Sociometry1976, Vol. 39, No. 4, 416^21

Hands Touching Hands: Affective andEvaluative Effects of an Interpersonal Touch*

JEFFREY D. FISHERUniversity of Connecticut

MARVIN RYTTINGRICHARD HESLIN

Purdue University

A 2 (touch-no touch) x 2 (sex of confederate) x 2 [sex of subject) between subjects designtested the affective and evaluative consequences of receiving an interpersonal touch in aProfessional/Functional situation. It was found that the affective and evaluative response totouch was uniformly positive for females, who felt affectively more positive and evaluated thetoucher and the environmental setting more favorably than in no touch conditions. The maleresponse to touch was more ambivalent.

Academic interest in touch is evidenced bycommentaries which have approached touchfrom theoretical and apphed perspectives(Burton and Heller, 1964; Cashar and Dixson,1967; Johnson, 1965; Kaufman, 1971; Monta-gu, 1971), and from a humanistic standpoint(Egan, 1970; Schutz, 1967, 1972; Watson,1972). In addition, popular concem abouttouch is highlighted by the interest in recentbooks on human interaction which have dealtwith touching (Davis, 1973; Fast, 1971;Morris, 1973).

In past experimental research, the effectsof early tactile stimulation have beeninvestigated with both human and animalyoung. In animal work on contact needs inyoung monkeys (Harlow, 1971) and on theeffects of early handling, stimulation, andstress (Denenberg and Rosenberg, 1967;Denenberg and Whimbey, 1963; Levine,1960), investigators have found that earlycontact and handling are beneficial, and evenessential to the intellectual, emotional, andsocial growth of animals. The essential natureof early touching for human infants was first

*This research was supported in part by NationalScience Foundation Grant GS-40329 to DonnByrne, and Grant GS-2893 to Richard HesUn. Wewould like to thank the staff of the PurdueUniversity main library for permission to run thisstudy, and for their support during the conduct ofthe research. The helpful comments of Paul Bell andBetsy Laughlin on an earlier draft of this manuscriptare appreciated. Send reprint requests to Dr. JeffreyFisher, Department of Psychology, University ofConnecticut, U-20, Storrs, Connecticut 06268.

established by Spitz (1946); more recent workwith infants (Montagu, 1971; Morris, 1973)indicates that tactile stimulation is importantfor emotional, intellectual, and physiologicaldevelopment.

Studies which have been concerned withthe effects of touch on adults, however, havefound that touch may have either positive ornegative effects. In terms of the potentialpositive effects, Aguilera (1967) found thattouch increased verbalization and improvedattitudes toward nurses among psychiatricpatients; and Pattison (1973) reported thattouch in counseling sessions precipitatedself-disclosure on the part of clients. Inaddition, Bardeen (1971) found that subjectsdescribed an experimental confederate, withwhom they interacted by means of touch,more positively than the same confederate inverbal only or visual only conditions; Geis andViksne (1972) reported that subjects receivingand reciprocating back rubs experienced adrop in palmar sweat index.

As any man who has been slapped for"making a pass" can testify, however, theeffect of touch is not always positive. In thisregard a number of studies have shown thattouch can fail to have positive effects, andmay even have negative effects. For example,Walker (1971) reported that communicatingby means of touch made subjects feel anxiousand generally uncomfortable. In addition, inencounter group research, level of trust(Clarke, 1971) and empathy (Poaster, 1971)did not differ in touch and no touchconditions.

416

EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL TOUCH 417

The varying reactions to being touchedobserved in past studies may stem from thenature of touch: while the message of touchhas an inherent ambiguity (Nguyen et al,1975), touching usually has a fairly clearintentionality. In effect, touch implies that acommunication is intended, but the contentof the communication may not be clear. Ingeneral, it is assumed that touch is anessentially positive stimulus for the recipientto the extent that it does not: (a) impose agreater level of intimacy than the recipientdesires (e.g., Argyle and Dean, 1965; Hall,1963), or (b) communicate a negative message(e.g., be perceived as condescending orsymbolic of the recipient's lower status;Henley, 1973).

