perez tabaloc (comments in parentheses in between sentences)

Review of Related Literature
This chapter presents compiled ideas from various sources on topics related to the problem. The research required a general knowledge on the subtopics it covers. The first part deals with impressions and presenting the ‘self’ to others. With that, we also have to deal with stereotypes that will be tackled on the second part. These topics explain how stereotypes affect one’s impression towards others and vice versa. (choppy, make transition between sentences or join) The third part is concerned with extending the self through possessions. (join with while) The forth part talks about the relationship of man to dogs. The fifth, deals with dogs, breeds and breed stereotypes while the last part discusses on “askals.”
The stated topics are essential in providing background information to the study.
Impressions
Impression is a lasting effect, opinion or mental image of someone or something (Encarta Dictionaries) (year?). This is how others see a person through his actions, words, thoughts or other information he presents to others.
When an individual presents himself to others, he then is subject to scrutiny of how he presents himself. “They will be interested in his general socio-economic status, his conception of self, his attitude toward them, his competence, his trustworthiness, etc.”(Goffman, 1959). As much as he can, he would try to generate a good impression to others.
Impression on a person may come as a combination of applicable stereotypes and individuating information (anything else known of the individual) (integrate into the preceding sentence) (Kunda & Thagard, 1996). Others’ impression on a certain person may be integrated with background information others know about the person. Theorists Asch and N. H. Anderson (1968) support this theory. Asch (1946) states that others combine the varied features of the person into one unitary impression. It (who is the referent?) also considers the connection of each individual feature. On the other hand, N. H. Anderson (1968) explains that others see what inference each individual feature about the person make and then blend them “algebraically into a summary impression.”
Status symbols can also create big factor in constructing impressions. Ownership of things can be of significant status symbol. Take account (something is missing) owning a gun, for example, when someone owns a gun, others can assume he has power. So a gun then is a status symbol for power, and an impression of power will be imposed upon the owner.
Stereotypes
Stereotype is an oversimplified classification of groups through their general characteristics (Encarta Dictionaries) (year). In addition, they (who? Referent?) are “personifications which are shared by a number of people,” (Hall et al., 1970). With this, it can serve very practical purposes, “for example, stifling social changes and preserving comfortable views, lifestyles and practices, of certain dominant groups or individuals,” (Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2004).
It is also the perception of an individual to belong to a certain group in which he shares similar characteristics with others. (relation of two sentences? Incoherent)The understanding of stereotype is essential to society structure or order. “Individuals and groups tend to have their effects on each other through their psychological representation within individual minds,” (McGarty et al., 2002). Tajfel explains from his works (1969, 1981) that stereotyping instantiates the process of categorization. Without stereotypes, one cannot determine the difference between groups.
Stereotypes provide convenience. If we treat people to belong in a group, all factors of individuality can be overlooked. This is mostly true for conducting surveys and other researches that require specifications from its respondents (McGarty, et al., 2002).
In addition, stereotypes are shared categorizations from different individuals. A suggestion to explain this phenomenon is the “idea that there is a shared cultural pool of knowledge, social representations, ideology or culture from which different people sample and it is this which produces the commonality of thought.” (is this the end of quote and you begin another?)Yet, this thought disregards the fact that we become more and more similar (or different) from “mutual social influence,” (McGarty et al., 2002). (please check the double quoting)
Extending the Self through Possessions
“We are what we have and possess,” (Tuan, 1980). Human beings oftentimes associate the extended self with what they own. The things around them confirm who they are and how other people see them. With this, possessions can also be influential in discovering the self (Belk, 1988). One can perceive a person through the kinds of things they possess. (idea repeated already) (Richins, 1994) As Simmel (1978) states, “Possessions are the medium by which a person’s character gains visible reality.” Moreover, James (1890) argues that things owned constitute the self. That whatever possessions one has, others can associate it with himself. Take owning a hat for example. (choppy) When it is established that one owns a specific hat, that hat now becomes associated with him. Though others may wear the hat, the fact that it is owned by a specific person cannot be overlooked.
Sometimes, the self extends to things that are can’t (check) be own (streets, buildings). We can assume these things by “overcoming, conquering, or mastering them.” This point presents an account on how “how nondurable products or services and public property or events may become viewed as possessions and thereby potentially contribute to sense of self,”(Sartre, 1943).
Sartre (year) also proposed three “primary ways trough which we learn to regard an object as part of self;” by giving possessions to others, by creating an object and by knowing an object. Giving things to others is a good way of extending the self, moreover, it is considered “a special form of control.” Take giving of gifts as an example. Gift giving is an avowal of self since it presents the control one has of the gifts. The gift will always be associated with the giver so it becomes an extension of the giver’s self. In addition, the receiver would want a gift that reminds them of the giver, and then they will have an extension of the giver’s self.
