Touch

Touch plays a key role in how we feel, think and behave. The first of our senses to develop (Ratcliffe, 2012), touch is our primary sense for initial discovery and learning (Fillippetti et al., 2013). Interpersonal touch is important for communication (Hertenstein et al., 2006, 2009), and it is associated with a healthy mind (Cruciani et al., 2021), and healthy aging (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017; Lee & Cichy, 2020). Touch can lower stress levels (Asadollaki et al., 2016; Ditzen et al., 2007), buffer against anxiety (MacIntyre et al., 2008) and reduce depression (Lu et al., 2013), while it has been shown to help regulate our emotions (Feldman et al., 2003; Jablonski, 2021). The emotional impact of touch can increase self-esteem (Jakubiak & Feeney, 2017), alleviate loneliness (Heatley Tejada et al, 2020) and boost confidence (Nuszbaum et al., 2014). Skin has been labelled our ‘social organ’ (Morrison et al., 2010) and it facilitates the functioning of touch, with skin contact mediating relationships such as through bonding (Bremner & Spence, 2017). Gallace and Spence (2010) proposed that our primary response to touch is positive, and the majority of touch research focuses on its positive effects (Ellingsen et al., 2016).

Interpersonal touch conveys many messages and influences us in numerous ways (Argyle, 1975). Touch has the power to manipulate our thinking and behaviour, with examples seen in consumerism (Hornik, 1992; Segrin, 1993), in gaining undue favouritism (Bohm & Hendricks, 1997; Gueguen & Fischer-Lokou, 2003) and in medication uptake (Gueguen et al., 2010). A slight touch on the forearm can increase compliance (Hornik, 1987) and liking (Rose, 1990), and garner higher tips (Crusco & Wetzel, 1984; Lynn et al., 1998; Stephen & Zweigenhaft, 1986). In many of these cases touch was unconsciously experienced with the receiver unable to recall it happening.

Touch can also have negative effects. An uninvited touch, however slight, may be perceived as offensive (Sussman & Rosenfield, 1978) and have a damaging impact (Camps et al., 2013), with the unwanted touch of a stranger frequently seen as threatening (Thayer, 1986). Touch’s negative impact extends to unintentional touch. Brett and Martin (2012) found that people accidentally touched by a stranger will spend less time in that venue than those untouched, an effect occurring in both genders, no matter the gender of the initiator of the touch. Necessary functional touch, such as that received from a security officer or clinician, can also induce psychological discomfort as expressed through distancing behaviours (Schroeder et al., 2017). Vieira et al. (2020) found common neural architecture in both the regulation of social distance and the representation of personal space. This defensive neuronal activation may arise as touch warns its receiver that they are unable to keep a comfortable, arm’s length distance (Kennedy & Adolphs, 2014). Touch may therefore be associated with an invasion of personal space (Hall, 1959), which can be consciously or unconsciously experienced.

A meta-analysis by Saleh et al. (2023) explored the impact of interpersonal touch and found that touch from a service provider achieved more favourable than negative responses regardless of the context. This robust effect was found across different outcomes and between-study differences. Touch also had a stronger effect, on both customer behaviour and evaluations, than other sensory variables. The researchers theorised that this could be explained by the strong physiological (or emotional) response to touch. Emotion is known to independently aid and hamper various measures of performance (Dolcos et al., 2011). Saleh et al.’s (2023) analysis included all available touch studies involving service providers and covered a time period during which attitudes to touch may have changed, particularly in light of the recent pandemic and ‘Me Too’ movement. Nevertheless, touch had a generally positive impact on service users across the contextually different studies.

Researchers have shown that social touch can accurately communicate different categories of emotion (Hertenstein et al., 2009; Kirsch et al., 2018), such as anger or gratitude. Of the different types of touch, it seems that mutual hand-to-hand contact has a special role in the communication of trust and psychological support (Bedell, 2002). Using functional magnetic resonance imaging to record the neural effects of touch, Coan et al. (2016) showed that married women cope better in a threat situation, such as facing an electric shock, when holding their husband’s hand, as recorded in levels of threat-associated neural activity. Similarly, Kim et al. (2015) found that patients anxiety levels were reduced during surgery if holding a nurse’s hand. It seems that hand-holding has a stress-buffering role, as demonstrated by Graft et al. (2019) using pupillometry to record autonomic nervous system responses to acute stress. The simple act of holding someone’s hand can elicit trust and convey support (Burleson, 2003; Cutrona & Russell, 1990).

REFERENCES

Argyle, M. (1975). Bodily communication. London: Routledge

Asadollahi, M., Jabraeili, M., Mahallei, M., Asgari Jafarabadi, M., & Ebrahimi, S. (2016). Effects of Gentle Human Touch and Field Massage on Urine Cortisol Level in Premature Infants: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Journal of Caring Sciences, 5(3), 187–194.

Bedell, S. E., & Graboys, T. B. (2002). Hand to Hand. Journal of General Internal Medicine: JGIM, 17(8), 654–656.

Bohm, J. K., Hendricks, B. (1997). Effects of Interpersonal Touch, Degree of Justification, and Sex of Participant on Compliance with a Request. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137 (4), 460–9.

Bremner, A. J., & Spence, C. (2017). The Development of Tactile Perception. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 52, 227–268.

Brett, A. S. & Martin, A. (2012). Stranger’s Touch: Effects of Accidental Interpersonal Touch on Consumer Evaluations and Shopping Time, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 39 (1), 174–184.

Burleson, B. R. (2003). Emotional support skills. Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, 551–94.