The past research on favorableness ofreactions to interpersonal touch has failed toconsider the effect of an important source oftactile stimulation: no research has dealt withthe effect of momentary tactile contactsbetween interacting strangers (e.g., clerkshanding change to customers). The purpose ofthis study is to investigate the effect of such atouch for the recipient's affective state andevaluative responses. In addition to providinginformation about the affective consequencesof one of the most common forms of tactilestimulation, the research will also investigateIhe effects of this type of touch on therecipients' evaluations of the toucher, andtheir evaluations of associated stimuli (i.e., thephysical environment).

In the present experimental context, themanipulation of tactile contact betweenstrangers consists of a library clerk touchingan individual while in the process of handingback the person's library card. As with othertactile contacts between interacting strangers,the present touch has the potential of beingperceived as intentional, and hence asmeaningful. Further, it is not unduly intimateand does not lend itself to being interpreted asa negative message (Heslin, 1974a). Therefore,it was hypothesized that a momentary touchbetween interacting strangers would beexperienced as a mildly pleasant stimulus, andthat it would arouse positive affect. Further,and in line with the Byrne-Clore (1970)prediction that affective state determinesevaluation of associated stimuli, the affectprecipitated by being touched was expectedto generalize to elicit positive evaluations ofthe toucher and the environmental setting.

METHOD

One hundred and one students (52 malesand 49 females) who were checking out booksfrom a university library served as subjects.Hie prerequisite for inclusion in the study wasthat a potential subject be an undergraduatestudent who was alone as he or sheapproached the check-out counter. Eachindividual who met these criteria was includedin the experiment. The experiment wasconducted during weekday mornings, after-noons, and evenings.

A 2 (touch-no touch) x 2 (sex ofconfederate) x 2 (sex of subject) between-subjects design was employed in which eachmale and female subject was randomlyassigned to the experimental conditions.^

For alternate half-hour periods, the libraryclerks either touched or did not touch eachsubject for whom they checked out books. Inthe no touch condition the clerk handed thesubject's library card back without makingphysical contact with the individual's hand.For the touch condition, the library card wasreturned to the subjects in such a way that theclerk placed his or her hand directly over theindividual's palm, making physical contact.This position was maintained for about half asecond.^

^ Three female clerks took part in the experi-ment. Since only one male clerk was employed bythe library at the time the study was run, only onemale clerk took part. However, after the study wascompleted, two additional male clerks who wereemployed by the library the foUowing semester wereasked to run forty "pilot'* subjects. The purpose wasto determine whether data from the first male clerkwould be representative of male clerks in general. Acomparison was made to determine if the responsesthey elicited differed from those elicited from thefirst male clerk. Analyses revealed that there were nodifferences between the three male clerks for any ofthe dependent measures used in the study. Theintent in running the additional clerks was only toprovide data to ascertain whether there wereidiosyncratic qualities in the original male clerkwhich would render him non-comparable to othermale clerks. It should be noted that it wasanticipated beforehand that due to highly discrepantcell sizes which would be created (i.e., twice as manysubjects in male clerk conditions as in female clerkconditions), it would be impossible to includesubjects run with the additional clerks in the overalldata analysis.

'Each of the clerks who served as experimentalconfederates was blind to the experimental hypoth-eses. Clerks were trained to behave in a uniform

418 SOCIOMETRY

Upon completion of the librarian-subjectinteraction, the experimenter approached thesubject, stated that the library was doing anevaluation of its personnel and facilities, andasked the subject if he or she could spare afew minutes to fill out some questionnaires.Subjects were informed that their responseswould be kept confidential, and that ratingswould have no negative repercussions forlibrary employees. The refusal rate wasminimal, with no differences in frequencybetween conditions. After a subject agreed toparticipate, he or she was taken to a privateroom and introduced to a second experi-menter, who gave the individual a foldercontaining the dependent measures. After thescales were completed, this experimenterdebriefed the subject as to the purpose of theexperiment; post-experimental interviews re-vealed that none of the subjects expressedsuspicion with respect to the role of the clerk.

Dependent Measures

Evaluation of affective state, A feelingsscale similar to one previously established as aself-report measure of affect by Byrne andQore (1970) and Griffitt (1970) was used as ameasure of affect.̂ This scale consists of fiveevaluative bipolar adjective pairs arranged asseven-point scales. Responses to the items(happy-sad, negative-positive, comfortable-uncomfortable, bad-good, pleasant-un-pleasant) are summed to yield a measure ofaffect along a positive-negative dimensionranging from 5 (most negative) to 35 (mostpositive).

