The Free Hugs campaign and the phenomenon of people offering “Free Hugs” is becoming increasingly popular today, especially at concerts, festivals, and fandom conventions. However, such offers may cause some people to worry about the huggers’ motivations. The study aimed to investigate the level of the Dark and Light Triad and Big Five personality traits in huggers and non-huggers. People (n = 299) engaged in fandom convention culture (132 men, 133 women and 34 non-binary individuals) participated in the study. Engaging in fandom convention culture was defined as attending at least two conventions in the last 12 months. Responses were collected from 62 huggers (21%) and 237 non-huggers (79%). The results show a significantly lower probability (Brunner-Munzel test) for huggers to be more narcissistic than non-huggers. Moreover, there was a significantly higher probability for huggers to be more extroverted, agreeable, humanistic, and have greater faith in humanity than non-huggers. Therefore, the results suggest that the declared intentions of people offering “Free Hugs” are related to prosocial personality traits.
AndersenP. A.LeibowitzK. (1978). The development and nature of the construct touch avoidance. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3(2), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01135607
2.
Atwell SeateA.MaR.CohenE. L.IlesI. (2020). Help a fan out? Effects of fandom type and task type on people's behavioral intentions toward different types of fans in a collaborative effort. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(3), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000252
3.
BartzJ. A.ZakiJ.BolgerN.OchsnerK. N. (2011). Social effects of oxytocin in humans: Context and person matter. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(7), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.002
BoneauC. A. (1960). The effects of violations of assumptions underlying the T test. Psychological Bulletin, 57(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041412
6.
BornsteinM. H.JagerJ.PutnickD. L. (2013). Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review, 33(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003
7.
BowlingN. C.VafeiadouA.HammondC.BanissyM. J. (2024). Extraversion and adult attachment dimensions predict attitudes towards social touch. Journal of Research in Personality, 111, Article 104514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104514
8.
BoydR.RichersonP. J. (2009). Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533), 3281–3288. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0134
BusseK. (2014). Fan fiction and fan communities in the age of the internet: New essays. In HelleksonK. (Ed.). McFarland.
11.
CharbutyB. T.AbdulazeezA. M. (2021). Classification based on decision tree algorithm for machine learning. Journal of Applied Science and Technology Trends, 2(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.38094/jastt20165
12.
ConnollyE. (2004, December 1). Hugs and smiles, but not everyone embraces the trend. Sydney Morning Herald.
13.
CrowleyT. (2013). Climbing mountains, hugging trees: A cross-cultural examination of love for nature. Emotion, Space and Society, 6, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2011.10.005
14.
CurtisG. J. (2023). It Kant be all bad: Contributions of light and dark triad traits to academic misconduct. Personality and Individual Differences, 212, Article 112262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112262
15.
CzarnaA. Z.JonasonP. K.DufnerM.KossowskaM. (2016). The dirty dozen scale: Validation of a polish version and extension of the nomological net. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00445
16.
DjordjevicD.CockaloD.BogeticS.BakatorM. (2021). Predicting entrepreneurial intentions among the youth in Serbia with a classification decision tree model with the Quest algorithm. Mathematics, 9(13), 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9131487
17.
DobešováP. (2011). Free hugs-Sociologická interpretace (Bachelor). Charles University in Prague.
18.
DonnellanM. B.OswaldF. L.BairdB. M.LucasR. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
19.
DorrosS.HanzalA.SegrinC. (2008). The Big Five personality traits and perceptions of touch to intimate and nonintimate body regions. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1067–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.11.004
20.
DruśA. (2024, April 3). Fantastyka i mangi – ten fenomen mówi nam coś ważnego o najmłodszym pokoleniu [Fantasy and manga – this phenomenon tells us something important about the youngest generation]. Gazeta Na Niedzielę. Retrieved December 26, 2024, from. https://gnn.pl/fantastyka-mangi/
21.
DuerenA. L.VafeiadouA.EdgarC.BanissyM. J. (2021). The influence of duration, arm crossing style, gender, and emotional closeness on hugging behaviour. Acta Psychologica, 221, Article 103441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103441
22.
FloydK.HessJ. A.MiczoL. A.HaloneK. K.MikkelsonA. C.TusingK. J. (2005). Human affection exchange: VIII. Further evidence of the benefits of expressed affection. Communication Quarterly, 53(3), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370500101071
23.
ForsellL. M.ÅströmJ. A. (2012). Meanings of hugging: From greeting behavior to touching implications. Comprehensive Psychology, 1, 02–17. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.17.21.CP.1.13
24.
GerymskiR.KrokD. (2019). Psychometric properties and validation of the polish adaptation of the light triad scale. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 7(4), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2019.92960
JohnstonL.MilesL.MacraeC. N. (2010). Why are you smiling at me? Social functions of enjoyment and non-enjoyment smiles. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609x412476
27.
