I believe in this instance, from what I gathered from the show, the animals were selected only for tamability. They were selected based on their response to having a gloved hand stuck into their cage. The animals that were non-agressive to the gloved hand were bred. 

The differences in coloration and the floppy ears and such apparently were not necessarily traits that were expressed in the breeding animals, but were traits that came about within a few successive generations. They just seemed to be somehow linked to the genetic expression of tameness, not artificially selected for.

Apparently, much like they think may have happened with the wolf, tamability, or shorter flight distance in the wolf's case, was the sole selection criteria but through this selection criteria significant morphological changes came about within a few decades. The reason why this occurs is what I am asking about.

In the wolf's case it was very likely a completely natural evolutionary process (unlike the fox in the experiment that was selected and bred specifically for the experiment). I find it odd that selecting for a behavorial component can have impact on the physical structure of the animal, the fox with floppy ears and coloration change and the wolf with a smaller size and shorter muzzle. I was hoping someone might be able to explain why this occurs, or is something we should expect to occur.  

The first trait in any domestication process chosen for would be relative docility. In a pack animal, additional requirements would entail establishishing one's self as superior.

In the case of a preadator, like a wolf, the domestication would likely take a bit longer than simply grabbing a tasty herbavoir of the plains.

First, there are hundreds of accounts of humans communing whith wild predators. The canine species, for whatever reason, seem receptive to this. Food left out attracts them, and they seem to have marginal fear of humans. They are obviously prime species for domestication. They are, also, at least individually, relatively easily dominated by a human.

I simply think of "Dances With Wolves" as cheesy as I thought the film was, I think that's the sort of initial relationships we'd be looking at.

Yes. This is what I was getting at. If I was undrstanding correctly what was being said it seems that by intentionally selecting for the genetic expression of docility there were physical changes in the animal that came about. It seemed odd to me that one specific selection criteria could have such broad effects. I was also amazed by the very short period of time (less than forty years) in which these changes came about.

The program itself was about how wolves likely became dogs, not by any active intervention by man, but by scavenging from refuse dumps and thereby succumbing to the selection for docility as expressed in flight distance, or how close they were willing to stay to human activity. In the scenario presented, wolves became dogs, physical changes and all, in a very short time period simply because the ones willing to stay close to the food source gained an advantage over those who fled. As with the foxes in the experiment, this behavioral selection criteria was sufficient to cause dramatic morphological changes in the period of perhaps only a few decades.

I found this fascinating as I had no knowledge of the fact that genetic expressions of behavioral and physical aspects of an animal were intertwined in a way that could cause this to happen. Is it a matter of some genes or sets of genes being expressed in more than one manner or is it that changes in one set of genes somehow affects another set of genes?

(In case you can't tell, my understanding of evolution is farily basic, mainly confined to the broad concepts.) 

Wow! Thank you very much. That was exactly what I was looking for. I getted more smarter today!