Evaluation of library clerk. Four seven-point bipolar adjective items were included tomeasure the subject's evaluation of the clerkwho had checked out the books. The fouritems—positive-negative, helpful-not helpful,good-bad, friendly-unfriendly-were all highly

manner in all experimental conditions and kept allaspects of their behavior (e.g., eye contact) constant,with the exception of touch. Independent ratingsverified that this was the case. Further, independentratings confirmed that each clerk was above averagein physical appearance for a member of theirrespective sex.

^The present feelings scale differed from the oneused by previous investigators in that the item"high-low" was omitted, due to the possibility ofconfusion on the part of subjects as to itsinterpretation.

intercorrelated (above .50), and are summedto yield a single measure of evaluation of theclerk ranging from 4 (most negative) to 28(most positive).

Evaluation of library environment. Fourseven-point bipolar adjective items wereincluded to measure the perceived positivenessof the library environment. Ilie four items(positive-negative, attractive-unattractive,comfortable-uncomfortable, good-bad) tap asingle aesthetic quality dimension as indicatedby a principal components analysis (Fisher,1973), and are summed to constitute an indexof perceived positiveness of environmentalquaUty ranging from 4 (most negative) to 28(most positive).

RESULTS

A 2 (touch-no touch) x 2 (sex ofconfederate) x 2 (sex of subject) multivariateANOVA was performed on the data, sincethree conceptually related dependent mea-sures were used (Bock and Haggard, 1968).Parallel 2 x 2 x 2 univariate ANOVAs werealso run for each of the three dependentmeasures (Hummel and Sligo, 1971).

The multivariate ANOVA on all of thedependent measures revealed a significantmain effect for touch (F = 3.452, df = 3/91,p < .02). This main effect was parallelled byunivariate touch main effects for the measuresof affective state evaluation (F = 4.21, df =1/93, p < .04), and library clerk evaluation (F= 6.02, df = 1/9-3, p < .02). The touch maineffect for affective state evaluation indicatedthat more positive affect was experienced bysubjects who were touched (27.9) than bythose who were not touched (25.7): For thelibrary clerk evaluation, the touch main effectindicates that subjects who were touchedrated the clerk significantly more favorably(23.4) than those who were not touched

(21.1).The multivariate ANOVA also revealed a

trend towards a touch by sex of subjectinteraction (F = 1.90, df = 3/91, p = .13). Thisinteraction was paralleled by weak touch bysex of subject interactions for the measures ofaffective state evaluation (F = 2.69, df = 1/93,p < .10) and library clerk evaluation (F =3.28, df = 1/93, p < .07), as well as asignificant touch by sex of subject interactionfor the measure of library envirormientevaluation (F = 4.76, df = 1/93, p < .03).

EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL TOUCH 419

Overall, the univariate interactions betweentouch and sex of subject suggest that the morepositive affect observed in touch conditionswas accounted for mainly by the response offemale subjects. (See Tables 1, 2, and 3 forthe results of Newman-Keuls multiple rangetests performed on the univariate interactionmeans for each of the three dependentmeasures).

TABLE 1

Positiveness

Condition

TouchNo touch

of Affective State

Sex of

Male

26.1b25.6b

Subject

Female

29,25,

.7a

.8b

Note: Means with common superscripts donot differ at the .05 level as indicated by theNewman-Keuls procedure.

TABLE 2

Positiveness of Library Clerk Evaluation

Condition

TouchNo touch

Sex

Male

of Subject

Female

24.5b20.6^

Note: Means with common superscripts donot differ at the .05 level as indicated by theNewman-Keuls procedure.

TABLE 3

Positiveness of Library Environment Evaluation

Condition

TouchNo touch

Sex

Male

15.618.7

of Subject

Female

17.615.7

To determine whether the effect of touchis dependent upon conscious perception ofthe touch stimulus, subjects in touch condi-tions were asked during the debriefing if theyhad perceived the touch by the library clerk.Only 57% indicated that they had. To assessthe possibility that the responses of subjects

who were aware of the touch differed fromthe responses of those who indicated no suchawareness, for each of the dependentmeasures ?-tests were run to test thedifferences between the means for the twogroups. No differences between the "aware"and the "unaware" groups were found for anyof the dependent measures. Thus, the effectof being touched was evidenced even whenthe touch apparently was not perceived.

