a naturalistic study of the meaning of touch

Stanley E Jones and Elaine Yarbrough

Paper presents the findings of a study into the meaning of touch in the everyday interactions of adults. The authors claim that very little is known about the tactile-meaning system in North America. Previous studies were unable to develop a taxonomy because they a) employed indirect methods of examining patterns of touch rather than observing actual behavior, b) past research focused on demographics, and c) the role of context has been ignored in few studies that examined the meaning of touch and thus concluded that a universal touch meaning does not exist.

Hypothesis is that touches have a variety of rather precise meanings which could be uncovered if the context of each touch, including accompanying verbal statements and other elements of the social situation, are examined. The purpose of the present investigation was to explore the cultural meanings of touch behaviors in everyday interactions. The study combines touch behaviors with contextual factors to produce understandable meanings.

Their results revealed 18 categories of meaning:

Touches of Positive Affect: these are touches that communicate generally unambiguous positive emotions. Different touch meanings are accompanied with a verbal statement that can mean something else.

-support-

touches that serve to nurture, reassure, or promise protection. Typical translations including “consoling”…“it’s okay”…“let me take care of you”.

-appreciation-

-inclusion-

being together and suggests psychological closeness. These touches are sustained, lasting sometimes for several minutes. Inclusion touches are between non-family members. When people do talk during inclusion touches but the subject is seldom about being together. The touch itself is enough to express closeness. At times, people do not talk during inclusion touches (walking arm-in-arm, sit together with legs touching)…the unambiguous nonverbal message of side-by-side closeness appears to carry the burden of communicating inclusion.

Another type of inclusion touch is a spot-touch accompanied with a verbal request to participate in a common activity.

-sexual-

also includes flirtation touches.

-affection-

Very vague touch meanings “I love you” or “I like you”. “I miss you”. “I hope we can keep in touch”. More common are indirect verbalizations showing interest or concern “how are you, honey?.” Or, no verbalizations. There is an absence of another, more specific positive meaning. Affection touches are positive touches which are not instigated by situational demands. They are more unconditional in their positive message.

Playful Touches: serve to lighten an interaction. Touches communicate a double message.

-playful affection- teasing quality, quasi-sexual, are not meant to be taken seriously. Participants translations do not always capture the double-edge meaning. Verbal and nonverbal behaviors can be combined to produce double meaning, although touch is unusual or bizarre (playful).

-playful aggression -

touch is initiated, not mutual.

Control touches: direct the behavior, attitude, or feeling state of the recipient.

-compliance- typical translations “move over”, “hurry up”, “stay here”.

-attention getting-

“look at me”, “listen to this”.

-announcing a response-

“I’m really happy”…appear to implicitly request the recipient to share or reciprocate a feeling in some way.

Ritualistic touches:

-greeting-

-departure-

Hybrid touches: touches that involve two or more of the meanings. Most common are greeting/affection and departure affection.

Task-Related touches

-reference to appearance-

-instrumental ancillary-

-instrumental intrinsic-

-accidental touches-

Touch Sequences: two or more touches are communicatively related to one another within the same interaction.

-repetitive sequences- series of touches in which the same meaning is conveyed with each touch.

-repetitive affection: includes both one-way and reciprocated affection.

-repetitive affection/ritualistic hybrids

-greeting and departure rounds: touch involving more than two people…also permits intimate touch between not-so close people

-repetitive inclusion: physical contact is broken from time to time and then reinitiated by one or both persons: “I’m still with you..”

-repetitive support:

-strategy sequences- involve a progression from one meaning to another.

-affection-to-inclusion: begins with an affection touch and proceed to a more prolonged inclusion touch

-affection-to-compliance: affection touch processed to a compliance touch

-mollifying sequences: an initial touch is rejected and followed by an affectionate touch to clarify that there is no hostility.

-rapo: one person flirts with someone else and then rejects the other’s approach

-equalizing power: involve an exchange of one-up touch messages (compliance or playful aggression)

Study demonstrates that verbal messages are interchangeable with tactile behaviors… participants were asked to translate touches into verbal equivalents.

Classification scheme developed is useful from a communication perspective because it focuses on the potential for clarity or ambiguity inherent in the touch code per se, recognizing that the purposes of the persons who use the code may be restricted, but not determined, by the meaning of the touch employed.

Contextual (verbal and nonverbal behaviors) factors are critical to the meanings of touch. Words justify or mask meaning of touch.