JonasonP. K.WebsterG. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
28.
KarchJ. D. (2021). Psychologists should use Brunner-Munzel’s instead of Mann-Whitney’s U test as the default nonparametric procedure. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245921999602
29.
KarchJ. D. (2023). Bmtest: A Jamovi module for Brunner-Munzel's test-A robust alternative to Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney's test. Psych, 5(2), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych5020026
30.
KaufmanS. B.YadenD. B.HydeE.TsukayamaE. (2019). The light vs. Dark triad of personality: Contrasting two very different profiles of human nature. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 467. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00467
KoladichS.AtkinsonB. E. (2016). The dark triad and relationship preferences: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.023
33.
KolářskýA.BricheinS. (1999). Priorities in male erotic activation and paraphilias. Psychiatrie, 3(1), 3–8.
34.
KutsukakeN.SuetsuguN.HasegawaT. (2006). Pattern, distribution, and function of greeting behavior among black-and-white colobus. International Journal of Primatology, 27(5), 1271–1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-006-9072-x
35.
LaesC.VuolantoV. (2019). Touching children in roman antiquity: The sentimental discourse and the family. In LaesC. (Ed.), Children and everyday life in the roman and late antique world. Routledge.
36.
LaineS. (2011). Grounded globalizations of transnational social movements: Ethnographic analysis on free hugs campaign at the world social forum Belém 2009. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11(3), 243–257.
37.
LightK. C.GrewenK. M.AmicoJ. A. (2005). More frequent partner hugs and higher oxytocin levels are linked to lower blood pressure and heart rate in premenopausal women. Biological Psychology, 69(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.11.002
38.
LohW. Y.ShihY. S. (1997). Split selection methods for classification trees. Statistica Sinica, 7(4), 815–840.
MaplesJ. L.LamkinJ.MillerJ. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the Dark Triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035084
Mejía-SuazoC. J.Landa-BlancoM.Mejía-SuazoG. A.MartínezC. A. (2021, October 7). Dark and light triad: Relationship between personality traits and addiction to mobile phones, video games and internet. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dp659
43.
MorrisD. (1977). Manwatching: Field guide to human behavior: Abrams.
44.
NamazkhanM.AlbersC.StegL. (2020). A decision tree method for explaining household gas consumption: The role of building characteristics, socio-demographic variables, psychological factors and household behaviour. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 119, 109542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109542
45.
NorrisM.AmanM. G.MazurekM. O.ScherrJ. F.ButterE. M. (2019). Psychometric characteristics of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist in a well-defined sample of youth with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 62, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.02.001
46.
OttenbacherK. J.OttenbacherH. R.ToothL.OstirG. V. (2004). A review of two journals found that articles using multivariable logistic regression frequently did not report commonly recommended assumptions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(11), 1147–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.05.003
47.
OwrenM. J.BachorowskiJ. A. (2001). The evolution of emotional experience: A ‘selfish-gene’ account of smiling and laughter in early hominids and humans. In MayneT. J.BonannoG. A. (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 152–191). Guilford Press.
48.
PackheiserJ.SommerL.WüllnerM.MalekI. M.ReichartJ. S.KatonaL.LuhmannM.OcklenburgS. (2022). A comparison of hugging frequency and its association with momentary mood before and during COVID-19 using ecological momentary assessment. Health Communication, 39(5), 951–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2198058
49.
PaulhusD. L.WilliamsK. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
50.
PetersonR. D.PalmerC. L. (2021). The dark is rising: Contrasting the dark triad and light triad on measures of political ambition and participation. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.657750
51.
PilchI. (2014). Makiawelizm, narcyzm, psychopatia: Ciemna triada jako próba opisania osobowości eksploatatora [Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy – the dark triad as an attempt at describing the personality of an explorer]. Chowanna, 43(2), 165–181.
52.
PlanteC. N.ReysenS. (2023). “They’re just weird”: Cognitive and affective mediators of the association between perceived nonprototypicality of, and prejudice toward, fan culture. Psychology of Popular Media, 13(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000440
53.
ReysenS.ChadbornD.PlanteC. N. (2018). Theory of planned behavior and intention to attend a fan convention. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 19(3), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2017.1419153
54.
ReysenS.LloydJ. D. (2012). Fanship and fandom in cyber space. In Encyclopedia of cyber behavior (pp. 292–301). IGI Global.
55.
ReysenS.PlanteC. N.PackardG.SiotosD.RobertsS. E.GerbasiK. C. (2023). Acculturation strategies as predictors of fandom identification in the fanfiction, Star Wars fan, and furry communities. The Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 1103–1115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2023.2249772
56.
RoslanN. S.IzharL. I.FayeI.AminH. U.Mohamad SaadM. N.SivapalanS.Abdul KarimS. A.Abdul RahmanM. (2019). Neural correlates of eye contact in face-to-face verbal interaction: An EEG-based study of the extraversion personality trait. PLoS One, 14(7), Article e0219839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219839
57.
SaulsD.Zeigler-HillV.VrabelJ. K.LehtmanM. J. (2019). How do narcissists get what they want from their romantic partners? The connections that narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry have with influence strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.025
58.
SavallF.Faruch-BilfeldM.DedouitF.SansN.RousseauH.RougéD.TelmonN. (2015). Metric sex determination of the human coxal bone on a virtual sample using decision trees. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(6), 1395–1400. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12845
SchoberP.BoerC.SchwarteL. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002864
61.
SinghS.DheebaJ. (2015). Prediction models in machine learning by classification and regression. Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science & Engineering (ISSN: 2456-3552), 2(5), 07–12. https://doi.org/10.53555/nncse.v2i5.408
62.
SkorokP. (2016, January 22). Piątkowy Felieton Diabła: Za darmo nie znaczy gorzej! [The devil’s friday column: Free doesn’t mean worse!]. Informator Konwentowy. December 26, 2024. https://konwenty.info/za-darmo-nie-znaczy-gorzej/.
63.
SkorupaA.StefanekF.Paczyńska-JasińskaP. (2021). Ciało I umysł W Kinie: Immersja, Doświadczenie Emocji I Interakcji Społecznych Podczas seansu W Kinie [body and mind at the cinema: Immersion, experience of emotions and social interactions during the film]. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis | Studia de Cultura, 13(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.24917/20837275.13.1.5
64.
Spreading the Love: Juan Mann. (2004, December 1). WHO magazine interview.
65.
Struckman-JohnsonC.Struckman-JohnsonD.AndersonP. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552168
66.
SugH. (2009, February). An empirical determination of samples for decision trees. In Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS international conference on Artificial intelligence, knowledge engineering and data bases, 02, 2009 (pp. 413–416). Cambridge UK.
67.
SuknovicM.DelibasicB.JovanovicM.VukicevicM.Becejski-VujaklijaD.ObradovicZ. (2011). Reusable components in decision tree induction algorithms. Computational Statistics, 27(1), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-011-0242-8
68.
SuvilehtoJ. T.GlereanE.DunbarR. I. M.HariR.NummenmaaL. (2015). Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(45), 13811–13816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519231112
69.
ThiebautG.MéotA.WittA.ProkopP.BoninP. (2021). “Touch me if you can!”: Individual differences in disease avoidance and social touch. Evolutionary Psychology, 19(4), Article 14747049211056159. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049211056159
70.
TopolewskaE.SkiminaE.StrusW.CieciuchJ.RowińskiT. (2014). The short IPIP-BFM-20 questionnaire for measuring the Big Five. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 17(2), 367–384.
71.
TymnM. B. (Ed.), (1996). The science fiction reference book: A comprehensive handbook and guide to the history, literature, scholarship, and related activities of the science fiction and fantasy fields. R. Reginald.
72.
van RaalteL. J.FloydK. (2021). Daily hugging predicts lower levels of two proinflammatory cytokines. Western Journal of Communication, 85(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2020.1850851
73.
VenkatasubramaniamA.WolfsonJ.MitchellN.BarnesT.JaKaM.FrenchS. (2017). Decision trees in epidemiological research. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 14(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-017-0064-4
74.
WaalF. B. M.RoosmalenA. (1979). Reconciliation and consiliation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 5(1), 55–66.
75.
WahlstenD. (1991). Sample size to detect a planned contrast and a one degree-of-freedom interaction effect. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.110.3.587
76.
WebberD. (2004). Understanding charity fundraising events. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.239
77.
WeissS. M.IndurkhyaN. (1994). Small sample decision tree pruning. In CohenW. W.HirshH. (Eds.), Machine learning proceedings 1994 (pp. 335–342). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-55860-335-6.50048-9
78.
WhitcherS. J.FisherJ. D. (1979). Multidimensional reaction to therapeutic touch in a hospital setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.87
79.
WilliamsJ. L. (1971). Personal space and its relation to extraversion-introversion. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 3(2), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082257
WuM. S.LiB.ZhuL.ZhouC. (2019). Culture change and affectionate communication in China and the United States: Evidence from google digitized books 1960-2008. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01110
82.
YamadaM.NiiharaK.KikuchiH. (2017). Decision tree analysis on environmental factors of insider threats. In HCI International 2017–Posters' Extended Abstracts: 19th International Conference, HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017, Proceedings, Part II 19 (pp. 658–662). Springer International Publishing.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