Next (to what? Make it coherent to the previous para because the readers get lost) is by creating objects. The things created by a certain person, whether a physical object (as a chair) or an abstract thought (as an idea), will forever be associated with himself. (choppy; join) This is because that creation will not be brought to existence without its creator. This association is solidified through “copyrights, patents and scientific citations” that respect the original creator of the thing. (where is the source?)
Knowing the object is the third way of extending the self. (source?) By knowing, one cannot only own the object but also make it part of the self. This relationship in knowing is derived by a “carnal and sexual desire to have the object.” This metaphor is used since the intimacy of the act of having sex gives a deeper knowing of the other person. The connection felt is so profound that it makes them feel they’re not only owned by the other but also part of each other (Belk, 1988).
Relationship of Man and Dogs
Understanding more the relationship between dogs and human will provide a deeper knowledge will (check) in answering unanswered questions pertaining to possessions. Thus, it is right to follow up the historical context of men and dogs in the society. Suchlike any human-animal bond, human-dog bond can be defined as a connection between people and dogs. EOTETO (2007) stated that the people in the society only keep dogs primarily for social reasons. Endenburg et al. (1994) (as cited in EOTETO), stated that studies showed that companionship is the principal social reason of men in keeping dogs. (transition to connect two sentences) One of the basic necessities of humans is social interaction that also animals like dogs can provide us. Thus, it is not surprising that having dogs as human companion has started as far back as the Biblical or ancient times according to Menache (1998), (as cited in Kennedy 2005). First, dogs have been part of humanity’s lives as farm one of the farm animals. Furthermore, according to Olson and Hulser (2003) and Menache (1998) (as cited in Kennedy 2005) in his research entitled More than man’s best friend: A look at attachment between humans and their canine companions, when the era of industrialization changed the phase of evolution of the world and urbanization reformed the structure of the worldwide society, animals like dogs were engaged into people’s lives as “pets”. Sanders(1999) (no year for cited source) which was cited by Kruse (2001) stated that pet owners view their pets, specifically pet dogs as “unique, thoughtful, and sentient individuals” that interacts (subject verb agreement) with them in the same way as people do in the society. “Shared rituals such as playtime, feeding, and various family celebrations contribute to emotional bonds between caretakers and their companion animals that may be as strong as those between humans.” He (who? Your antecedent is shared rituals) pointed out that owners facilitate “person-hood” towards their treatment to their dogs because dogs respond to human emotion suchlike (inappropriate) what humans do. He also stated that dogs never fail to imitate “person-hood” in the way they participate in the society. Thus, dogs in the society have never failed to play many roles that have truly helped human society in every possible ways. Base on the events that had happened through time, there were dogs that had became movie stars, police dogs, tour guides, baby sitters, workers, security guard in homes, and etc.
Dogs have quietly participated well in the society.(in what situation? Clarify) Furthermore, according to Kennedy (2005), dog owners in the United States are currently more than 60 million in the year 2005. If the United States of America already obtains that tremendous population of dog owners in its country, it is quite obvious that the number of dog owners worldwide will be of several folds than the number of dog owners of the USA. It is also not surprising that dog owners worldwide exponentially increases overtime.(where is participation here?)
(transition from previous paragraph) Possessing something connotes that a thing is possessed or owned by means of purchase, or by means of extended gifts, or etc. Owning a dog on the other hand (punctuation) is of different weight according to Sanders (1999) (as cited in Kruse, 2001). He said that dogs are treated by humans as fellow human beings that interacts and responds (subject verb) to them. In relations with what Kruse (2001)(remove year) (as) cited in Sanders (1999) works, Russel Belk (1996) strongly pushed that the term “pet” is no longer an appropriate to be designated for those dogs owned by specific owners for the reason that, both the owner and his pet shares (subject verb) a mutual open relationship suchlike how humans share everything about them with a specific person. In the case of this dog-human behavior, the word “companion” is a more appropriate address that is used to describe the relationship between the two.
Dogs became possession of value for humans. According to Drs. Foster & Smith, in their article entitled Psychological, Emotional, and Social Benefits of Animals, people decide to adopt a pet dog because a dog can give them many benefits. Also, according to Kennedy (2005), the “usefulness” of dogs is the primary reasons of humans in adopting dogs. Yet, according to the speculations of Kruse (2001) which was stated earlier, the usefulness of dogs is not the only reason that people adopt dogs.
Dogs, based on common observations, provide valuable features that serve as the reasons on humans’ willingness on adopting pet dogs. Dogs are affectionate creatures (Hart (1995), cited in EOTETO, 2007), (fix) elicit loyalty and devotion to its owners (Topál et al. (1998, 2005), Gácsi et al. ( 2001), cited in EOTETO 2007) (confusing citation) and interact with their owners by playing with them and touching them inside and out, aiding their boring moments, and coloring the day with its lively characteristics (Hart (1995)). (check) “Pets can greatly influence how we feel about ourselves and life in general. They are teachers and healers of extraordinary talent,” they said. By that statement, they emphasized that there are many positive reasons why a person chooses to adopt a pet dog thus, having countless families with a pet dog in their homes is not surprising nowadays.
