in safely preparing the pack members for real life stress situations.
Notes by Ieva 