DISCUSSION

As hypothesized, a casual touch of a veryshort duration in a Professional/Functionalsituation had positive consequences for therecipient. The multivariate analysis of thedependent measures revealed a main effect fortouch, which indicated that subjects in touchconditions evidenced more positive responsesthan subjects in no touch conditions. Further,a trend toward a multivariate interactionbetween touch and sex of subject suggeststhat while the response to the touch conditionwas uniformly positive for females, it wasmore ambivalent for males. This fits well withthe previous finding that females touch andare touched by significant others more thanmales, and that within any relationship,females report being touched more thantouching (Jourard, 1966). It is suggested thatfemales, who have had more experience asrecipients of touch from significant others,may be more comfortable than males whenreceiving momentary interpersonal touchesfrom strangers. In effect, for females, thetouch employed in this study acts as a"Midas" touch which affects the recipientpositively both in terms of personal feelingsand in terms of evaluation of the environ-ment.

The failure to observe any effects for sexof the toucher in the present experiment wasat first surprising. That these findings werenot due to idiosyncratic qualities of a singlemale clerk is evidenced by the results of ananalysis which compared those subjects runby the original male clerk to subjects run laterby additional male clerks (see footnote 1).Hence, the explanation for the failure to findeffects for the sex of the toucher may lie inthe quality of the Professional/Functionaltouching situation employed in the presentstudy. Considering the asocial and asexualnature of the relationship between a clerk and

420 SOCIOMETRY

an individual checking out books, the impactof the touch manipulation on the subjectsmay have been limited to that of a touch froma clerk whose sexual identification was notparticularly relevant. It might be expectedthat in a more social situation the sex of thetoucher would have a more powerful effect onthe recipient of the touch.

A potentially important finding of thepresent study was that touch recipients whowere not consciously aware of being toucheddid not differ significantly on any of thedependent measures from those who were

r"aware of being touched. Thus, whether or not\ the touch was perceived, it generally had aexpositive effect on the recipient's responses.

There are several potential alternative explana-tions for this finding. First, there is apossibility that subjects who reported thatthey were not touched distorted their reportrather than their perception, but observationof these respondents yielded no indication ofwhy they would withhold such information.A second possibility, that the subjects whoreported they did not perceive the touch,were not in fact touched, is not tenablebecause independent observers confirmed thatIhe touch was made. A third alternativeexplanation is that the individuals who failedto perceive the touch are people whocustomarily receive so many touches thatbeing touched does not represent a significantoccurrence to them, and consequently, theydid not notice the manipulation.

It is our contention, however, that the bestexplanation for failure to perceive the touchmanipulation is that the touch employed inthis experiment was so minimal as to be

C hardly noticed by the recipients. If this is the\ case, then the potency of the act of touching] another person becomes very striking: a touch( of less than one second has the power to make) people feel better, and this effect can\ generalize to evaluation of associated stimuli.vThe observed relationship between affectiveresponse to touch and subsequent evaluativejudgments of associated stimuli is generally inaccord with the prediction of the Byrne andQore (1970) reinforcement-affect model ofevaluative responses. In terms of the model,the affect induced by touch is conceptualizedas mediating subsequent evaluative responsesto associated stimulus objects (i.e., evaluationsof the clerk and the library environment).

Finally, to some extent, previous research

on the effects of touch has been hampered bylack of appropriate methodology (Heslin,1974b). The present study demonstrates ameans of studying the effect of touch, underexperimental control, yet in a real worldsetting which is not likely to cause unnaturalbehavior on the part of participants.

REFERENCES

Aguilera, D. C.1967 "Relationships between physical contact

and verbal interaction in nurses andpatients." Journal of Psychiatric Nursing5:5-21.

Argyle, M. and J. Dean1965 "Eye contact, distance, and affiliation."

Sociometry 28:289-304.Bardeen, J. P.

1971 "Interpersonal perception through thetactile, verbal, and visual modes." Paperpresented at the Meeting of the Inter-national Communication Association,Phoenix, Arizona (April).

Bock, R. D. and E. A. Haggard1968 "The use of multivariate analysis of

variance in behavioral research." In D. K.Whitla (ed.). Handbook of Measurementand Assessment in Behavioral Sciences.Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Burton, A. and L. G. Heller1964 "The touching of the body." Psychoanaly-

tic Review 51:122-134.Byrne, D. and C. L. Clore

1970 "A reinforcement model of evaluativeresponses." Personality: An InternationalJoumal 1:103-128.

