Research suggests that touch promotes relationship well-being but has failed to consider motives for touch. We assessed general (Study 1) and daily (Study 2) approach and avoidance motives for touch and tested their precursors and consequences. Controlling for relationship quality and the other motive, greater attachment avoidance predicted lower approach and greater avoidance motives for touch in general but did not predict motives in daily life. Greater attachment anxiety simultaneously predicted greater approach and avoidance motives for touch in both studies suggesting anxiously attached people have ambivalent motives for touch. Critically, one’s own and one’s partner’s approach motives for touch predicted greater daily relationship well-being, whereas own and partner avoidance motives predicted poorer daily relationship well-being. We observed indirect effects linking attachment insecurity to relationship well-being through daily motives for touch. These results underscore the importance of attending to touch motives in future work, including future intervention work.
AinsworthM. D. S.BleharM. C.WatersE.WallS. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum.
2.
AndersenP. A. (2011). Tactile traditions: Culture differences and similarities in haptic communication. In HertensteinM. J.WeissS. J. (Eds.), The handbook of touch: Neuroscience, behavioral, and health perspectives (pp. 351–369). Springer.
3.
AnisfeldE.CasperV.NozyceM.CunninghamN. (1990). Does infant carrying promote attachment? An experimental study of the effects of increased physical contact on the development of attachment. Child Development, 61(5), 1617–1627.
4.
BerneckerK.GhassemiM.BrandstätterV. (2018). Approach and avoidance relationship goals and couples’ nonverbal communication during conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 00, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2379
5.
BolgerN.LaurenceauJ. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods. An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
6.
BrennanK. A.ClarkC. L.ShaverP. R. (1998a). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In SimpsonJ. A.RholesW. S. (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
7.
BrennanK. A.WuS.LoevJ. (1998b). Adult romantic attachment and individual differences in attitudes toward physical contact in the context of adult romantic relationships. In SimpsonJ. A.RholesW. S. (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 394–428). Guilford Press.
8.
BurlesonM. H.TrevathanW. R.ToddM. (2007). In the mood for love or vice versa? Exploring the relations among sexual activity, physical affection, affect, and stress in the daily lives of mid-aged women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9071-1
9.
CandelO. S.TurliucM. N. (2019). Insecure attachment and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis of actor and partner associations. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.037
10.
CarverC. S.WhiteT. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
11.
ChopikW. J.EdelsteinR. S.van AndersS. M.WardeckerB. M.ShipmanE. L.Samples-SteeleC. R. (2014). Too close for comfort? Adult attachment and cuddling in romantic and parent-child relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.035
12.
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, 1373–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497592
13.
DebrotA.StellarJ. E.MacDonaldG.KeltnerD.ImpettE. A. (2020). Is touch in romantic relationships universally beneficial for well-being? The role of avoidant attachment style. [Manuscript under revision]. Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne.
14.
DibiaseR.GunnoeJ. (2004). Gender and culture differences in touching behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 49–62.
15.
DitzenB.NeumannI. D.BodenmannG.von DawansB.TurnerR. A.EhlertU.HeinrichsM. (2007). Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and heart rate responses to stress in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32(5), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.03.011
16.
ElliotA. J.GableS. L.MapesR. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282153
17.
FeeneyB. C.CollinsN. L. (2003). Motivations for caregiving in adult intimate relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 950–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203252807
FinkelE. J.EastwickP. W.ReisH. T. (2015). Best research practices in psychology: Illustrating epistemological and pragmatic considerations with the case of relationship science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000007
20.
FitzpatrickJ.GareauA.LafontaineM.GaudreauP. (2016). How to use the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to estimate different dyadic patterns in Mplus. A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.1.p074
21.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
22.
FloydK.BorenJ. P.HannawaA. F.HesseC.McEwanB.VekslerA. E. (2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856071
GaineG. S.La GuardiaJ. G. (2009). The unique contributions of motivations to maintain a relationship and motivations toward relational activities to relationship well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 33(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9120-x
27.
GirmeY. U.OverallN. C.SimpsonJ. A.FletcherG. J. O. (2015). “All or nothing”: Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 450–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038866
28.