Tajfel and Turner (1979), as cited in Tesfom and Birch in (faulty) their study entitled Dog Adoption Decision: Relationship between Definition of Self and Dog Breeds Choice as Mediated by Dog Breed Categorization (2007), based on the Social Identity Theory and the Self-categorization Theory, (confusing, rephrase)the definition of self is somehow constructed by the interaction of the person with others. It is stated that “social identity” is the self-concept of an individual that a person extends or derives from his circle of friends or the environment he is in. In relation to this, Savishinky (1986), Belk (1988), Sanders (1990), and Hirschman (1994) (cited in Tesfom and Birch, 2007) (apply proper citation) said, “Previous research claimed that consumer’s possessions reflect consumer’s self.” Moreover, Savishinsky (1986) produced (tense consistency; you used present earlier) a statement bearing the idea that a person’s pet denotes the extended self of the person or commonly addressed to as the definition of the person’s self which are comparable to the owner’s clothing or hair style, economic status or any factor that compromises the identity of the person. In addition, Hirschman (1994) articulated that pets serve as the “extension of ego and act as a form of self definition” of the owners. According to him, it is because the owners are said to reflect their “self-identity” onto their pets. (faulty) Based on Hirschman (1994) and Belk (1988) and Savishinky’s (1986) ideas, Tesfom and Birch (unclear referencing.who is the primary source? Indicate the year only to him/her) stated that, we could carry as an example the case of a “macho guy”. This “macho guy” according to them will acquire or tend to acquire a big aggressive dog to “assert” his masculinity. The previous example, according to them is the reflection of the “macho guy” identifying himself with the dog. Another example we would like to consider is the case of a good and loyal dog (pet), if this dog is a famously known good dog, then a certain person may “purposively” choose that breed to extend his qualities or traits through this dog. According the Tesfom and Birch basing on the idea from the Working Party Council for Science and Society (1988), (fix citation) those people who attempts (subject verb) to position on higher social status, purchases champion pedigreed dogs, thus, the kind of pet or solely the pet itself may also become a status symbol for their owners. Tesfom and Birch stated, “The type and temperament of the companion animal that one chooses is another aspect of identity symbolization.”
Dogs and Dog Breeds
Dog Breeds are groupings of dogs by clubs of hobbyists. These groupings are based on similarities of appearance and behavior. Breeds are represented by a set of characteristics inherited by the dog from the parents. Purebred dogs are dogs whose parents are of the same bred and also purebred. Moreover, a dog can only be confirmed a member of a specific breed by proof of ancestry through “genetic analysis or written records of ancestry.” (where is your source?)
“Breeders have inherited a breeding paradigm that is, at the very least, a bit anachronistic in light of modern genetic knowledge, and that first arose out of a pretty blatant misinterpretation of Darwin and an enthusiasm for social theories that have long been discredited as scientifically insupportable and morally questionable.” (Budiansky, 2000) faulty quoting.apply APA block quotation)
There is also a case when two purebred dogs of different breeds mate, and thus comes crossbred dogs. (rephrase) These dogs are dogs (of course, no repetition) specifically bred to produce combined qualities of the sire and dam. This practice started from cross breeding poodles with other dogs to acquire the poodle’s hypoallergenic coat. Basically, cross breeding is an “inverted understanding” on how dog breeding originated. Dog breeding was practice to retain special qualities from randomly chosen dogs. Dogs that do not belong to a specific breed, does not necessarily mean they are a mix of defined breeds.(source)
Askals
Askal (Asong Kalye – street dog) is a dog breed common in the Philippines. This dog is commonly found in streets or as household pets in a Filipino family. Generally, the askal is of mixed ancestry hence its appearance is not definitive. But, generally, they are medium sized and have a coat of short dense hair. The ears may be of different types and the muzzle is long and pointed. Askals are tough dogs and usually smarter than purebred dogs. They are now trained to be bomb-sniffing dogs. (source?)
Askals are healthy and needs minimum maintenance than with other high-end breeds. They can be fed with leftovers and does not require any special attention. It can be bathed with plain soap and water since its coat does not shed often. (source)
Askals are loyal and loving kinds of pets. They are patient and can be very good companions. These dogs are hardly territorial and they tolerate other dogs around.
With these good dog qualities, sadly askals are discriminated for their breed. In the Philippines, askals are not a good pet choice. Purebreds are still preferred.
(appear like definition.if these details are not sourced from any type, they should not be placed here.this is rrl)