Cashar, L. and B. K. Dixson1967 "The therapeutic use of touch." Journal

of Psychiatric Nursing 5:442-451.aarke,J .F .

1971 "Some effects of nonverbal activities andgroup discussion on interpersonal trustdevelopment in small groups." Doctoraldissertation, Arizona State University.Ann Arbor, Mich.: University MicrofilmsNo. 71-18, 955.

Davis, F. (ed.)1973 Inside Intuition: What We Know About

Nonverbal Communication. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Denenberg, V. H. and K. M. Rosenberg1967 "Nongenetic transmission of informa-

tion." Nature 216:549-550.Denenberg. V. H. and A. E. Whimbey

1963 "Behavior of adult rats is modified by theexperiences their mothers had as infants."Science 142:1192-1193.

Egan, G. (ed.)1970 Encounter: Group Processes for Interper-

sonal Growth. Belmont, California:Brooks/Cole PubUshing Company.

Fast, J. (ed.)1971 Body Language. New York: Pocket Books.

EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL TOUCH 421

Fisher, J. D.1973 "Attitude similarity as a determinant of

perceived crowdedness and perceived en-vironmental quality: Support for aninteractive model for prediction of thebehavioral effects of density and otherenvironmental stimuli." Unpublished mas-ter's thesis, Purdue University.

Geis, F. and V. Viksne1972 "Touching: Physical contact and level of

arousal." Proceedings of the AnnualConvention of the American PsychologicalAssociation 7:179-180.

Griffitt, W.1970 "Environmental effects on interpersonal

affective behavior: Ambient effectivetemperature and attractioru" Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology15:240-244.

HaU, E. T.1963 "A system for the notation of proxemic

behavior." American Anthropologist65:1003-26.

Harlow, H. (ed.)1971 Learning to Love. New York: Albion

Publishing Co.Henley, N. M.

1973 "The politics of touch." In P. Brown (ed.),Radical Psychology, New York: Harperand Row.

Heslin, R.1974a "Steps toward a taxonomy of touching."

In R. Heslin (chm.), Getting Close:Research and Theory on Spatial Distance,Touching, and Eye Contact. Symposiumpresented at the Midwestem PsychologicalAssociation, Chicago (May).

1974b "The use of nonverbal behavior in patientcare." Unpublished manuscript. PurdueUniversity.

Himimel, D. and E. Sligo1971 "Comparing multivariate and univariate

analysis of variance." Psychological Bulle-tin 76:49-57.

Johnson, B. S.1965 "The meaning of touch in nursing."

Nursing Outlook 13:59-60.Jourard, S. M.

1966 "An exploratory study of body-accessi-bility." British Journal of Social andClinical Psychology 5:221-231.

Kaufman, L. E.1971 "Tacesics, the study of touch: A model

for proxemic analysis." Semiotica4:149-161.

Levine, S.1960 "Stimulation in infancy." Scientific Amer-

ican 202:80-86.Montagu, A. (ed.)

1971 Touching: The Significance of the HumanSkin. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Morris, D. (ed.)1973 Intimate Behavior. New York: Bantam

Books.Nguyen, T. R., R. Heslin, and M. L. Nguyen

1975 "The meaning of touch: Sex differences."Journal of Communication 25:92-103.

Pattison, J. E.1973 "Effects of touch on self-exploration and

the therapeutic relationship." Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology40:170-175.

Poaster, L. B.1971 "A comparison of different modes of

communication and their effects onattitude change and the development ofempathy." Doctoral dissertation. Univer-sity of Tennessee. Ann Arbor, Mich.:University Microfilms, No. 71-7669.

Schutz, W. C. (ed,)1967 Joy. New York: Grover Press1972 Here Come s Everybody. New York:

Harper and Row.Spitz, R. A.

1947 "Hospitalism." The Psychoanalytic Studyof the Child. 2:113-117.

Walker, D. N.1971 "Opermess to touching: A study of

strangers in nonverbal interaction." Doc-toral dissertation. University of Connecti-cut. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Micro-films, No. 71-18, 454.

Watson, G.1972 "Nonverbal activities: Why? When? How?"

In W. G. Dyer (ed.). Modern Theory andMethod in Group Training, New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

\Wner, B. J. (ed.)1971 Statistical Principles in Experimental De-

sign. New York: McGraw-Hill.