GrayJ. A. (1972). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion: A modification of Eysenck’s theory. In NebylitsnV. D.GrayJ. A. (Eds.), The biological bases of individual behavior (pp. 182–205). Academic Press.
29.
GulledgeA. K.GulledgeM. H.StahmannnR. F. (2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180390201936
30.
ImpettE. A.GereJ.KoganA.GordonA. M.KeltnerD. (2014). How sacrifice impacts the giver and the recipient: Insights from approach-avoidance motivational theory. Journal of Personality, 82, 390–401.
31.
ImpettE. A.GordonA. M. (2010). Why do people sacrifice to approach rewards versus to avoid costs? Insights from attachment theory. Personal Relationships, 17(2), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01277.x
32.
ImpettE. A.GordonA. M.KoganA.OveisC.GableS. L.KeltnerD. (2010). Moving toward more perfect unions: Daily and long-term consequences of approach and avoidance goals in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 948–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020271
33.
ImpettE. A.GordonA. M.StrachmanA. (2008). Attachment and daily sexual goals: A study of dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15(3), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00204.x
34.
ImpettE. A.JavamL.LeB. M.Asyabi-EshghiB.KoganA. (2013). The joys of genuine giving: Approach and avoidance sacrifice motivation and authenticity. Personal Relationships, 20(4), 740–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12012
35.
ImpettE. A.PeplauL. A.GableS. L. (2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00126.x
36.
ImpettE. A.StrachmanA.FinkelE. J.GableS. L. (2008). Maintaining sexual desire in intimate relationships: The importance of approach goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 808–823. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.808
37.
JakubiakB. K.FeeneyB. C. (2016a). A sense of security: Touch promotes state attachment security. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616646427
38.
JakubiakB. K.FeeneyB. C. (2016b). Keep in touch: The effects of imagined touch support on stress and exploration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.001
39.
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, 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316650307
40.
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, 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218788556
41.
JoelS.MacDonaldG.ShimotomaiA. (2011). Conflicting pressures on romantic relationship commitment for anxiously attached individuals. Journal of Personality, 79, 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00680.x
42.
JonesS. E.YarbroughA. (1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56.
43.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A. (2011). Dyadic data analysis using multilevel modeling. In HoxJ.RobertsJ. K. (Eds.), Handbook of advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 335–370). Taylor & Francis.
44.
LaBudaJ. E.GereJ.ImpettE. A. (2019). Perceptions of a romantic partner’s approach and avoidance motives: Accuracy, bias, and emotional cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication.
45.
LemayE. P.DudleyK. L. (2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 681–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021655
46.
MacDonaldG.LockeK. D.SpielmannS. S.JoelS. (2013). Insecure attachment predicts ambivalent social threat and reward perceptions in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(5), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512465221
47.
MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 53–152). Academic Press.
48.
MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.PeregD. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102.
49.
MuiseA.GiangE.ImpettE. A. (2014). Post sex affectionate exchanges promote sexual and relationship satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1391–1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0305-3
50.
MuiseA.ImpettE. A.DesmaraisS. (2013). Getting it on versus getting it over with: Sexual motivation, desire, and satisfaction in intimate bonds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1320–1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490963
51.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (2nd ed.). Author.
52.
NikitinJ.FreundA. M. (2010). When wanting and fearing go together: The effect of co-occurring social approach and avoidance motivation on behavior, affect, and cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.650
53.
NikitinJ.FreundA. M. (2019). Who cares? Effects of social approach and avoidance motivation on responsiveness to others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218781335
54.
PreacherK. J.ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.557329
55.
StantonS. C. E.CampbellL.PinkJ. C. (2017). Benefits of positive relationship experiences for avoidantly attached individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 568–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000098
56.
van AndersS. M.EdelsteinR. S.WadeR. W.Samples-SteeleC. R. (2013). Descriptive experiences and sexual vs. nurturant aspects of cuddling between adult romantic partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0014-8
57.
WeiM.RussellD. W.MallinckrodtB.VogelD. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041
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.
