Gender Patterns in Touching Behavior

  • Brenda Major
Part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology book series (SSSOC)


Touch has been described as both the most basic sensory process and the earliest and most elemental form of communication (Frank, 1957; Montagu, 1971). Unlike other forms of nonverbal communication (e.g., eye gaze, proxemics, paralanguage), a separate term does not exist for the sensory process (e.g., vision, hearing) and the communication process (e.g., gaze, speech). Rather, the same term, touch, generally is used to describe the sensory process, specific stimuli, and the communication mechanism. This chapter focuses on the communication properties of touch in general, and gender patterns in tactile communication, in particular.


Nonverbal Behavior Nonverbal Communication Female College Student Skin Conductance Level Gender Pattern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aguilera, D. C. Relationship between physical contact and verbal interaction between nurses and patients. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 1967, 5, 5–21.Google Scholar
  2. Alagna, F. J., Whitcher, S. J., Fisher, J. D., & Wichas, E. A. Evaluative reactions to interpersonal touch in a counseling interview. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1979, 26, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alber, J. L. Tactile communication within dyads. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Purdue University, 1974.Google Scholar
  4. Argyle, M. Bodily communication. New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Bakan D. The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
  6. Boderman, A., Freed, D. W., & Kinnucan, M. T. “Touch me, like me”: Testing an encounter group assumption. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1972, 8, 527–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borden, R. J., & Homleid, G. M. Handedness and lateral positioning in heterosexual couples: Are men still strongarming women? Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breed, G., & Ricci, J. S. “Touch me, like me”: Artifact? Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1973, 8, 153–154.Google Scholar
  9. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. Sex role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnside, I. Caring for the aged: Touching is talking. American Journal of Nursing, 1973, 73, 2060–2063.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlson, S. Touch. Journal of Practical Nursing, 1978, 28, 22–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Clay, V. S. The effect of culture on mother-child tactile communication. Family Coordinator, 1968, July, 204–210.Google Scholar
  13. Deaux, K. The behavior of women and men. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. Deaux, K. Sex differences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality variables in social behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. Duncan, S., Jr. Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geis, F. & Viksne, V. Touching: Physical contact and level of arousal. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972, 7, 179–180.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, J. D., Rytting, M., & Heslin, R. Hands touching hands: Affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry, 1976, 39, 416–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, L. K. Tactile communication. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1957, 56, 2.9–225.Google Scholar
  19. Frieze, I. H., & Ramsey, S. J. Nonverbal maintenance of traditional sex roles. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldberg, S., & Lewis, M. Play behavior in the year-old infant: Early sex differences. Child Development, 1969, 40, 21–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, E. T. The silent language. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications, 1959.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, E. T. The hidden dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., Inc. 1966.Google Scholar
  23. Hardy, J. The importance of touch for patient and nurse. Journal of Practical Nursing, 1975, 25, 26–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Harlow, H. F. The nature of love. American Psychologist, 1958, 13, 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harper, R. G., Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D. Nonverbal communication: The state of art. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
  26. Hebb, D. O. The socialization of the child. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1958.Google Scholar
  27. Henley, N. M. Status and sex: Some touching observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 91–93.Google Scholar
  28. Henley, N. M. Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  29. Henley, N. M. Power and gender as factors in nonverbal behavior. Unpublished paper, University of California, Los Angeles, 1980.Google Scholar
  30. Heslin, R. Steps toward a taxonomy of touching. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1974.Google Scholar
  31. Heslin, R., & Boss, D. Nonverbal intimacy in airport arrival and departure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hollender, M. H. The need or wish to be held. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1970, 22, 445–453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jourard, S. M. An exploratory study of body-accessibility. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1966, 5, 221–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jourard, S. M., & Friedman, R. Experimenter-subject “distance” and self disclosure. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 278–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jourard, S. M., & Rubin, J. E. Self disclosure and touching: A study of two modes of interpersonal encounter and their inter-relation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1968, 8, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kagan, J., & Lewis, M. Studies of attention in the human infant. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1965, 11, 95–127.Google Scholar
  37. Kleinke, C. L. Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 218–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & LaFong, C. Effects of gaze, touch, and use of name on evaluation of “engaged” couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 7, 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knapp, M. L. Essentials of nonverbal communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1980.Google Scholar
  40. Krause, J. E. The perceived relationships among touch, age, gender, and status in white urban adults. Unpublished paper, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1978.Google Scholar
  41. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. A review of nonverbal behaviors of women and men. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 1978, 43, 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis, M. Parents and children. Sex-role development. School Review, 1972, 80, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lomrantz, J., & Shapira, A. Communicative patterns of self-disclosure and touching behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 1974, 88, 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Major, B., & Heslin, R. Perceptions of same-sex and cross-sex touching: It’s better to give than to receive. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, 1978.Google Scholar
  45. Major, B., & Williams, L. Frequency of touch by sex and race: A replication of some touching observations. Unpublished paper, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1980.Google Scholar
  46. Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972.Google Scholar
  47. Meredith, S. The importance of touch in patient care. Imprint, 1978, 25, 66, 74–76.Google Scholar
  48. Montagu, A. Touching: The human significance of the skin. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  49. Nguyen, T. D., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, M. L. The meaning of touch: Sex differences. Journal of Communications, 1975, 25, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nguyen, M. L., Heslin, R., & Nguyen, T. D. The meaning of touch: Sex and marital status differences. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1976, 7, 13–18.Google Scholar
  51. Nicosia, G. J., & Aiello, J. R. Effects of bodily contact on reactions to crowding. Paper presented at meeting of APA, Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar
  52. Parsons, T. Essays in sociological theory Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1954.Google Scholar
  53. Patterson, M. An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pattison, J. E. Effects of touch on self-exploration and the therapeutic relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 170–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Perdue, V. P., & Connor, J. M. Patterns of touching between preschool children and male and female teachers. Child Development, 1978, 49, 1258–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raiche, B. M. The effects of touch in counselor portrayal of empathy and regard, and in the promotion of child self-disclosure, as measured by videotape simulation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977.Google Scholar
  57. Rosenfeld, L. B., Kartus, S., & Ray, C. Body accessibility revisited. Journal of Communications, 1976, 26, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scroggs, G. F. Sex, status, and solidarity: Attributions for nonmutual touch. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Hartford, Conn., April, 1980.Google Scholar
  59. Silverman, A. F., Pressman, E., & Bartel, H. W. Self-esteem and tactile communication. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1973, 13, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Silverthorne, C., Micklewright, J., O’Donnell, M., & Gibson, R. Attribution of personal characteristics as a function of the degree of touch on initial contact and sex. Sex Roles, 1976, 2, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Silverthorne, C. P., Noreen, C., Hunt, T., & Rota, L. The effects of tactile stimulation and visual experience. Journal of Social Psychology, 1972, 88, 153–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spitz, R. A. Hospitalism. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1946, 2, 113–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Summerhayes, D. L., & Suchner, R. W. Power implications of touch in male-female relationships. Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Touhey, J. C. Effects of dominance and competence on heterosexual attraction. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 13, 22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Whitcher, S. L., & Fisher, J. D. Multidimensional reaction to therapeutic touch in a hospital setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 87–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Willis, F. N., & Hofmann, G. E. Development of tactile patterns in relationship to age, sex, and race. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Willis, F. N., & Reeves, D. L. Touch interactions in junior high school students in relation to sex and race. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12, 91–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Willis, F. N., Reeves, D. L., & Buchanan, D. R. Interpersonal touch in high school relative to sex and race. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 843–847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brenda Major

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations