This study examined how touch role and culture shape affective touch experiences. Germans (N = 130) and Chinese (N = 130) were surveyed once as toucher and once as touchee. For different touch actions, they (a) provided free-text descriptions of what prompts touch, (b) indicated with whom touch feels comfortable, and (c) highlighted areas of touch comfort on a body outline. Overall, touch was prompted by affectionate feelings, was more comfortable with more closely bonded individuals, and when directed at the upper arms, shoulders, and upper back. Touch role mattered for the experiences prompting touch in that touchees felt less positive than touchers. Culture differentiated touch comfort topographies. Compared with Chinese, Germans felt more comfortable with more intimate touch to the torso and upper back and less comfortable with more public touch to the hands. Notably, however, examining touch role and culture revealed more overlap than divergence, ensuring mutual comfort as individuals physically connect.
AckerleyR. (2022). C-tactile (CT) afferents: Evidence of their function from microneurography studies in humans. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 43, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.08.012
2.
AckerleyR.WaslingH. B.LiljencrantzJ.OlaussonH.JohnsonR. D.WessbergJ. (2014). Human C-tactile afferents are tuned to the temperature of a skin-stroking caress. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(8), 2879–2883. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2847-13.2014
3.
ArnoldT. (2017). A tidy data model for natural language processing using cleanNLP. The R Journal, 9(2), 248–267.
4.
BeßlerR.BendasJ.SailerU.CroyI. (2020). The “Longing for Interpersonal Touch Picture Questionnaire”: Development of a new measurement for touch perception. International Journal of Psychology, 55(3), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12616
5.
BjörnsdotterM.MorrisonI.OlaussonH. (2010). Feeling good: On the role of C fiber mediated touch in interoception. Experimental Brain Research, 207(3–4), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2408-y
6.
BlakemoreS.-J.WolpertD. M.FrithC. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1(7), 635–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/2870
7.
BoehmeR.HauserS.GerlingG. J.HeiligM.OlaussonH. (2019). Distinction of self-produced touch and social touch at cortical and spinal cord levels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 2290–2299. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816278116
BurlesonM. H.RobertsN. A.CoonD. W.SotoJ. A. (2019). Perceived cultural acceptability and comfort with affectionate touch: Differences between Mexican Americans and European Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 1000–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517750005
10.
CarmichaelC. L.GoldbergM. H.CoyleM. A. (2021). Security-based differences in touch behavior and its relational benefits. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620929164
11.
CoanJ. A.KasleS.JacksonA.SchaeferH. S.DavidsonR. J. (2013). Mutuality and the social regulation of neural threat responding. Attachment & Human Development, 15(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.782656
12.
CoanJ. A.SchaeferH. S.DavidsonR. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x
CroyI.FairhurstM. T.McGloneF. (2022). The role of C-tactile nerve fibers in human social development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 43, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.06.010
15.
CroyI.LuongA.TriscoliC.HofmannE.OlaussonH.SailerU. (2016). Interpersonal stroking touch is targeted to C tactile afferent activation. Behavioural Brain Research, 297, 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.09.038
DebrotA.SchoebiD.PerrezM.HornA. B. (2013). Touch as an interpersonal emotion regulation process in couples’ daily lives: The mediating role of psychological intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1373–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497592
18.
DebrotA.StellarJ. E.MacDonaldG.KeltnerD.ImpettE. A. (2021). Is Touch in Romantic Relationships Universally Beneficial for Psychological Well-Being? The Role of Attachment Avoidance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(10), 1495–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220977709
19.
de LeeuwJ. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
GallaceA.SpenceC. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(2), 246–259.
25.
HallJ.CoatsE. J.LeBeauL. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924.
26.
HallJ. A. (1996). Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02248713
27.
HenleyN. M. (1973). The politics of touch. In BrownP. (Ed.), Radical psychology (pp. 420–433). Tavistock.
HewlettB. S.LambM. E. (Eds.). (2017). Hunter-Gatherer childhoods: evolutionary, developmental & cultural perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203789445
30.
HuM.LiuB. (2004). Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 168–177). https://doi.org/10.1145/1014052.1014073
31.
JackR. E.GarrodO. G. B.YuH.CaldaraR.SchynsP. G. (2012). Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7241–7244. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200155109
32.
JakubiakB. K. (2021). Providing support is easier done than said: Support providers’ perceptions of touch and verbal support provision requests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104168
33.
JakubiakB. K. (2022). Affectionate touch in satisfying and dissatisfying romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221077280
34.
JakubiakB. K.DebrotA.KimJ.ImpettE. A. (2021). Approach and avoidance motives for touch are predicted by attachment and predict daily relationship well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520961178
35.
JakubiakB. K.FeeneyB. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307
36.
JakubiakB. K.FeeneyB. C. (2019). Hand-in-hand combat: Affectionate touch promotes relational well-being and buffers stress during conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218788556
37.
KeselmanH. J.AlginaJ.KowalchukR. K.WolfingerR. D. (1999). The analysis of repeated measurements: A comparison of mixed-model Satterthwaite F tests and a nonpooled adjusted degrees of freedom multivariate test. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 28(12), 2967–2999. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610929908832460
38.
KnappM. L.HallJ. A.HorganT. G. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (8th ed.). Wadsworth Inc.
LoC.ChuS. T.PenneyT. B.SchirmerA. (2021). 3D hand-motion tracking and bottom-up classification sheds light on the physical properties of gentle stroking. Neuroscience, 464, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.09.037
41.
LokeG.KhudiyevT.WangB.FuS.PayraS.ShaoulY.FungJ.ChatziveroglouI.ChouP.-W.ChinnI.YanW.Gitelson-KahnA.JoannopoulosJ.FinkY. (2021). Digital electronics in fibres enable fabric-based machine-learning inference. Nature Communications, 12(1), 3317. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23628-5
42.
LökenL. S.WessbergJ.MorrisonI.McGloneF.OlaussonH. (2009). Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nature Neuroscience, 12(5), 547–548. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2312
43.
MacDonaldB.HülürG. (2020). Well-being and loneliness in Swiss older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of social relationships. The Gerontologist, 61(2), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa194
McDanielE.AndersenP. A. (1998). International patterns of interpersonal tactile communication: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022952509743
46.
McGloneF.OlaussonH.BoyleJ. A.Jones-GotmanM.DancerC.GuestS.EssickG. (2012). Touching and feeling: Differences in pleasant touch processing between glabrous and hairy skin in humans. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 35(11), 1782–1788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08092.x
MorrisonI. (2016). ALE meta-analysis reveals dissociable networks for affective and discriminative aspects of touch. Human Brain Mapping, 37(4), 1308–1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23103
49.
NummenmaaL.GlereanE.HariR.HietanenJ. K. (2014). Bodily maps of emotions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(2), 646–651. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321664111
50.
OlaussonH.LamarreY.BacklundH.MorinC.WallinB. G.StarckG.EkholmS.StrigoI.WorsleyK.VallboÅ. B.BushnellM. C. (2002). Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5(9), 900–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn896
51.
RalstonD. A.CunniffM. K.GustafsonD. J. (1995). Cultural accommodation: The effect of language on the responses of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26(6), 714–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202219502600612
52.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (3.2.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
53.
RemlandM. S.JonesT. S.BrinkmanH. (1995). Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: Effects of culture, gender, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9713958
54.
RobinsonK. J.HoplockL. B.CameronJ. J. (2015). When in doubt, reach out: Touch is a covert but effective mode of soliciting and providing social support. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(7), 831–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615584197
SchirmerA.ChiuM. H.CroyI. (2021). More than one kind: Different sensory signatures and functions divide affectionate touch. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 21(6), 1268–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000966
57.
SchirmerA.CroyI.SchweinbergerS. R. (2022). Social touch—A tool rather than a signal. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 44, 101100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.101100
58.
SchirmerA.GunterT. C. (2017). The right touch: Stroking of CT-innervated skin promotes vocal emotion processing. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(6), 1129–1140. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-017-0537-5
59.
SchirmerA.LaiO.McGloneF.ChamC.LauD. (2022). Gentle stroking elicits somatosensory ERP that differentiates between hairy and glabrous skin. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2022, nsac012. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsac012
60.
SchirmerA.ReeceC.ZhaoC.NgE.WuE.YenS.-C. (2015). Reach out to one and you reach out to many: Social touch affects third-party observers. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12068
61.
SchirmerA.WijayaM. T.LiuS. (2016). The Midas effect: How somatosensory impressions shape affect and other-concern. In Affective Touch and the Neurophysiology of CT Afferents (pp. 283–299). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6418-5_17
62.
SchoutenA.BoigerM.Kirchner-HäuslerA.UchidaY.MesquitaB. (2020). Cultural differences in emotion suppression in Belgian and Japanese couples: A social functional model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1048. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01048
63.
SilgeJ.RobinsonD. (2016). tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 37. https://doi.org/10.21105/JOSS.00037
64.
SingmannH.BolkerB.WestfallJ.AustF.Ben-ShacherM. (2019). Afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 0.24-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex
65.
SorokowskaA.SalujaS.SorokowskiP.FrąckowiakT.KarwowskiM.AavikT.AkelloG.AlmC.AmjadN.AnjumA.AsaoK.AtamaC. S.Atamtürk DuyarD.AyebareR.BatresC.BendixenM.BensafiaA.BizumicB.BoussenaM.CroyI. (2021). Affective interpersonal touch in close relationships: A cross-cultural perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 1705–1721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220988373
66.
StrapparavaC.ValituttiA. (2004, May). WordNet affect: An affective extension of WordNet. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’04). LREC 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2004/pdf/369.pdf
67.
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
68.
SuvilehtoJ. T.NummenmaaL.HaradaT.DunbarR. I. M.HariR.TurnerR.SadatoN.KitadaR. (2019). Cross-cultural similarity in relationship-specific social touching. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1901), 20190467. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0467
69.
TriscoliC.CroyI.OlaussonH.SailerU. (2017). Touch between romantic partners: Being stroked is more pleasant than stroking and decelerates heart rate. Physiology & Behavior, 177, 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.05.006
70.
TsaiJ. L.LevensonR. W.McCoyK. (2006). Cultural and temperamental variation in emotional response. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 6(3), 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.484
71.
VallboÅ. B.OlaussonH.WessbergJ. (1999). Unmyelinated afferents constitute a second system coding tactile stimuli of the human hairy skin. Journal of Neurophysiology, 81(6), 2753–2763.
72.
VallboÅ. B.OlaussonH.WessbergJ. (2009). Pleasant touch. In SquireL. R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of neuroscience (1st ed., pp. 741–748). Academic Press.
73.
VallboÅ. B.OlaussonH.WessbergJ.NorrsellU. (1993). A system of unmyelinated afferents for innocuous mechanoreception in the human skin. Brain Research, 628(1–2), 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(93)90968-s
74.
Van PuyveldeM.MairesseO. (2022). Do C-tactile afferents go to sleep? A potential role for somatosensory stimulation in sleep regulation. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 43, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.08.006
75.
von MohrM.KirschL. P.FotopoulouA. (2021). Social touch deprivation during COVID-19: Effects on psychological wellbeing and craving interpersonal touch. Royal Society Open Science, 8(9), 210287. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210287
76.
WalkerS. C.TrotterP. D.WoodsA.McGloneF. (2017). Vicarious ratings of social touch reflect the anatomical distribution & velocity tuning of C-tactile afferents: A hedonic homunculus?Behavioural Brain Research, 320, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.11.046
77.
WijayaM.LauD.HorrocksS.McGloneF.LingH.SchirmerA. (2020). The human “feel” of touch contributes to its perceived pleasantness. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 46(2), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000705
YohananS.MacLeanK. E. (2012). The role of affective touch in human-robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the haptic creature. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0126-7
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.
