The Function of Champing Behaviour: An Ethological Account in Canines

Abstract

Champing refers to a conspicuous chewing or jaw-working motion performed in the absence of food and observed in social contexts in dogs and other canids. This short paper provides a descriptive ethological account of champing, interprets its function as a pacifying signal, and places it within established frameworks of social interaction and ontogenetic development. The behaviour is defined as a distinct ethological category based on the author’s long-term observations and comparative analysis.

Champing (also termed chomping) refers to a conspicuous, often audible chewing or jaw-working motion performed in the absence of food. In dogs and other canids, this behaviour is typically observed in social contexts. It is associated with affiliative intent, pacifying, insecurity, or submissiveness, depending on its intensity, timing, and accompanying signals.1

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this behaviour has not previously been described or formally defined as a distinct ethological category, despite being intermittently observed and subsumed under broader classes of pacifying or displacement behaviours.2

Across contexts, champing possesses a clear pacifying function. Pacifying behaviour (from Latin pacificare, pax = peace, facere = to make) comprises actions whose function is to reduce social tension, inhibit aggressive or dominant behaviour in another individual, or restore a state of social calm, as defined within an interactional framework of social behaviour (Hinde, 1976). In dogs, commonly described pacifying behaviours include licking, muzzle nudging, nose touching, pawing, yawning, body twisting, and head turning, all of which may be directed toward conspecifics or humans.

Champing is widely employed by canids in situations ranging from mild uncertainty to more pronounced social stress. Its acoustic and rhythmic properties appear to contribute to its communicative value, functioning as a low-risk, non-confrontational signal that advertises non-threatening intent (Lorenz, 1966).

janegoodallandchimp1
Jane Goodall used to break a branch and pretend to chomp on it to pacify chimpanzees, showing some unease (photo by Derek Bryceson/National Geographic Creative).

Ontogenetically, champing has a plausible developmental basis. One of the earliest repetitive oral sounds in mammalian neonates is produced during suckling and is closely linked to satisfaction, warmth, and social contact. In puppies, early oral motor patterns tied to nursing occur in a context of comfort and need fulfilment. As development continues, elements of this behaviour are redirected into social functions, where champing helps turn uncomfortable or ambiguous interactions into more benign ones. Initially, the behaviour is closely tied to hunger reduction; later, it becomes separate from feeding and acquires a distinct communicative function (Hinde, 1982).

In adult dogs, champing is a clear and effective signal of affiliative or conciliatory intent. Similar patterns appear across mammals, where oral behaviours linked to nursing and sucking are associated with reduced arousal and resting states. This suggests early sensory–motor associations may keep a tension-reducing function throughout life.3

Comparable observations exist in primates. Jane Goodall reported deliberately mimicking chewing movements—such as breaking a twig and pretending to chew it—to pacify chimpanzees displaying signs of unease (Goodall, 1971).

In applied animal contexts, the author has often used champing with apparent success when interacting with dogs or horses, consistent with its proposed pacifying function.

 


Footnotes

  1. In ethology, the formal identification and naming of behavioural patterns commonly precede their experimental isolation or quantification. Descriptive classification based on repeated observation, functional context, and comparative consistency has historically been a primary means by which distinct behavioural units are recognised, refined, and later subjected to experimental analysis. ↩︎
  2. The present account is based on the author’s long-term ethological observations and comparative analyses of canine social behaviour, first described in Dog Language (Abrantes, 1986 and 1997). It is descriptive and functional in scope and does not claim experimental isolation, quantitative prevalence estimates, or phylogenetic exclusivity for champing behaviour. In the absence of prior formal treatment of this behaviour as a distinct category, these observations constitute the primary empirical basis for the description and interpretation presented here. ↩︎
  3. Evidence for the calming or arousal-reducing effects of suckling and related oral behaviours in mammals is well established in the developmental and comparative literature. Studies of non-nutritive sucking and nursing behaviour report associations with reduced behavioural arousal and increased resting or quiet states in a range of species (e.g. Blass, 1980; Veissier et al., 2002). While these works do not address champing or later social signalling directly, they provide developmental support for the inference that early oral sensory–motor patterns may retain residual tension-reducing properties when redeployed in other behavioural contexts. ↩︎

References

Abrantes, R. (1997). Dog language: An encyclopedia of canine behaviour. Wakan Tanka, Publishers. (Original work published as Hundesprog in 1986).

Blass, E. M. (1980). Suckling. Science, 210(4472), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6997992

Goodall, J. (1971). In the shadow of man. London: Collins.

Hinde, R. A. (1976). Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2800384

Hinde, R. A. (1982). Ethology: Its nature and relations with other sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. London: Methuen.

Veissier, I., de Passillé, A. M., Després, G., Rushen, J., Charpentier, I., Ramirez de la Fe, A. R., & Pradel, P. (2002). Does nutritive and non-nutritive sucking reduce other oral behaviors and stimulate rest in calves? Journal of Animal Science, 80(10), 2574–2587. https://doi.org/10.1093/ansci/80.10.2574


Featured image: Champing behaviour has a pacifying function—attempting to turn an unpleasant situation into a pleasant one.


This article is originally written on April 12, 2017 and slightly edited on January 2, 2026.

Your comments are welcome. Please feel free to leave a reply.