The meaning of touch: Relational and individual variables shape emotions and intentions associated with imagined social touch

Abstract

Touch is a key channel for conveying meaning in social interactions. The affective quality of touch and its effects on well-being are shaped by relational context (relationship between touch giver vs. recipient) and person variables (e.g. adult attachment style). Yet, such effects have not been explored in relation to the meaning ascribed to touch. We used data from the Touch Test, the world's largest touch survey, which included questions on the degree to which people felt and related specific emotions and intentions to imagined gentle stroking touch and hugs. In N = 23,428, we examined how relational context (imagined source of touch) and person variables (gender, recalled positive childhood touch and adult attachment style) were associated with positive (e.g. love, desire, support) and negative (e.g. fear, anger, warning) emotions and intentions related to imagined touch. Love, desire and support were endorsed more when participants had had their partner (vs. someone else) in mind, and women (vs. men) gave lower ratings for desire overall. Gentle stroking touch was most linked with arousal when participants had had their partner in mind. Further, more positive childhood touch and secure and anxious attachment scores were associated with more positive emotions and intentions, while the opposite was found for avoidant attachment scores. Lastly, positive childhood touch and higher anxious attachment scores were related to greater discrimination between distinct emotion and intention categories, while higher attachment avoidance was associated with reduced discriminability. Thus, contextual and person variables matter in shaping the meaning of social touch.

Keywords: affective touch; attachment style; communication; emotion; intention; social touch.

Figure 1

Breakdown of touch ratings for hugs and gentle caressing touch. Participants gave six emotion and six intention ratings separately for hugs and gentle caressing touch, resulting in 24 ratings. Afterwards, they indicated who they had had in mind when making their ratings.

Figure 2

Mean ratings for each specific emotion (left panel) and intention (right panel) category by type of touch (gentle touch; hugs). Error bars denote ±1SD.

Figure 3

Emotion ratings for love and desire (left panel) and intention ratings for support and desire (right panel) by gender and touch source. Error bars denote ±1SE of the mean.

Figure 4

Emotion (left panel) and intention (right panel) ratings for desire by touch type and touch source. Error bars denote ±1SE of the mean.

Figure 5

Mean touch ratings for positive and negative emotions (left panel) and intentions (right panel), by attachment styles. Note that attachment styles are marginal means at +1SD anxiety/−1SD avoidance for anxious, −1SD anxiety/+1SD avoidance for avoidant, +1SD anxiety/+1SD avoidance for fearful, and −1SD anxiety/−1SD avoidance for secure attachment, meaning participants were not assigned to attachment categories. Error bars show ±1SE of the mean.