Camps, J., Tuteleers, C., Stouten, J., & Nelissen, J. (2013). A situational touch: How touch affects people’s decision behavior. Social Influence, 8(4), 237–250.

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a Hand: Social Regulation of the Neural Response to Threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032–1039.

Cruciani, G., Zanini L, Russo, V., Eterpi, M.M., Palamoutsi, M., & Spitoni, G.F. (2021). Strengths and weaknesses of affective touch studies over the lifetime: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Behavioural Reviews, 127, 1.

Crusco, A. H., & Wetzel, C. G. (1984). The Midas Touch: The Effects of Interpersonal Touch on Restaurant Tipping. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(4), 512–517.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In: Sarason, B., Sarason, I. G., Pierce, G. R., editors. Social Support: An interactional view. New York: Wiley, 319–66.

Ditzen, B., Neumman, I., Bodenmann, G., vonDawans, B., Turner, R. A., Ehlert, U., & Heinrichs, M. (2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 565-574, 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.03.011

Dolcos, F., Iordan, A. D., & Dolcos, S. (2011). Neural correlates of emotion-cognition interactions: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. J Cogn Psychol, 23, 669–694.

Ellingsen, D.-M., Leknes, S., Loseth, G., Wessberg, J., & Olausson, S. (2016). The Neurobiology Shaping Affective Touch: Expectation, Motivation, and Meaning in the Multisensory Context. Frontiers Psychology,

Feldman, R., Weller, A., Sirota, L., Eidelman, A.L. (2003). Testing a family intervention hypothesis: the contribution of mother-infant skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) to family interaction, proximity, and touch. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 94–107.

Filippetti, M. L., Johnson, M. H., Lloyd-Fox, S., Dragovic, D., & Farroni, T. (2013). Body Perception in Newborns. Current Biology, 23(23), 2413–2416.

Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The Science of Interpersonal Touch: An Overview, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34 (2), 246–59.

Kim, B.-H., Kang, H.-Y., & Choi, E.-Y. (2015). Effects of handholding and providing information on anxiety in patients undergoing percutaneous vertebroplasty. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(23-24), 3459–3468.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. Fawcett Publications.

Heatley Tejada, A., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Montero, M. (2020). Physical Contact and Loneliness: Being Touched Reduces Perceptions of Loneliness. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 6(3), 292–306.

Hertenstein, M. J., Holmes, R., McCullough, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). The Communication of Emotion via Touch. Emotion, 9(4), 566–573.

Hornik, J. (1992), Tactile Stimulation and Consumer Response, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 449–58.

Hornik, J. (1987). The effect of touch and gaze upon compliance and interest of interviewees. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127(6), 681–683.

Jablonski, N. G. (2021). Social and affective touch in primates and its role in the evolution of social cohesion. Neuroscience, 464,117-125,

Jakubiak, B. K., & Feeney, B. C. (2017). Affectionate Touch to Promote Relational, Psychological, and Physical Well-Being in Adulthood: A Theoretical Model and Review of the Research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 228-252.

Kennedy, D. P. & Adolphs, R. (2014). Violations of personal space by individuals with autism spectrum disorder. PLoS One, 6, 9(8):e103369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103369

Kirsch, L. P., Krahé, C., Blom, N., Crucianelli, L., Moro, V., Jenkinson, P. M., & Fotopoulou, A. (2018). Reading the mind in the touch: Neurophysiological specificity in the communication of emotions by touch. Neuropsychologia, 116, 136–149

Lee, J.E., & Cichy, K.E. (2020). Complex Role of Touch in Social Relationships for Older Adults’ Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Research on Aging, 42(7-8), 208-216.

Lu, D.-F., Hart, L. K., Lutgendorf, S. K., & Perkhounkova, Y. (2013). The effect of healing touch on the pain and mobility of persons with osteoarthritis: A feasibility study. Geriatric Nursing (New York), 34(4), 314–322.

MacIntyre, B., Hamilton, J., Fricke, T., Ma, W., Mehle, S., & Michel, M. (2008). The efficacy of healing touch in coronary artery bypass surgery recovery: a randomized clinical trial. Alternative Therapies in Health an Lynn, M., Joseph-Mykal Le, & Sherwyn, D. S. (1998). Reach out and touch your customers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 60–. Medicine, 14(4), 24–32.

Morrison, I., Löken, L. S., & Olausson, H. (2010). The skin as a social organ. Experimental Brain Research, 204(3), 305–314.

Nuszbaum, M., Voss, A., Klauer, K. C. (2014). Assessing individual differences in the need for interpersonal touch and need for touch, Social Psychology. Social Psychology. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000157

Rose, S. A. (1990). The Sense of Touch, in Touch: The Foundation of Experience, ed. K. Bernard and T.B. Brazelton, Madison, WI: International Universities Press, 299–324.

Saleh, A., Zmich, L. J., Babin, B. J., & Darrat, A. A. (2023). Customer responses to service providers’ touch: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 166.

Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance gaining attempts. Communication Studies, 44, 169–187.

Stephen, R., & Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1986). The Effect on Tipping of a Waitress Touching Male and Female Customers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 141–142.

Sussman, N. M., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1978). Touch, justification, and sex: Influences on the aversiveness of spatial violations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 215-225.

Thayer, S. (1986). History and Strategies of Research on Social Touch, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10 (1), 12–28.

Vieira, J. B., Pierzchajlo, S. R. & Mitchell, D. G. V. (2020). Neural correlates of social and non-social personal space intrusions: Role of defensive and peripersonal space systems in interpersonal distance regulation, Social Neuroscience, 15:1, 36-51, DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2019.1626763